Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Reserves Verdict in Raju Tampering Conviction Plea
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
K. M. JOSEPH, S. RAVINDRA BHAT
Vikas Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The limited question on which this Court issued notice1 [Order dated 09.05.2019 in SLP (Crl) D. No. 5964/2019 with Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 3129/2019] was to consider the correctness of the sentence imposed on the accused/appellants. The appellants’ grievance is with the imposition of a fixed term sentence of 30 years, without remission, by the trial court, which was affirmed by the impugned judgment2 [Order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Delhi High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 319/2018] passed by the Delhi High Court.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the deceased (aged 18-20 years), had been kidnapped for ransom on 18.01.2003. On the same day itself, he was killed by strangulation, and the body was burnt, to eliminate evidence. The deceased’s father (complainant) filed a ‘missing person report’ with the police on 18.01.2003 itself, after which he received six ransom calls (on 19.01.2003, 20.01.2003, 01.02.2003, 02.02.2003, 10.03.2003, 11.03.2003) fr
Trial courts are foreclosed from imposing such a modified or specific term sentence, or life imprisonment for the remainder of convict’s life, as an alternative to death penalty.
The court modified the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years, emphasizing the need for proportionality in sentencing while acknowledging the heinous nature of the crime.
The court held that death sentence should be imposed only in rarest of rare cases considering the possibility of rehabilitation, thereby modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.
The court upheld that the death penalty is an exception, emphasizing rehabilitation and reformation when sentencing for serious crimes, mandating consideration of the offender's background and potent....
Quantum of sentence – There can be no straitjacket formulae – A delicate balance has to be struck – Fundamental underpinning is principle of proportionality.
The court ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
Life sentence – A special category of sentence, instead of death, can be substituted by punishment of imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 14 years and that category can be put beyond applic....
The court ruled that the death penalty is not warranted in this case, emphasizing the need for a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ultimately commuting the sentence to 30 year....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article