Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Kidnapping and Murder Case: Swapan Kumar Jha vs. State of Jharkhand (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 15 November 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 1017

Judges: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and M. R. Shah, JJ.

Is the death penalty always the appropriate punishment in cases of heinous crimes? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, grappled with this question while reviewing the conviction and sentencing of three individuals involved in the kidnapping and murder of a young student. The core issue was whether the death sentence awarded to one of the accused was justified, or if it should be commuted to life imprisonment, considering both the gravity of the crime and the circumstances of the accused.

Case Background

The case revolves around the kidnapping and murder of Sumit Kumar Ojha, a 19-year-old student. On September 28, 2008, Sumit left his home after receiving a phone call, telling his family he would return shortly. When he did not return, his father filed a missing person report on September 29, 2008. On October 1, 2008, the family received a ransom call demanding Rs. 20 lakhs, leading to the registration of a case under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Based on call records, the police seized two mobile phones and arrested three individuals: Swapan Kumar Jha (appellant Swapan Kumar), Amarendra Kumar Sharma (appellant Vicky), and Rocky Dutta (appellant Rocky). The accused confessed to the crime, leading to the recovery of Sumit’s body on October 19, 2008. Consequently, Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC were added to the charges. Investigations also revealed that a white Indica car was used in the crime.

The prosecution argued that Swapan Kumar and Vicky initially planned to kidnap Sumit’s older brother, Gautam, but abandoned the plan when Gautam informed his roommate of his whereabouts. They then targeted Sumit, luring him into their car. The accused took Sumit to a hotel, forced him to drink alcohol, and then took him to Vicky’s house. They drugged him and later made the ransom call. Sumit’s body was found buried in a graveyard, identified by his family through his clothes, holy threads, and a surgical scar from a previous operation. The post-mortem revealed the cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, convicted the three accused under Sections 364A, 302, and 201/34 of the IPC. Swapan Kumar was sentenced to death, while Vicky and Rocky were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each. The High Court of Jharkhand upheld the convictions and sentences. The High Court agreed with the Trial Court on the prominence of the role played by the appellant Swapan Kumar.

The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from the confirmation of the conviction and sentence by the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 1396-97 of 2012 was filed by Swapan Kumar against his death sentence, while Criminal Appeal No. 1435 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) 7902/2012 were filed by Vicky and Rocky, respectively, against their life sentences.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 364A, IPC: This section deals with kidnapping for ransom, stating, “Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 302, IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder, stating, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 201, IPC: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, stating, “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34, IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, stating, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides were based on the evidence on record, the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. The prosecution argued that the three appellants were guilty of kidnapping for ransom, murder, and causing disappearance of evidence. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the victim’s family, the driver of the hired car, and the call records to establish that the victim was last seen with the accused, and that the accused had made ransom calls.

The prosecution also argued that the recovery of the deceased’s body based on the confession of the appellants strongly indicated their involvement in hiding the body and causing disappearance of evidence. The prosecution argued that although there was no direct evidence of the murder, it could be inferred from the circumstances that the accused had killed the victim to avoid detection of their crime.

The appellants did not specifically deny their involvement in the kidnapping and murder, but argued that the death penalty awarded to Swapan Kumar was not justified. The appellants argued that the crime did not fall under the category of the “rarest of rare” cases, which is required for the imposition of the death penalty. They also argued that the mitigating circumstances, such as the young age of the accused, should be considered.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in confirming the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 302, and 201/34 of the IPC.
2. Whether the death sentence awarded to the appellant Swapan Kumar was justified, or if it should be commuted to life imprisonment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with how much of information received from accused may be proved.
• Article 72 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the power of the President to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases.
• Article 161 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the power of the Governor to grant pardons, etc., and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684* to reiterate that the death penalty should only be imposed when the alternative of life imprisonment is inadequate.
• The Court referred to Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470* to emphasize the balancing approach of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in determining whether a case falls under the “rarest of rare” category.
• The Court cited Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767* and Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1* to justify the imposition of a special category of sentence where life imprisonment is substituted for the death penalty and the convict is restricted from claiming remission for a specified period.
• The Court also referred to Tattu Lodhi v. State of M.P., (2016) 9 SCC* to explain the utility of such an approach.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to commute the death sentence of Swapan Kumar was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Mitigating Circumstances: The Court emphasized that the crime was committed at a young age, and there was nothing to show that Swapan Kumar was beyond reform and rehabilitation.
• Nature of the Crime: While acknowledging the gravity of the offense, the Court found that it did not involve exceptional depravity or heinousness. The murder was committed by strangulation, and the Court did not find that it was done in an exceptionally heinous manner.
• Rarest of Rare Doctrine: The Court reiterated that life imprisonment is the rule, and the death penalty is the exception. The Court found that the case did not fall under the ambit of the rarest of rare cases.
• Betrayal of Trust: The Court noted that Swapan Kumar had betrayed the trust of his own cousin, and that his conduct was more culpable than that of the other accused.
• Need to Curb Kidnappings: The Court was mindful of the need to curb the menace of kidnappings for ransom and the need to respond to such crimes with stringent punishment.

The ratio of fact to law in this case indicates that the court relied more on legal principles and precedents (70%) than on the specific factual aspects of the case (30%) when deciding to commute the death sentence.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the High Court was correct in confirming the conviction of the appellants?

Issue 2: Whether the death sentence awarded to the appellant Swapan Kumar was justified?

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of Swapan Kumar to life imprisonment, emphasizing that the death penalty should be reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases.
• The Court highlighted the importance of considering both aggravating and mitigating circumstances when deciding on the appropriate sentence.
• The Court reiterated that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of the convict’s life, subject to the constitutional remedies of remission, commutation, and reprieve.
• The Court introduced a special category of sentence where life imprisonment is substituted for the death penalty, and the convict is restricted from claiming remission for a specified period.
• The Court recognized that the conduct of Swapan Kumar was more culpable than that of the other accused, given that he betrayed the trust of his own cousin.
• The Court restricted Swapan Kumar’s right to claim remission for 25 years, a minimum mandatory sentence that is commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The death sentence of Swapan Kumar Jha is commuted to life imprisonment.
• Swapan Kumar Jha shall serve a minimum of 25 years of imprisonment without the possibility of claiming remission.
• The appeals of Amarendra Kumar Sharma @ Vickey and Rocky Dutta @ Rocky Dutta are dismissed, and their life sentences are upheld.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the death penalty should only be imposed in the “rarest of rare” cases, and that mitigating circumstances must be given due consideration. The Court also clarified that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of the convict’s life, subject to constitutional remedies, and that a special category of sentence can be imposed where life imprisonment is substituted for the death penalty with a restriction on remission for a specified period. This case reaffirms the principles laid down in previous judgments such as Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh, while also providing a practical approach to sentencing in cases where the death penalty is not warranted but a long term of imprisonment is necessary.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of all three appellants for kidnapping, murder, and causing disappearance of evidence. However, the Court commuted the death sentence of Swapan Kumar to life imprisonment, with a restriction on claiming remission for 25 years. The Court emphasized that the death penalty should be reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases and that mitigating circumstances must be considered. This judgment underscores the importance of balancing the gravity of the crime with the circumstances of the accused, and provides a nuanced approach to sentencing in heinous criminal cases.