Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1074

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ABHAY S. OKA, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
The State Of Haryana – Appellant
VERSUS
Anand Kindo & Anr. Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1797-1798/2010 With Criminal Appeal Nos. 1781-1782/2010
Decided On : 08-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR
For Appellant(s)/ Respondent(s): Mr. Anil Grover, Sr. AAG
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR Mr. Gaurav Verma, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Datt Gaur, Adv

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Crime is understood in context of not only individual victims but society as a whole – Brutality of crime and aggravating circumstances require Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction to impose a fixed term sentence before which convicts are not liable to be considered for grant of remission.
(2) Brutal murder – Fixed term conviction can only be by High Court or Supreme Court and not by trial Court.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 354(3) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Sentence – Once conviction is under Section 302, IPC, option is limited – It has to be death or life – Third option is also available where at times court looking to scenario does not impose death sentence but gives conviction whereby accused has to serve at least for a fixed term – This fixed term conviction can only be by High Court or Supreme Court and not by trial Court. (Para 3)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 354(3) – Murder of elderly couple – Death sentence commuted to life sentence by High Court – Crime is understood in context of not only individual victims but society as a whole – It was a pre-planned murder for gain and greed by somebody who was in a position of trust with the family – Society itself demands justice, apart from utter element on deterrence which is in any aspect of conviction – Battering two sleeping people beyond recognition who imposed trust in their employee certainly calls for something more than merely a life sentence under Section 302, IPC, even if death sentence is not to be imposed – Brutality of crime and aggravating circumstances require Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction to impose a fixed term sentence before which convicts are not liable to be considered for grant of remission – Imposing a fixed term sentence creates a possibility for convict to re-integrate into society after serving his sentence – It strikes a delicate balance between victims’ plea for justice and rehabilitative justice for convicts – Fixed term sentence of 30 years imposed. (Paras 4, 7, 9, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Heinous and brutal crime was committed where the trusted employees of an aged couple for the greed of money murdered them. Brutality is reflected by the fact that the couple was sleeping, there was no occasion to resist any force and yet using hammer and Tava, their faces were so disfigured that they were almost unrecognized. No doubt, the circumstantial evidence gave rise to the conviction but if circumstantial evidence was of such a nature that it practically leaves no doubt, the natural consequence of conviction under Section 302, IPC must follow.
Findings of Court:
It is appropriate to impose a fixed term sentence of 30 years. Even at that age, the convicts would be in their 50s and they would have learnt their lesson and joined the society as responsible members at that stage.
Result : Appeals allowed to limited extent.

JUDGMENT

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. The heinous and brutal crime was committed where the trusted employees of an aged couple for the greed of money murdered them. The brutality is reflected by the fact that the couple was sleeping, there was no occasion to resist any force and yet using hammer and Tava, their faces were so disfigured that they were almost unrecognized. No doubt, the circumstantial evidence gave rise to the conviction but if the circumstantial evidence was of such a nature that it practically leaves no doubt, the natural consequence of conviction under Section 302, IPC must follow.

2. It is not necessary for us to go beyond the aforesaid facts since the accused have not filed any appeal before us against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the High Court but the trial Court having thought it fit to give death sentence, the High Court interfered with that aspect of the matter by imposing life sentence. The appeals are preferred by the State and by the complainant.

3. On the issue of sentence to be imposed, once the conviction is under Section 302, IPC, the option is limited. It has to be death or life. The third option is also available where at times the court looking to the scenario does not impose the death sentence but gives conviction whereby the accused has to serve at least for a fixed term. This fixed term conviction can only be by the High Court or this Court and not by the trial Court [Union of India vs. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1.]

4. We now turn to the reasons why the death sentence was awarded by looking to the judgment of the trial Court dated 12.06.2008. The two accused who were convicted (the wife of one the accused charged under Section 201, IPC, was convicted by the trial Court but the High Court overturned the conviction and one other accused who remained untraced) intentionally killed Major General Kailash Chand Dhingra (K.C. Dhingra) and his wife Smt. Sangeeta Dhingra in a gruesome and brutal manner. The victims never obstructed the robbery but were actually sleeping when they were battered. The accused were stated to have planned their action with precision and attacked the victims simultaneously and the death was immediate as declared by the medical officers who conducted the autopsy. The order of sentence discusses elaborately the aspect of imposition of an appropriate punishment in the manner in which the Court’s response to the society’s cry for justice against the criminals and yet balances this aspect with any mitigating circumstance. The crime is understood in the context of not only the individual victims but the society as a whole. In this behalf the Court referred to the judgment in the case of Desraj vs. State of Punjab, (2007) 12 SCC 494 specifying special reasons for attracting death penalty as: manner of commission of murder, motive of murder, the abhorrent nature of crime and magnitude of crime or even the personality of the victim. The crime having been committed without any provocation, with the sole greed for money and against two aged people, one of whom was a decorated Major General of the Army, it was opined that the death sentence would be the appropriate sentence and on the gruesomeness, it was further opined that the faces were battered beyond recognition.

5. The High Court in its judgment on the aspect of sentence while discussing the confirmation of death sentence has referred to the various judicial pronouncements and the plea of the convicts that it was not a rarest of the rare case. All that was opined is that it was not a fit case under rarest of rare case in which the sentence should have been imposed on the convicts. Thus life sentence was granted under Section 302, IPC.

6. We may also note another aggravating circumstance pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant who had preferred an appeal. He submits that after the conviction, the convicts endeavoured to escape out of the prison by digging a tunnel on 18.10.2008 but were caught and on trial were

Click Here to Read the rest of this document