Supreme Court enhances sentence for brutal double murder: State of Haryana vs. Anand Kindo (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 08 September 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 748

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

Can a brutal double murder committed by trusted employees warrant more than a life sentence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where an elderly couple was murdered in their sleep by their employees. The court examined whether the High Court was correct in reducing the death penalty to life imprisonment, ultimately enhancing the sentence to a fixed term of 30 years. This case highlights the balance between societal justice and the possibility of rehabilitation for convicts.

Case Background

The case revolves around the gruesome murder of Major General Kailash Chand Dhingra and his wife, Smt. Sangeeta Dhingra. The couple was brutally murdered by their trusted employees, Anand Kindo and another individual, for monetary gain. The victims were attacked while they were sleeping, with the accused using a hammer and Tava, resulting in severe disfigurement. The trial court initially sentenced the accused to death, but the High Court reduced this to life imprisonment. The State of Haryana and the complainant appealed against this reduction.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the punishment for murder.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code states:

“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (State of Haryana and Complainant):

• ✓ The crime was heinous and brutal, committed against an elderly couple in their sleep.
• ✓ The accused, who were in a position of trust, betrayed that trust for monetary gain.
• ✓ The victims were defenseless and did not provoke the attack.
• ✓ The manner of the murder was gruesome, with the victims’ faces battered beyond recognition.
• ✓ The accused attempted to escape from prison, showing a lack of remorse and a continued disregard for the law.
• ✓ The complainant argued that ‘life’ should mean ‘life’ in this case or at least a fixed term sentence before which the convicts are not liable to be considered for grant of remission.
• ✓ The society demands justice in such cases of brutality and the sentence should act as a deterrent.

Arguments by the Respondent (Convicts):

• ✓ The accused were young (22 and 24 years old) at the time of the crime and have already served fifteen years.
• ✓ They have a chance to be rehabilitated in society.
• ✓ The present crime should be treated as one which receives the normal life sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section of the judgment. However, the core issue before the Court was:

• ✓ Whether the High Court was justified in reducing the death sentence to life imprisonment given the facts and circumstances of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the following authorities:

• Desraj vs. State of Punjab, (2007) 12 SCC 494: This case was cited to specify special reasons for attracting the death penalty, such as the manner of commission of murder, motive, abhorrent nature of the crime, and the personality of the victim.
• Union of India vs. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1: This case was referenced to clarify that only the High Court or the Supreme Court can impose a fixed-term sentence, not the trial court.
• Shankar Kishanrao Khade vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546: This case was cited to highlight that circumstances favouring the accused, such as lack of intention to commit the crime, possibility of reformation, young age, and no previous criminal record, may help avoid capital punishment. It also emphasized the balance between the crime and the criminal.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Desraj vs. State of Punjab, (2007) 12 SCC 494: The Court used this case to justify the consideration of the manner of the murder, motive, and nature of the crime in determining the appropriate sentence.
• Union of India vs. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1: The Court referred to this case to support its authority to impose a fixed-term sentence.
• Shankar Kishanrao Khade vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546: The Court used this case to emphasize the need to balance the severity of the crime with the possibility of rehabilitation, leading to the imposition of a fixed-term sentence rather than the death penalty.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was significantly influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ The brutality of the crime, where the victims were attacked while sleeping and their faces were battered beyond recognition.
• ✓ The breach of trust by the accused, who were employed by the victims and were expected to care for them.
• ✓ The vulnerability of the victims, who were elderly and defenseless.
• ✓ The need for societal justice and deterrence, to send a message that such heinous crimes will be met with appropriate punishment.
• ✓ The subsequent conduct of the accused, who attempted to escape from prison, indicating a lack of remorse.
• ✓ The need to balance the severity of the crime with the possibility of rehabilitation, leading to the imposition of a fixed-term sentence.

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of considering the factual aspects of the case and the legal principles involved. The factual aspects included the gruesome nature of the crime, the vulnerability of the victims, and the breach of trust. The legal considerations involved the application of Section 302 of the IPC, the principles of sentencing, and the need for deterrence.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as upholding the High Court’s decision for life imprisonment. However, it rejected this due to the extreme brutality of the crime and the need for a more stringent punishment. The final decision was reached by balancing the need for justice with the potential for rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court enhanced the sentence to a fixed term of 30 years, stating,
“On consideration of the matter, we consider appropriate to impose a fixed term sentence of 30 years. Even at that age, the convicts would be in their 50s and we hope and pray that they would have learned their lesson and joined the society as responsible members at that stage.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring on the imposition of a fixed term sentence.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Crimes involving extreme brutality and breach of trust may warrant more than a simple life sentence.
• ✓ Courts can impose a fixed-term sentence to balance the severity of the crime with the possibility of rehabilitation.
• ✓ The conduct of the accused after the crime, such as attempting to escape from prison, can be considered an aggravating factor.
• ✓ The case highlights the importance of societal justice and the need for deterrence in cases of heinous crimes.
• ✓ The judgment sets a precedent that in cases of extreme brutality, a fixed-term sentence may be more appropriate than a simple life sentence.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions apart from enhancing the sentence to a fixed term of 30 years.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of extreme brutality and breach of trust, the Supreme Court can impose a fixed-term sentence exceeding the usual life sentence. This decision clarifies that while the possibility of reformation is a factor, it cannot outweigh the need for justice and deterrence in cases of heinous crimes. This is a change in the previous position of law where life imprisonment was the standard sentence for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana vs. Anand Kindo enhances the sentence of the accused from life imprisonment to a fixed term of 30 years, underscoring the importance of societal justice and deterrence in cases of brutal crimes. The judgment highlights that the severity of the crime, breach of trust, and vulnerability of the victims are significant factors that can warrant a more stringent punishment than a simple life sentence. This case sets a precedent for future cases involving heinous crimes, emphasizing the need to balance the possibility of rehabilitation with the need for justice.