Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. JOSEPH, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Vikas Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
The State of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2276, 2277 of 2022
Decided On : 21-04-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 364A, 201, read with Section 120B – Murder, kidnapping, disappearance of evidence and conspiracy – Life sentence – 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 – Court, when trying an offence punishable by death penalty or life imprisonment, has merely these two options – Whenever State proposes and urges for imposition of death sentence, it has to, per force provide material to facilitate court to carry out exercise of balancing aggravating factors with mitigating circumstances – Wherever prosecution is of opinion that crime an accused is convicted for, is so grave that death sentence is warranted, it should carry out exercise of placing materials for evaluation – In case this results in imposition of death sentence, at stage of confirmation, High Court would have benefit of independent evaluation of these materials – On other hand, if death sentence is not imposed, then, High Court may still be in a position to evaluate, if sentence is adequate, and wherever appropriate and just, impose a special or fixed term sentence, in course of an appeal by State or by complainant/informant – Appellant was merely 18-19 years old at the time of offence and is currently about 37-38 years old – He has undergone more than 17 years of actual sentence, during which he has demonstrated satisfactory conduct – He has no other criminal antecedents – Appellant has ample scope for reformation and reintegration into society – Sole motive for crime seems to have been greed – There was premeditation in commission of crime – These are the aggravating circumstances – It would be appropriate to modify sentence awarded to both appellants to a minimum term of 20 years actual imprisonment. (Paras 18, 22, 25, 27, 28 and 29)
Facts of the case:
Limited question on which this Court issued notice1 was to consider correctness of the sentence imposed on the accused/appellants. Appellants’ grievance is with the imposition of a fixed term sentence of 30 years, without remission, by the trial court, which was affirmed by impugned judgment2 passed by the Delhi High Court. Trial court convicted the three accused persons for commission of offence under Sections 302, 364A, 201, read with Section 120B IPC. A-1 and A-2 (present appellants) were also convicted under Section 411, with A-1 additionally being convicted for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life. High Court, by its common impugned judgment, acquitted A-3 Joginder @ Mintu of all charges; and acquitted the present appellants only for offence under Section 411, but affirmed their conviction for other offences.
Findings of Court:
A strong case is made out in support of the appellants’ probability of reform (as already evidenced by their jail conduct), and reintegration into society. The state, too, has not indicated any material to the contrary, regarding this aspect.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.
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) from different people, seeking money in exchange for information about his son’s whereabouts, and his safety. By tracking of call records, a link was established first with A-1, who disclosed involvement of A-2 and A-3. A gold chain belonging to the deceased, and a motorcycle on which the deceased was last seen, were recovered at the behest of A-1; the deceased’s wristwatch, and a black muffler used to strangle him, were recovered from A-2. A-1’s disclosure also led to recovery of the car used to abduct, and in which the deceased had been strangulated. Evidence collected against them included voice samples to compare ransom call recordings, and identification by PW-7, PW-2, and others as to the deceased last being seen with them. On 09.05.2003, the three accused persons disclosed where the dead body had been dumped, but the same could not be recovered. Upon investigation, it was found that another police station, in which jurisdiction the nala fell, had recovered a half-burned dead body on 19.01.2003 itself (i.e. one day after abduction). This was identified by the father, to be that of the deceased. 41 prosecution witnesses were examined over the course of 11 years, and 8 defence witnesses.
3. The trial court3 [Sessions Case No. 130/2014 - Orders dated 13.11.2017 (conviction) and 23.12.2017 (sentence)] convicted the three accused persons for the commission of offence under Sections 302, 364A, 201, read with Section 120B IPC. A-1 and A-2 (present appellants) were also convicted under Section 411, with A-1 additionally being convicted for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life, and an additional condition was imposed on A-1 and A-2 - that they would not be entitled to any parole, remission, or furlough, before completing 30 years of imprisonment. They were also sentenced to each pay Rs. 2,10,000 as fine and Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation to the victim’s family.
4. The High Court, by its common impugned judgment, on an appreciation of the facts at hand, acquitted A-3 Joginder @ Mintu of all charges and acquitted the present appellants only for offence under Section 411, but affirmed their conviction for other offences, as well as the corresponding sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, A-1 and A-2 have approached this court, challenging both the conviction and sentence; this court issued notice on the limited question of sentence.
Appellants’ contentions
5. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, placed strong emphasis on this court’s decision in Union of India vs. Sriharan @ Murugan and Others, (2015) 14 SCR 613 : (2016) 7 SCC 1 which categorically held that it was outside the jurisdiction of the trial court, to provide a specific term punishment or till the end of ordinary life, as an alternative to the death penalty. It was urged that this aspect, however, was overlooked by the
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 ruled that the death penalty is not warranted as the case does not fall under the 'rarest of rare' category, emphasizing the need for special reasons for such a sentence.
(1) Constitutional guarantees of equality before law, protection of life and personal liberty, protection in respect of conviction, and protection against arrest and detention, do not expand into a c....
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 imposition of the death penalty requires the statutory provision of special reasons, and a balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be conducted.
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....
The court emphasized the necessity of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation before imposing the death penalty.
Quantum of sentence – There can be no straitjacket formulae – A delicate balance has to be struck – Fundamental underpinning is principle of proportionality.
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
