Case title:
Vikas Chaudhary vs The State of Delhi
Date of Order:
21st April 2023
Bench:
Justice Ravindra Bhat and K M Joseph
Parties:
Petitioner: Vikas Chaudhary
Defendant: The State of Delhi
Facts:
- The deceased, who was between the ages of 18 and 20, was abducted on January 18, 2003, and held captive for ransom. He was strangled on the spot, and the body was burned to destroy any traces of his death. After filing a "missing person report" with the police on January 18, 2003, the deceased's father (complainant) got six calls from unknown callers requesting ransom in exchange for information regarding his son's whereabouts and safety.
- The three defendants were found guilty by the trial court3 of violating Sections 302, 364A, and 201 of the IPC, when read with Section 120B. A-1 and A-2 (the current appellants) were also found guilty under Section 411, and A-1 was also found guilty of offences covered by Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC. They were given a life sentence that would last the rest of their natural lives, with the additional requirement that A-1 and A-2 would not be eligible for any parole, remission, or furlough before serving a total of 30 years in jail. Additionally, they were ordered to pay a fine of 2,10,000 and 4,00,000 in restitution to the victim's family.
- A-3 Joginder @ Mintu was cleared of all charges by the High Court's common impugned judgement, which was based on an analysis of the relevant facts. The present appellants were cleared of all charges except for the offence under Section 411, but the convictions for all other offences and the corresponding sentences imposed by the trial court were upheld. A-1 and A-2, who were offended by the impugned judgement, came before this court to contest the conviction as well as the punishment. This court gave notice on the specific sentence-related matter.
Issues Raised:
The specific issue was raised before the apex court whether or not the punishment imposed on the defendants/appellants was appropriate?
Arguments:
- For the appellants, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, a knowledgeable senior counsel, emphasized this court's ruling in Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan &Ors.4 which categorically held that the trial court lacked the authority to impose a specific term punishment or until the end of ordinary life as an alternative to the death penalty. However, it was argued that the High Court had disregarded this factor, which was sufficient justification for overturning the incorrect judgement.
- It was argued that the High Court had, in its contested decision, improperly dismissed the reasons presented regarding punishment while also dismissing the appeal on conviction. The argument that adjudication and examination of the order on sentence was still required, even when the order of conviction had been upheld or modified under Section 386(b)(i), was based on Sections 386(b)(ii) and (iii) of the CrPC; the appellate court had to specifically hear the accused on the quantum and nature of the sentence imposed.
- When doing so, it is essential to request the officer's report pursuant to the Probation of Offenders Act and/or the results of a psychological assessment in order to decide the case.
- Ms. Arora argued that in order to exercise sentencing discretion, consideration should be given to mitigating circumstances. Relevant elements include the offender's age at the time of the offence, his or her chances of reforming while incarcerated, etc.
- This court's rulings in Amit v. State of Maharashtra and Laxman Naskar v. West Bengal were cited. According to the probation officer's report, the jail conduct report, and the psychologist's report—all of which were created in accordance with this court's orders—strong evidence was presented supporting good and normal social behaviour, reformation, and the potential for reintegration into society.
- In the present instance, which involved a cold-blooded murder, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, knowledgeable counsel for the State, argued that the conviction based on concurrent findings and punishment imposed were proportionate. It was argued that the covert act of kidnapping and the thinking process that drove the sequence of events were carried out with preplanning and premeditation. This was demonstrated by the fact that the dead person was slain on January 19, 2003, but the family was led to believe that their son was still alive, leading to repeated demands for ransom.
- It was noted that the gruesomeness of the murder of a young victim—nearly 18 years old—despite the appellants' education and wealth showed that they were fully aware of their actions—kidnapping, murdering, and then burning and discarding the body's remains in a pond—and that they knew exactly what they were doing. These factors, according to the argument, made this a cold-blooded murder, which is the most serious type of crime.
- Counsel acknowledged that this court had held in Sriharan (supra) that only the High Court or Supreme Court had the authority to impose a sentence that was greater than life in prison but less than the death penalty. However, it was noted that this court had also rejected the idea in that judgement that the court imposing punishment should only impose the punishment of death or life in prison, as prescribed in the CrPC. Therefore, the judgement was not completely invalidated just because the sessions court had used this power. Instead, it was argued that because the High Court upheld the sentence, the spirit of the law established in Sriharan (above) had been implemented.
- The case Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab19 was used as support for the sentence, which this court had sustained despite being passed outside the bounds of its authority due to the horrific nature of the crime.
- Mr. Shroff also argued that the neutral VIMHANS report provided in response to this court's instructions was insufficient to establish "mitigating circumstances" because it does not address the appellants' mental state at the time the charges were committed. It may or may not promote the idea of reformation or rehabilitation.
Analysis:
- Vikas Chaudhary, the appellant, was only 18 to 19 years old when the offence was committed, and he is now in his 37 to 38th year. Vikas Sidhu, the appellant, who was in his early 20s at the time of the incident, is now 40 to 41 years old and has served more than 17 years of actual incarceration.
- In the current case, there are certain similarities between the two appellants: they were both young adults at the time of the offence, they come from well-educated families, and they both continue to be loved and cared for by their families, each of whom has a solid reputation and strong ties to the neighbourhoods they live in.
- Although the information accessible about their lives and social circumstances prior to their incarceration does not provide an explanation for the reason they committed the crime, it may be claimed that the information about their behaviour following conviction is nonetheless uplifting.
- This court believes that it would be reasonable to change the sentence given to both appellants to a minimum term of 20 years in actual prison for the reasons listed above, taking into account all of the relevant facts and circumstances. In the terms stated above, part of the appeal is granted.
Conclusion:
In the present case, appellants in the present case were young while committing an offence. They had a good educational background, and the positive remarks were there in the reports about the work done by them. Therefore, the Supreme Court of India revises the sentence of jail to the term of 20 years taking all the facts and circumstances into account.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
