Supreme Court enhances punishment for 1995 double murder case: Harenda Rai vs. State of Bihar (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 01 September 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 806

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Abhay S. Oka, J., Vikram Nath, J.

What is the appropriate sentence for a double murder case that occurred almost three decades ago? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the accused was initially acquitted but later convicted. The court considered the gravity of the crime, the passage of time, and the conduct of the State in determining the appropriate punishment. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Abhay S. Oka, and Justice Vikram Nath, with Justice Vikram Nath authoring the opinion.

Case Background

In 1995, a tragic incident occurred involving the murder of two individuals, Rajendra Rai and Daroga Rai, and an attempt to murder Smt. Devi. The Trial Court had acquitted the accused, respondent no. 2, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision on August 18, 2023, convicting the accused under Section 302 (murder) and Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case was then listed for hearing on the quantum of sentence. The accused, already serving a life sentence in another murder case, requested to appear virtually due to health conditions, which was allowed by the Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court had initially acquitted respondent no. 2. However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment dated August 18, 2023, reversed the acquittal and convicted respondent no. 2 under Section 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The matter was then listed for the hearing on the quantum of sentence. Respondent no. 2 filed a Crl.M.P. No. 169246 of 2023, requesting to appear virtually due to his health conditions and the fact that he was already serving a life sentence in another murder case. The Court allowed this request.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for attempt to murder.
• Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section empowers the court to order payment of compensation out of the fine imposed.
  
  “Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that whenever fine is imposed as a sentence, the Court may while passing the judgment, order the whole or in part of the fine recovered to be applied as per clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) thereof.”
• Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section provides for victim compensation schemes.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court focused on the appropriate sentence for respondent no. 2, who had been convicted of murder and attempt to murder. The court considered the facts of the case, the age of the incident, and the conduct of the State.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. What is the appropriate sentence to be awarded to respondent no. 2, who has been convicted under Section 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
2. What is the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the victims and their families?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for attempt to murder.
• Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Power of the court to order compensation out of fine.
• Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Victim compensation scheme.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded in the judgment dated August 18, 2023, and the fact that the incident was almost 28 years old, decided that awarding the death sentence would not be appropriate. The Court awarded life imprisonment to respondent no. 2 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with a fine of Rs. 20 lakhs. Additionally, respondent no. 2 was awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors in determining the sentence:

• Age of the Incident: The incident occurred in 1995, making it almost 28 years old. The Court considered that awarding the death penalty after such a long time would not be appropriate.
• Conduct of the State: The Court noted that the State did not prosecute the case fairly and, in fact, assisted the accused. This influenced the decision to award additional compensation to the victims’ families.
• Mental, Physical, and Financial Damages: The Court recognized the immense suffering endured by the victims’ families and sought to provide them with adequate compensation.

The ratio of fact to law in this case is as follows:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the passage of time since the crime, the State’s failure to prosecute fairly, and the suffering of the victims’ families. It balanced these factors to arrive at a just sentence and compensation.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that the passage of time is a significant factor in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty.
• The conduct of the State in prosecuting a case can influence the quantum of compensation awarded to the victims.
• Victims of crime and their families are entitled to adequate compensation for the damages suffered.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The fine awarded to respondent no. 2 should be paid as damages to the legal heirs of the deceased and the injured.
• The State of Bihar should pay additional compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and the injured.
• The Trial Court should conduct a preliminary inquiry to identify the legal heirs of the deceased and the injured.
• The amount of fine and compensation should be deposited with the Trial Court within two months.
• The Trial Court should submit a compliance report to the Supreme Court within four months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases where there is a significant delay between the crime and the conviction, the death penalty might not be appropriate. The Court also emphasized the importance of compensating the victims and their families, especially when the State’s conduct in prosecuting the case is questionable. This case reinforces the principle that the judiciary must consider all relevant factors, including the passage of time and the conduct of the State, when determining the appropriate sentence and compensation.

Conclusion

In the case of Harenda Rai vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., the Supreme Court enhanced the punishment for a double murder case that occurred in 1995. The Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and imposed a fine, while also ordering compensation for the victims’ families. This judgment underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case, including the passage of time and the conduct of the State, when determining the appropriate sentence and compensation.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Child Category: Section 357, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Child Category: Section 357A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Sentencing

Child Category: Victim Compensation

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Harenda Rai vs. State of Bihar case?

A: The main issue was determining the appropriate sentence for the accused who was convicted of murder and attempt to murder after a long delay since the crime was committed in 1995.

Q: What sentence did the Supreme Court impose on the accused?

A: The Supreme Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with both sentences running concurrently. The court also imposed fines.

Q: What compensation was awarded to the victims’ families?

A: The Court ordered that the fine amount be disbursed as damages to the victims’ families. Additionally, the State of Bihar was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs each to the legal heirs of the deceased and Rs. 5 lakhs to the injured victim or her legal heirs.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court not impose the death penalty?

A: The Supreme Court considered the fact that the incident was almost 28 years old and felt that awarding the death penalty after such a long delay would not be appropriate.

Q: What was the role of the State’s conduct in the Court’s decision?

A: The Court noted that the State did not prosecute the case fairly and assisted the accused. This influenced the decision to award additional compensation to the victims’ families.