SHELKH SINTHA MADHAR @ JAFFER @ SINTHA ETC versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 936, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
(2016) 2 S.C.R. 936 
A 
SHElKH SINTHA MADHAR @ JAFFER @ SINTHA ETC. 
B 
v. 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2118-2119 Of2009) 
APRIL 13, 2016 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Penal Code, IB60- ss. 148, 302, 201and120B - Conspiracy 
hatched by 13 accused in two groups (Al to A6 and A 7 to Al 3) to 
kill doctor, BJP town secretary-Al to A7 formed unlm1ful assembly 
C -Al to A6 attacked the doctor with weapons resulting in his death, 
and A7 stood nearby unarmed - Deceased's daughter-PW I 
witnessed the incident - Conviction and sentence of Al to A6 for 
the offences punishable u!ss. 120-B read with s. 302, s. 14B ands. 
302 (Jnd A 7 for the offence punishable ulss. 147, I 09 read with s. 
D 302 - However, A8 to Al 3 acquitted of all the charges - Order of 
trial court upheld by High Court - On appeal. held: Cogent and 
convincing evidence of PWI, corroborated by PW65 - PWI was 
not named in the inquest report as also first informant not named 
PWI in the complaint, such omission not fatal - PWI s statement 
E cannot be rejected only on the ground that she is an interested 
witness - Statement of PWI corroborated by the medical examination 
- PWI saw the assailants at night because there was sufficient light 
to see them - No inordinate delay in conducting the TIP - Joint TIP 
would not affect the validity of TIP - Murder of the doctor proved 
by the aid of the eye-witnesses - Conspiracy proved beyond 
F reasonable doubt between Al to A6 -
Conviction qf Al to A6 based 
on proper appreciation of evidence, thus, does not call for 
interference - A 7 was charged for the offence u!s. 1091302 along 
with AB to Al 3 on the basis of the conspiracy hatched and AB to 
Al3 have been acquilled - Offence of s.147 not proved beyond 
G reasonable doubt and A 7 's presence doubtjiil - Thus, A 7 not liable 
for abetment to commit murder by Al to A6 and his conviction is set 
aside. 
Allowing Crl Appeal No. 2117/2009 and dismissing Crl 
Appeal Nos. 2118-2119/2009, the Court. 
H 
HELD: 1.1 The statements of PWl and PW65 arc not 
936
SHEIKH SINTHA MADHAR @ JAFFER @ SINTHA ETC. v. 
937 
STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE 
contradictory to each other, rather they are complementary to ·A 
each other. Merely because PW65 did not see PWl until the 
accused had left, does not mean that she was not present at the 
place of occurrence and she did not witness the occurrence. She 
already stated that she was afraid of her own life and so she was 
hiding to some extent, and thus, PW65 might not have seen her. _ B 
PW65 made a call to the police but did not mention PW! 's 
presence to the police at that time. This fact is quite natural as in 
the commotion, he had made a police call only to inform the police 
about the incident and could not provide details for the same. 
[Para 12] [943-B-C] 
1.2 The fact that PWl was not named in the inquest report 
is of no consequence as the inquest report relates to the cause of 
death and not the witnesses' account of the incident. The first 
informant though had not named PWl in the complaint such 
omission is not fatal in the face of otherwise cogent and convincing 
evidence of PWl, corroborated by PW65. The other eyewitnesses 
turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution 
case at all, but that does not affect the statements of PWl and 
PW65. PWl 's statement cannot be rejected only on the ground 
that she is an interested witness as sheo has been particularly 
corroborated by PW65's testimony. [Para 13] (943-D-E] 
1.3 PWl could have seen the assailants at
night because 
the area was illuminated by the electric lights all around and there 
was sufficient light to sec them. Also, the fact that she was sitting 
in an air-conditioned room was not couclusively proved and it is 
quite natural that at 10 p.m. in the night, when the roads and 
neighbourhood are quiet, and there is no hustle-bustle like 
daytime, even a slight noise can be heard. Thus, the screams of 
the deceased could have been easily heard and identified by his 
daughter and there was nothing unusual for her to come out and 
witness the incident, as she was by then already expecting the 
return of her father from the clinic. The post-mortem report states 
that most of the wounds are deep cut wounds but the. same can 
be caused by a knife. To this extent, the statement of PWl is 
corroborated by the medical examination. [Para 14, 15] [943-G-
H; 944-A, C-D) 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
1.4 It is clear from the evidence that there is no inordinate 
delay in conducting the TIP. As and when the accused were 
arrested, within reasonable time they were produced for the TIP. 
Also, there is no invariable rule that two accused persons cannot 
be made part of the same TIP. Joint TIP would thus, in no manner, 
B affect the validity of the TIP. The purpose of a TIP is to ensure 
that the investigation is going on the right track and it is merely 
a corroborative evidence. The actual identification must be done 
in the court and that is the substantive evidence. If the accused 
is already known to the witness, the TIP does not hold much 
C 
value and it is the identification in the court which is of utmost 
importance. PWl identified all the seven accused appellants in 
the court as well as in the TIP. [Para 16] (944-E-F] 
1.5 The fact that the deceased had a few strands of hair in 
his hand which did not match with any of the accused except Al3, 
0 
who had been acquitted by the Trial Court as well as the High 
Court, does not hold much ground as it, by itself cannot exonerate 
the accused only because the samples do not match. [Para 17] 
[944-G-H] 
E 
F 
1.6 A conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is very 
difficult to gather direct evidence for the proof of the same. The 
conspiracy before the incident is proved by the statements of 
PW23, PW36 and PW37. Thus, the conspiracy was proved beyond 
reasonable
doubt between Al to A6 and the courts below were 
correct in convicting them for the offence of conspiracy. Also, 
the murder of the doctor was proved by the aid of the eye-
witnesses. The conviction of Al 'to A6 is based on proper 
appreciation of evidence and requires no interference. [Paras 20-
21] [945-G-H; 946-A-B] 
1. 7 PWl though identified A 7 as well in the court, but she 
did not state that he was the one standing unarmed, as is the 
G case of the prosecution. A7 was already ac11uitted of the charges 
of conspiracy with the second group i.e. AS to Al3. Thus, he 
cannot be linked at all with the common object of Al to A6 who 
had hatched a separate conspiracy. Also, PW65 did not identify 
A 7 or any other accused in the court. [Para 22] [946-D-E) 
H 
1.8 AS to Al3 had been acquitted of the charge for the
SHEIKH SINTHA MADHAR@ JAFFER @ SINTHA ETC. v. 
STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE 
offences under Section 109 read with Section 302 IPC and the 
same reason would apply for the acquittal of A 7 as well, as this 
charge relates to the second group. A 7 had been charged for the 
offence u/s. 109 read with Section 302 along with AS to A13 on 
the basis of the conspiracy hatched but when AS .to A13 have 
been acquitted, A 7 must also be acquitted as the abetment is 
with reference to the conspiracy. Also, when the offence of Section 
147 IPC is not proved beyond reasonab.le doubt, A7's.presence 
becomes doubtful and as such he cannot be made liable for 
abetment to commit murder by Al to A6. Thus, the conviction of 
A7 is set aside. [Paras 23, 24] (946-F-H] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 2118-2119 of2009. 
WITH 
Crl. A. No. 2117 of2009 
939 
A 
B 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2008 of the Madurai 
D 
Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1736 of2003 and 
1807 of2003. 
Sidharth Luthra, Ratnakar Das, M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Advs., 
Anis Mohd., Ms. Shardha Karol; Joel, L. K. Pandey, Ms. K. V. Bharathi 
Upadhyaya, S. I. Abdul Kalam, Mrs. V. S. Lakshmi, Ganesh D. Gurnule, 
E 
A. Venayagam Balan, Mehboob, Advs. for the Appellants. 
Subramonium Prasad, Sr. Adv., M. Yogesh Kanna:, Jayant Patel, 
Utkarsh Srivastava, Ashmeet Singh, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PIN AKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. I. These
appeals, by special 
leave, have been directed against the judgment and order. dated 
22.02.2008 passed by the Madras High .Court, Madurai Bench, in Criminal 
Appeal No.1736 of2003 and Criminal Appeal No.1807 of2003, whereby 
the High Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants and 
con finned their conviction and sentences for various offences punishable 
under Sections 148, 302, 201and120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 
(hereinafter referred to as "!PC"). 
2. The brief facts necessary to dispose of these appeals are that 
after the Coimbatore serial blasts, a conspiracy was hatched to do away 
F 
G 
with Dr. Sridhar (deceased), who was BJP Town Secretary at Trichy, 
H
940 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
and also actively involved in the propagation of the Hindu religion in the 
town. There were a total of 13 accused that hatched conspiracies in two 
separate groups to kill Dr. Sridhar and curb the growth of BJP in the 
city. A I to A6 formed one group and hatched a conspiracy under the 
leadership of A I. The second group was formed under the guidance of 
B 
c 
D 
E 
A8 and included A7 to Al3 who conspired at Tirunelveli. Both these 
groups had planned to kill the deceased in two separate conspiracies at 
two different places. In pursuance of the conspiracy, Al to A7 formed 
an unlawful assembly on 2.2.1999 and attacked the deceased at about 
I 0 p.m. when he was returning back from his clinic. A I to A6 attacked 
the deceased with weapons in pursuance of the common object and 
caused his death and A 7 stood nearby unarmed. As claimed by the 
prosecution, this incident was witnessed by the daughter of the deceased 
(Lakshmi Priya-PW I), neighbours of the deceased (Domnic Raja-PW2, 
Sagayarajan-PW3 and Dr. Soundirarajan-PW65) and the night-watchman 
in the area (Mr. Marimuthu-PW5). 
3. After investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against all the 13 
accused persons. Upon considering the material on record and hearing 
the counsel on both sides, the accused persons were charged for various 
offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 201and120-B of the IPC. 
The charges were read over and explained to them. All the accused
persons_ pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed for trial. 
4. The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 7.10.2003, 
convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants for the offences as 
follows: A I to A6 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B 
read with Section 302, Section 148 and Section 302 IPC. A3 and A6 
F 
were acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 20 I read with 
Section 302 IPC. A 7 was convicted for the offence punishable under 
Section 147 and Section 109 read with Section 302 IPC. However, he 
was acquitted of the charges under Section 120-B read with 302 and 
Section 20 I read with Section 302 IPC. AS to A 13 were acquitted of all 
G 
the charges framed against them. 
5. The matter came up before the Madras High Court (Madurai 
Bench) vide Criminal Appeal No.1736 of2003 filed by AS and Criminal 
Appeal No.1807 of2003 filed by Al,A2, A3, A4,A6 andA7. No appeal 
was filed by the State against the acquittal of A8 to Al3. The High 
H 
Court by the impugned judgment and order dismissed both the appeals
SHEIKH SINTHA MADHAR@JAFFER@ SIN TH A ETC. v. STATE REP. BY 
941 
JNSP. OF POLICE [PINAKI CHANDRAGHOSE, J.] 
on the ground that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable 
doubt that Al to A6 had conspired to kill Dr. Sridhar and A 7 was a part 
of the unlawful assembly and participated in the murder of Dr. Sridhar 
(deceased). Since the conspiracy and murder were proved, the High 
Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. 
6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.02.2008 passed 
by the Madras High Court, the accused have filed the appeals before 
this Court against their conviction and sentence. Criminal Appeal 
Nos.2118-2119 of2009 is filed by A 1 to A6 and Criminal Appeal No.2117 
of2009 is filed by A 7. We shall first discuss the culpability of A I to A6 
and subsequently deal with the conviction and sentence of A 7. 
7. Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Mr. Ratnakar Das, learned senior 
counsel appearing on behalf of appellants A I to A6 have inter alia 
reiterated that the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the High Court 
were erroneous as the prosecution had been unable to bring home its 
case. He assailed the reasoning given by the High Court in arriving at a 
wrong conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused on the following grounds: 
Firstly, the presence of PW! (daughter of the deceased) was doubtful at 
the spot as it was not reflected in the earliest available records and her 
testimony cannot be the sole basis of conviction as it
was unreliable. 
Secondly, the number of assailants was not clear. Thirdly, due to the 
distance of the place of occurrence and insufficient light thereat, the 
identity of the accused was rendered doubtful and the weapon of the 
murder was also not clearly established, being contrary to what was 
stated in the post-mortem report. Fourthly, the Test Identification Parade 
was vitiated in law and delayed as well. Fifthly, the conspiracy was not 
proved. Lastly, the investigation was defective and biased and various 
material documents were suppressed and the forensic evidence was 
also not reliable. 
8. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing 
for the State has vehemently rebutted the grounds argued by the learned 
senior counsel appearing for the appellants and has stated that the motive 
and conspiracy behind the incident and the involvement of the appellants 
was proved, beyond reasonable doubt, by the testimony of PW- I as 
corroborated by PW-65's evidence in partie'illar. The ·post-incident 
conspiracy was also proved and there were no suCJH~rdgularity in the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
942 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Test Identification Parades which would vitiate the case of the 
prosecution. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
9. Mr. M. KarpagaVinayagam, learned senior counsel appearing 
on behalf of A 7, submitted that the offence under Section 147 !PC was 
not made out against A 7 as the evidence of PW-I, even when corroborated 
by the evidence of PW-65, could not establish the identity and presence 
of A 7 at the place of the incident. He also argued that since A 7 had been 
acquitted of the conspiracy with A8toA13, his conviction under Section 
I 09 read with Section 302 !PC, could not be sustained. 
I 0. The main issues are whether the conspiracy was proved or 
not and whether the presence of the accused at the place of incident 
was established or not. We shall deal with AI toA6 first and subsequently 
with A 7. We have perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. 
We shall now examine each and every contention in light of the arguments 
adduced before us. 
I I . The first aspect for consideration before us is the testimony of 
the eye-witnesses. There were allegedly 5 eye-witnesses to the murder 
who were examined: the daughter of the deceased (Laks;1mi Priya-
PW I), neighbours of the deceased (namely, Domnic Raja-PW2, 
Sagayarajan-PW3 and Dr. Soundirarajan-PW65) and the night-watchman 
in the area (Mr. Marimuthu-PWS). PW I stated that she was studying in 
her house when sh.e heard a scream- "Save me". Realizing that it was 
of her father, she
went out of the gate and saw 6-7 persons stabbing her 
father with knife-like weapons. She was standing at about a l 00 feet 
distance from the place of incident and though it was around 10 p.m. but 
F 
still she could clearly see the incident as it took place at a spot which 
was then lit up by the tube lights of PW65's house. Apart from the lights 
of PW65's house, the street lights as well as her own compound lights 
were on. She shouted at the accused persons to stop, but they only 
G 
H 
turned and saw her and thus she could see them clearly. After the incident, 
she saw them going away on their bikes and they also took her father's 
bike. She immediately went to the house of the deceased's elder brother 
Shanmugasundaram (informant), who came along with her and saw the 
deceased lying in a pool ofblood. The elder brother could not be examined 
as he died before the trial could commence. PW! also identified all the 
seven accused appellants in the Test Identification Parade.· PW65, on
SHEIKH SINTHAMADHAR@JAFFER@SINTHA ETC. v. STATE REP. BY 943 
INSP. OF POLICE (PINAKI CHANDRAGHOSE, J.] 
the other hand, stated ti . .<t he heard the distress cal I of the deceased and 
came outside and saw 4-5 persons attacking the deceased, but he only 
saw PW I when she came near the dead body of her father after the 
assailants had left. 
12. When we analyse the statements of PW! and PW65, they 
are not contradictory to each other, rather they are complementary to 
each .other. Merely.because PW65 did not see PW! until the accu·sed 
had left, does not mean that she was not present at the place of occurrence 
and she did not witness the occurrence. She has already stated that she 
was afraid of her own life and so she was hiding to some extent, and 
thus, PW65 might not have seen her. PW65 made a call to the police but 
did not mention PW! 's presence to the police at that time. This fact is 
quite natural as in the commotion, he had made a police call only td 
infonri the police about the incident and could not provide details for the 
same. 
13. The fact that PW I was not named in the inquest report is of 
no consequence as the inquest report relates to the cause of death and 
not the witnesses' account of the incident. The first informant though 
had not named PW! in the complaint such omission is not fatal in the 
face of otherwise cogent and convincing evidence of PW!, corroborated 
by PW65. The other three eyewitnesses: PW2, PW3 and PW5 turned 
hostile during the
trial and did not support the prosecution case at all, but 
that does not affect the statements of PW I and PW65. PW I's statement 
cannot be rejected only on the ground that she is an interested witness 
as she has been particularly corroborated by PW65 's testimony. 
14. The next aspect for our consideration is the distance and 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
brightness of the place of incident from where PW I witnessed it and 
F 
whether it was possible for her to see the assailants at night from a 
distance of about I 00 feet. This aspect has been dealt with by the High 
Court in great details and we agree with the High Court that PW! could 
have seen the assailants at night because the area was illuminated by · 
the electric lights all around and there was sufficient light to see them. 
G 
Also, the fact that she was sitting in an air-conditioned room was not 
conclusively proved and it is quite natural that at I 0 p.m. in the night, 
when the roads and neighbourhood are quiet, and there is no hustle-
. bustle like daytime, even a slight noise can be heard. Thus, the screams 
of the deceased' could have been easily heard and identified by his 
H
944 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
daughter and there was nothing unusual for her to come out and witness 
the incident, as she was by then already expecting the return of her 
father from the clinic. 
15. The next question is regarding the weapon of murder not 
conforming to the post-mortem report opinion. The post-mortem was 
done by PW40 - Dr. Vijayalakshmi who stated that many of the injuries 
found on the deceased were all cut injuries and could have been caused 
by cutting weapons, like an Aruval and not by kn iv es as stated by PW I 
in her testimony. A knife is essentially used for stabbing but it can also be 
used for slicing and cutting depending upon the manner and angle at 
which it is used. PWI had stated that she saw the accused attacking the 
deceased and it cannot be technically taken to be stabbing or slicing. 
The post-mortem report states that most of the wounds are deep cut 
wounds but the same can be caused by a knife. To this extent, the 
statement of PW I is corroborated by the medical examination. 
16. The next question is whether the Test Identification Parades 
were vitiated on account of delay or for holding those T!Psjointly, oron 
account of the identity of the accused having been already revealed 
before the TIP could be conducted. It is clear from the evidence that 
there is no inordinate delay in conducting the TIP. As and when the 
accused were arrested, within reasonable time they were produced for 
the TIP.
Also, there is no invariable rule that two accused persons cannot 
be made part of the same TIP. Joint TIP would thus, in no manner, 
affect the validity of the TIP. The purpose of a TIP is to ensure that the 
investigation is going on the right track and it is merely a corroborative 
evidence. The actual identification must be done in the Court and that is 
the substantive evidence. If the accused is already known to the witness, 
the TIP does not hold much value and it is the identification in the Court 
which is of utmost importance. PW! identified all the seven accused 
appellants in the Court as well as in the TIP. 
17. The fact that the deceased had a few strands of hair in his 
hand which did not match with any of the accused except A 13, who was 
already acquitted by the Trial Court as well as the High Court, does not 
hold much ground as it, by itself cannot exonerate the accused only 
because the samples do not match. 
H 
18. The most important question is whether the conspiracy hatched
SHEIKH SINTHA MADHAR@JAFFER@SINTHA ETC. v. STATE REP. BY 
945 
INSP. OF POLICE [PJNAKI CHANDRAGHOSE, J.] 
by A I to A6 was proved or not. A conspiracy is always hatched in 
secrecy and it is very difficult to gather direct evidence for the proof of 
the same. The conspiracy before the incident is proved by the statements 
of PW23, PW36 and PW37. PW23 was a coolie (daily-wage worker) 
who had overheard indistinct conversations between 6-7 persons in the 
first week of January, 1999, when they had come to take bath at the 
Mukkombu Dam. But this witness's testimony cannot be directly used 
to implicate the accused as he did not remember their faces and refused 
to identify them in Court because of fear. The same is the case with 
PW24 who was a caretaker at the garden near Mukkombu Dam who 
also could not identify the accused in the Court. 
19. An important witness of the conspiracy is Sayeed Ibrahim 
(PW36), a purse manufacturer, who stated that he knew A I to A6. He 
was a member of the Al-Umma movement which was a banned 
organiZation and his job was to collect money for the undercover or 
· arrested members of the organization. In July 1998, A4 told him to go to 
Mukkombu to meet Al, A2, A3,A5 and A6 and collect money for some 
of the convicts in the Coimbatore Blast Case. He then went to Madurai 
and he heard the discussion between A I, A2 and A4 that Dr. Sridhar 
must be killed in Trichy to stop the growth of the BJP party. Around 
20. 1.1999, he along with Al toA6, went
to Mukkombu and was told that 
the decision to kill Dr. Sridharwas finalized. This is corroborated to this 
extent by the statements of PW23 and PW24 who stated their presence 
at Mukkombu around that time. Also, after the incident, he saw A3, A4, 
AS and A6 in Madurai, where A4 described how they murdered Dr. 
Sridhar and that A3 hurt his left hand middle finger during the attack. 
This statement by PW36, who turned an approver, substantiates the 
allegation of conspiracy to murder Dr. Sridhar. 
20. PW37 (John Basha) also testified that on the date of inCident 
. at around 8:30 p.m.,A3 called him up and told him that they have planned 
to murder Dr. Sridhar and after that one person will come to stay with 
him and he should permit him to do so. After the incident, A3 came to 
PW37 with A'I who had a blood-stained shirt in his hand and they were 
accompanied by AS. He also saw A3 washing six blood-stained knives 
and a wound on his left hand middle finger. The injury on the middle 
finger of A3 was seen by both PW36 and PW3 7 and they were supported 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
946 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
by PW! 7 (the doctor who dressed up the wound on A3's finger). Though 
he maintained no records of patients, but he stated that he stitched the 
wound of A3. 
21. Thus, the conspiracy was proved beyond reasonable doubt 
between A I to A6 and the Courts below were correct in convicting 
B · them for the offence of conspiracy. Also, the murder of Dr. Sridhar was 
proved by the aid of the eye-witnesses. The conviction of A I to A6 is 
based on proper appreciation of evidence and requires no interference. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
22. Now, we shall discuss the culpability of A 7 under Sections 
147 and I 09 read with 302 !PC, though he was acquitted of the charges 
of conspiracy with AS to A 13. The prosecution alleged that A 7 was 
standing unarmed when A I to A6 were attacking the deceased and 
therefore he was charged with Section 147 !PC and not with Section 
I 4S IPC. PW! has stated in hertestimonytliat 6-7 persons were attacking 
her father. She did not state anything about any particular person standing 
unarmed or any role played by such person in the incident. Though she 
identified A 7 as well in the Court, but she did not state that he was the 
one standing unarmed, as is the case of the prosecution. A 7 was already 
acquitted ,of the charges of conspiracy with the second group i.e. AS to 
A 13. l:-le thus cannot be linked at all with the common object of Al toA6 
who had hatched a separate conspiracy. Also, PW65 did not
identify A 7 
or any other accused in the Court. 
23. Regarding the conviction of A 7 for the offences under Section 
I 09 read with Section 302 !PC, it has to be considered that AS to A 13 
had been acquitted of this charge and the same reason shall apply for 
the acquittal of A 7 as well, as this charge relates to the second group. 
A 7 had been charged for the offence under Section I 09 read with Section 
302 !PC along with A8 toA13 on the basis of the conspiracy hatched at 
Tirunelveli, but when AS to A 13 have been acquitted, A 7 must also be 
acquitted as the abetment is with reference to the conspiracy. 
24.Also, when the offence of Section 147 !PC is not proved beyond 
reasonable doubt, A Ts presence becomes doubtful and if that is the 
case, he cannot be made liable for abetment to commit murder by A I to 
A6. The conviction of A 7 is, therefore, set aside and he is acquitted of 
all the charges and is directed to be set at liberty.
SHEIKH SINTHA MADHAR@JAFFER@SINTHA ETC. v. STATE REP. BY 947 
INSP. OF POLICE [PINAKI CHANDRAGHOSE, J.] 
25. Jn the light of the above discussion, we find no ground to .A 
interfere with the judgment passed by the High Court so far as it has 
confirmed the conviction and sentence of A I to A6. Criminal Appeal 
Nos.2118-2119 of 2009 are, accordingly, dismissed. However, the 
judgment of the High Court so far.as it concerns the c_onviction of A 7, is 
set aside. Criminal Appeal No.2117 of2009 is, accordingly, allowed. A 7 
B 
is already released on bail granted by this Court on 4'' July, 2011. His bail 
bond shall stand discharged. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals disposed of.