Conspiracy and Murder Case: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dr. Sridhar Assassination

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling in Sheikh Sintha Madhar @ Jaffer @ Sintha v. State, addressing a murder conspiracy involving the killing of Dr. Sridhar, a political leader from Trichy. The case centered around a well-planned assassination, the involvement of multiple accused, and the legal principles governing conspiracy and evidence evaluation.

Background of the Case

Dr. Sridhar, a BJP Town Secretary in Trichy, was assassinated on February 2, 1999, allegedly due to his active role in Hindu religious propagation. The case was built upon a conspiracy involving 13 accused individuals, divided into two groups that planned to kill the deceased at two different locations. The first group, consisting of A1 to A6, executed the murder, while the second group, including A7 to A13, planned a separate attack that never materialized.

On the night of the murder, A1 to A6 ambushed Dr. Sridhar when he was returning from his clinic. They attacked him with knives and other weapons, leading to his death. The murder was witnessed by multiple individuals, including the deceased’s daughter (PW1) and neighbors (PW2, PW3, PW65), along with a night watchman (PW5).

Legal Issues Considered by the Supreme Court

• Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that A1 to A6 conspired to kill Dr. Sridhar.
• Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses, particularly PW1, was reliable.
• Whether the forensic and medical evidence supported the prosecution’s claims.
• Whether A7’s conviction for being part of the unlawful assembly was justified.

Arguments by the Appellants (A1 to A7)

• The conviction was based on weak circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
• The testimony of PW1 was unreliable as she was 100 feet away, and the area had inadequate lighting.
• The forensic evidence did not conclusively match the weapons allegedly used in the crime.
• The delay in conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP) made it unreliable.
• A7 was wrongly implicated since no evidence directly linked him to the murder.

Arguments by the Prosecution

• The motive and conspiracy behind the assassination were well-established through multiple witnesses and corroborative evidence.
• PW1’s testimony was credible and supported by independent witnesses like PW65.
• PW36 and PW37 provided crucial statements proving the conspiracy and execution of the plan.
• The delay in TIP was justified, and it did not affect the case since PW1 correctly identified all accused in court.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of A1 to A6, affirming that the prosecution had successfully established the conspiracy and execution of the murder. The Court’s key findings were:

• The conspiracy was proven beyond doubt through the statements of PW36, who overheard discussions about the murder, and PW37, who witnessed the accused handling blood-stained weapons.
• PW1’s testimony was reliable as the area was well-lit, and her close relationship with the deceased enabled her to identify the attackers.
• The forensic evidence, while not conclusively linking the specific weapons to the crime, was sufficient to support the overall prosecution case.
• The TIP was conducted properly, and the delay did not impact its validity.

Regarding A7, the Court found that:

• The prosecution failed to establish his role in the murder beyond doubt.
• The evidence against him was weak and did not prove that he was part of the unlawful assembly.
• The High Court’s conviction of A7 under Sections 147 and 109 read with 302 IPC was not justified.

Thus, while the convictions of A1 to A6 were upheld, A7 was acquitted and set free.

Implications of the Judgment

• Confirms that conspiracy and murder cases require strong corroborative evidence for conviction.
• Reiterates that the presence of eyewitnesses, even in low-light conditions, can be reliable if corroborated by other evidence.
• Clarifies the limitations of the Test Identification Parade and its role in judicial proceedings.
• Emphasizes that conviction in unlawful assembly cases must be based on clear participation evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case reinforces the principles of evidence evaluation in conspiracy and murder trials. By upholding the convictions of A1 to A6 and acquitting A7, the Court balanced the need for justice with the requirement of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment serves as a key precedent in assessing murder conspiracy cases in India.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sheikh Sintha Madhar vs State Rep. by Inspec Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 13-04-2016-1741854560303.pdf