Sandeep v. State of Uttarakhand

clearly stated by P.W.4 in his evidence that a country made pistol 12 bore and one empty cartridge were recovered on identification by the appellant – It is to be seen that even in the FIR, it was mentioned that the deceased victim was shot – There is no delay in lodging the complaint, registering the FIR and filing the charge sheet – In the instant case, the charge of murder framed against the appellant stood proved – It is proved beyond doubt that the victim died due to gunshot – The presence of the other accused with the alleged weapons was not proved and the victim was not inflicted with any other form of injury – Therefore, the benefit of doubt granted to the other accused, who were acquitted, cannot be extended to the appellant – Accordingly, the conviction under section 302 IPC is confirmed – However, since the appellant remains the sole accused, there could be no charge u/s.34 IPC against him – Therefore, conviction of appellant u/s.34 IPC unsustainable. [Paras 14, 16, 17] Sentence/Sentencing – Appellant convicted u/s.302 r/w. s.34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life – Sentence modified to the period already undergone: Held: The facts and circumstances clearly disclose that due to sudden provocation, for not giving jaggery, the accused came to the house of the deceased and on exhortation by other accused, the appellant shot the deceased and that, there was no premeditation in the commission of crime – The appellant has undergone the sentence for a period of 13 years 6 months and 20 days without remission and the total sentence of 17 years 1 month and 9 days and that, he has good conduct during this period; and thus, it is evident that the appellant served incarceration for more than 14 years and that, he had no bad antecedent except this – On a perusal of the records also shows that the appellant belonged to poor economic background and had been taking care of his entire family; and that there exists a possibility of reformation – Pertinently, it is to be noted that the object of punishment is not only to deter the accused from committing any further crime, but also to reform and retribute; and the extent of reformation can be derived only by the conduct of the accused exhibited during his days of retribution – Taking note of the aggravating and mitigating factors, the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by the Sessions Court as affirmed by the High Court, is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant. [Para 19.2] Digital Supreme Court Reports [2024] 10 S.C.R. 771 Case Law Cited Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka [2023] 4 SCR 669 : (2023) 9 SCC 817 – followed. C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2010] 10 SCR 262 : (2010) 9 SCC 567; Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala [2024] 3 SCR 913 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 315 – relied on.