| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Sandeep vs State of Uttarakhand |
| Introduction | The case states about the murder of Abdul Hameed in 1997, for which Sandeep was convicted under Section 302 IPC. This appeal challenges the conviction. |
| Factual Background | On 30.10.1997, Abdul Hameed was shot by Sandeep and his accomplices, allegedly over a dispute regarding jaggery. Sandeep was found guilty, while two co-accused were acquitted. |
| Legal Issues |
|
| Applicable Law |
|
| Analysis | Witnesses (PW1, PW2) corroborated the prosecution’s version, confirming that Sandeep fired the fatal shot.Minor discrepancies in evidence didn’t undermine the core findings. |
| Conclusion | Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld; however, conviction under Section 34 IPC was set aside due to lack of evidence implicating the co-accused. |
| Current Scenario | Sandeep’s life sentence was reduced to time already served (over 14 years) due to mitigating factors like reformation potential and good conduct. |
CASE SUMMARY – In this case, Sandeep was convicted for the murder of Abdul Hameed in 1997. The prosecution presented two key eyewitnesses (PW1, PW2), who testified that Sandeep shot Abdul Hameed after a dispute over jaggery. While the trial court sentenced Sandeep to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, the co-accused were acquitted. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction but set aside the Section 34 IPC charge due to lack of evidence implicating others. Considering Sandeep’s reformation and good conduct during incarceration, the Court reduced his sentence to time already served.
“Even minor discrepancies in evidence cannot shake the foundation of a case if the core facts are proved beyond reasonable doubt.”– SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
READ ALSO– EXAMINING THE DOCTRINE OF LIS PENDENS IN LAND DISPUTES
