In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the need for reformative justice by reducing the life sentence of Sandeep, convicted in a 1997 murder case, to the time he had already served. The judgment, delivered on October 14, 2024, by a bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan, underscores the principle that punishment should not only serve as a deterrent but also provide an opportunity for reformation.
The case involved Sandeep, who was convicted for the murder of Abdul Hameed in the village of Dosni, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand, on October 30, 1997. The prosecution alleged that the murder occurred after a dispute over the refusal to provide jaggery (Gur). Sandeep, along with three others, was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder and Section 34 for common intention, but only Sandeep was convicted by the Sessions Court of Roorkee in 2006, a conviction later upheld by the High Court of Uttarakhand in 2011.
Background of the Case:
According to the prosecution, on the night of October 30, 1997, Abdul Hameed was sitting with his wife Mangti in their courtyard when Sandeep, Veer Singh, Dharamveer, and Mintu arrived and shot him in retaliation for his refusal to give them jaggery. The key eyewitnesses, Abdul Hameed’s son Kale Hasan (P.W.1) and grandson Gufran Ali (P.W.2), testified that they saw Sandeep fire the fatal shot. The deceased was rushed to a hospital but was declared dead on arrival.
Sandeep was tried and convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the court acquitted his co-accused due to lack of sufficient evidence. Sandeep was also acquitted under the Arms Act, as the court found technical irregularities in the sanction order required for prosecution.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Conviction Under Section 302 IPC:
The core issue was whether Sandeep’s conviction for murder could be sustained despite the acquittal of the co-accused and contradictions in witness statements.
2. Application of Section 34 IPC (Common Intention):
Sandeep was initially convicted under Section 34 for acting with common intention. However, the Supreme Court questioned the applicability of this section after his co-accused were acquitted, pointing to inconsistencies in the evidence regarding whether there was any common intention.
3. Focus on Reformative Justice:
The appellant’s long period of incarceration, good conduct in prison, and lack of any criminal history were central to the Court’s decision to reduce his sentence. The Court stressed that the primary objective of sentencing should include opportunities for reformation and rehabilitation.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
In its judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies did not invalidate the overall case against Sandeep, especially when both P.W.1 and P.W.2 consistently identified him as the shooter. The Court upheld his conviction for murder but overturned the Section 34 IPC conviction, stating that there was no evidence to prove that the other accused shared a common intention with Sandeep.
Addressing the question of sentencing, the Court made a crucial observation about the purpose of punishment:
“The object of punishment is not only to deter the accused from committing further crimes, but also to reform and retribute. The extent of reformation can only be assessed by the conduct of the accused during the period of incarceration.”
The Court noted that Sandeep had already served over 17 years in prison and had maintained good conduct throughout his incarceration. His socio-economic background, along with his role as the primary caregiver for his family, further underscored the possibility of reformation. On these grounds, the Court deemed it just to reduce his life sentence to the period already served.
Parties and Representation:
– Appellant: Sandeep
– Respondent: State of Uttarakhand
– Appellant’s Counsel: Mrs. Sudha Gupta
– Respondent’s Counsel: Mr. Akshat Kumar
