Supreme Court modifies sentence in kidnapping and murder case: Vikas Chaudhary vs. State of Delhi (2023) INSC 412

Date of the Judgment: 21 April 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 412

Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can a trial court impose a fixed term sentence without remission in a case where the accused is convicted of offences punishable with death or life imprisonment? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question while hearing an appeal against the sentence awarded to the accused in a kidnapping and murder case. The court clarified the powers of trial courts and appellate courts in sentencing and modified the sentence awarded to the appellants. The judgment was authored by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, with Justice K.M. Joseph concurring.

Case Background

The case involves the kidnapping of an 18-20 year old individual on January 18, 2003. The victim was murdered by strangulation on the same day, and the body was subsequently burnt to destroy evidence. The victim’s father filed a missing person report on January 18, 2003. Following this, the family received six ransom calls from various individuals between January 19, 2003, and March 11, 2003. These calls demanded money in exchange for information about the victim’s whereabouts and safety.

Through call record tracking, authorities linked the calls to A-1, who then implicated A-2 and A-3. Various pieces of evidence were recovered, including a gold chain and motorcycle belonging to the deceased (at A-1’s behest), and the deceased’s wristwatch and the muffler used to strangle him (from A-2). A car used in the abduction and murder was also recovered. Witnesses identified the accused as being with the deceased before his disappearance. On May 9, 2003, the accused disclosed the location where the body was dumped. However, the body was not recovered at that location. It was later found that a half-burnt body had been recovered by another police station on January 19, 2003, which was identified as the deceased by the father.

The trial involved 41 prosecution witnesses and 8 defense witnesses over 11 years.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the three accused under Sections 302 (murder), 364A (kidnapping for ransom), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), read with 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A-1 and A-2 were additionally convicted under Section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the IPC, with A-1 also being convicted under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the IPC. The trial court sentenced A-1 and A-2 to life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives, with an additional condition that they would not be entitled to any parole, remission, or furlough before completing 30 years of imprisonment. They were also fined ₹ 2,10,000 each and ordered to pay ₹ 4,00,000 as compensation to the victim’s family.

The Delhi High Court acquitted A-3 of all charges and acquitted A-1 and A-2 of the offence under Section 411 of the IPC, but affirmed their conviction for other offences and the corresponding sentence imposed by the trial court. A-1 and A-2 appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging both conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court issued notice on the limited question of sentence.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 302, IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 364A, IPC: This section defines the punishment for kidnapping for ransom.
• Section 201, IPC: This section defines the punishment for causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 120B, IPC: This section defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 411, IPC: This section defines the punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen property.
• Section 420, IPC: This section defines the punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 468, IPC: This section defines the punishment for forgery for purpose of cheating.
• Section 471, IPC: This section defines the punishment for using as genuine a forged document.

The judgment also references Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which deals with the powers of the appellate court. Specifically, the judgment refers to:

• Section 386(b)(ii), CrPC: This section deals with the power of the appellate court to alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same.
• Section 386(b)(iii), CrPC: This section deals with the power of the appellate court to alter the finding, maintaining the sentence.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to impose a fixed term sentence of 30 years without remission, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. [2015] 14 SCR 613: (2016) 7 SCC 1.
• They contended that the High Court had not properly considered their arguments on sentencing, even while upholding the conviction. They relied on Section 386(b)(ii) and (iii) of the CrPC, arguing that the appellate court must specifically hear the accused on the quantum and nature of the sentence, even if the conviction is upheld.
• The appellants emphasized the need to consider mitigating circumstances, such as age, the possibility of reformation, and the absence of criminal antecedents. They cited Amit v. State of Maharashtra [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 285: (2003) 8 SCC 93 and Laxman Naskar v. West Bengal [2000] Supp. 3 SCR 62: (2000) 7 SCC 626.
• They highlighted the probation officer’s report, jail conduct report, and psychologist’s report, which indicated good social behavior and the possibility of reintegration into society.
• They also relied on judgments concerning sentencing policy in death penalty cases, such as Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra [2018] 14 SCR 585: (2019) 12 SCC 460, Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka [2008] 11 SCR 93: (2008) 13 SCC 767, and Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra [2009] 9 SCR 90: (2009) 6 SCC 498, arguing that the principle of reformation should be considered even in cases where life imprisonment is substituted for the death penalty.
• It was argued that the appellant Vikas Chaudhary, was below 18 years of age at the time of kidnapping and murder but had attained majority during the alleged ransom calls. Therefore, the benefit of juvenile was denied to him, and the conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the conviction and sentence were appropriate, given the cold-blooded nature of the murder. They emphasized the pre-planning and premeditation involved in the abduction and murder.
• The State argued that the gruesome nature of the murder of a minor victim (nearly 18 years), despite the appellants being educated and belonging to well-to-do families, reflected that they were well aware and had full knowledge of their actions.
• They relied on Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 11 SCC 1, submitting that if a threat for ransom results in the death of the victim, then the specified sentence passed by the sessions court and upheld by the High Court should not be interfered with.
• The State conceded that only the High Court or Supreme Court had the power to pass a sentence in excess of life imprisonment but argued that the High Court’s affirmation of the sentence meant the spirit of the law laid down in Sriharan had been given effect to. They cited Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab (2021) 3 SCC 380.
• The State argued that the VIMHANS report could not be relied upon as a mitigating circumstance, as it did not speak to the mental state of the appellants at the time of the offense and did not necessarily support the prospect of rehabilitation or reformation.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. The limited question on which this Court issued notice was to consider the correctness of the sentence imposed on the accused/appellants.

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 authorities:

Cases:

• Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. [2015] 14 SCR 613: (2016) 7 SCC 1 – The court discussed this case to highlight that the trial court does not have the power to impose a fixed term sentence.
• Amit v. State of Maharashtra [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 285: (2003) 8 SCC 93 – The court considered this case to highlight the importance of mitigating circumstances in sentencing.
• Laxman Naskar v. West Bengal [2000] Supp. 3 SCR 62: (2000) 7 SCC 626 – The court considered this case to highlight the importance of mitigating circumstances in sentencing.
• Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra [2018] 14 SCR 585: (2019) 12 SCC 460 – The court discussed the importance of determining whether the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated.
• Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka [2008] 11 SCR 93: (2008) 13 SCC 767 – The court discussed this case to highlight that a special category of sentence can be imposed, in serious crimes, where death sentence is substituted with life imprisonment for a fixed number of years.
• Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra [2009] 9 SCR 90: (2009) 6 SCC 498 – The court discussed this case to highlight the importance of the theory of reformation through punishment.
• State of Haryana v. Jagdish [2010] 3 SCR 716: (2010) 4 SCC 216 – The court discussed this case to highlight the importance of the theory of reformation through punishment.
• Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan [2011] 4 SCR 585: (2011) 3 SCC 685 – The court discussed this case to highlight the importance of the theory of reformation through punishment.
• Birju v. State of MP [2014] 1 SCR 1047: (2014) 3 SCC 421 – The court discussed this case to highlight the importance of the theory of reformation through punishment.
• Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra [2013] 6 SCR 949: (2013) 5 SCC 546 – The court discussed this case to highlight the importance of the theory of reformation through punishment.
• Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra [2014] 3 SCR 34: (2014) 4 SCC 69 – The court discussed this case to highlight the importance of the theory of reformation through punishment.
• Raju Jagdish Paswan v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 16 SCC 380 – The court discussed this case to highlight the importance of the theory of reformation through punishment.
• Satish @ Sabbe v. State of UP 2020 SCC OnLine SC 791 – The court discussed this case to highlight the importance of the theory of reformation through punishment.
• Mohd Firoz v. State of MP (2022) 7 SCC 433 – The court discussed this case to highlight the importance of the theory of reformation through punishment.
• Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 11 SCC 1 – The court discussed this case to highlight that if a threat for ransom results in the death of the victim, then the specified sentence passed by the sessions court and upheld by the High Court should not be interfered with.
• Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab (2021) 3 SCC 380 – The court discussed this case to highlight that the High Court can uphold the session’s court order on sentencing, which had been passed in excess of the scope of its powers.
• Bachan Singh v. Union of India [1983] 1 SCR 145: (1980) 2 SCC 684 – The court discussed this case to highlight that capital sentence should be invoked in the rarest of rare cases.
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [1983] 3 SCR 413: (1983) 3 SCC 470 – The court discussed this case to highlight the need for a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
• Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra [1961] 3 SCR 440 – The court discussed this case in the context of remission of sentences.
• Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab [1979] 3 SCR 1059: (1979) 3 SCC 745 – The court discussed this case in the context of remission of sentences.
• Subash Chander v. Krishan Lal [2001] 2 SCR 864: (2001) 4 SCC 458 – The court discussed this case in the context of remission of sentences.
• Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan [2001] 3 SCR 656: (2001) 6 SCC 296 – The court discussed this case in the context of remission of sentences.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh [1976] Supp. 1 SCR 552: (1976) 3 SCC 470 – The court discussed this case in the context of remission of sentences.
• Kishori Lal v. King Emperor (1945) 58 LW 251 – The court discussed this case in the context of remission of sentences.
• Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCR 1196 – The court discussed this case in the context of remission of sentences.
• Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452 – The court discussed this case to overrule the same.
• Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2022] 9 SCR 452: (2023) 2 SCC 353 – The court discussed this case to highlight the need to consider mitigating circumstances at the trial stage.
• Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh [2018] 14 SCR 355: (2019) 12 SCC 438 – The court discussed this case to highlight the need to consider mitigating circumstances at the trial stage.
• Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura Vs. The State of Rajasthan SLP (Crl.) No.7830/2021 – The court discussed this case to highlight that the trial court does not have the power to impose a fixed term sentence.
• Baljeet Singh @ Jeeta v. State of Haryana SLP (Crl.) No. 11787-11788/2019 – The court discussed this case to highlight that the trial court does not have the power to impose a fixed term sentence.
• Manohar @ Manu v. The State of Karnataka Crl. Appeal No.564 of 2021 – The court discussed this case to highlight that the trial court does not have the power to impose a fixed term sentence.

Statutes:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 364A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 411, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 468, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 471, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 386, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Section 433A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Authorities Table

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not have the power to impose a fixed term sentence without remission. The court emphasized that the power to impose a sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of a convict’s natural life, without any remission, rests solely with the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also noted that the trial court’s order was not in accordance with the law laid down in Sriharan. The Court, while upholding the conviction, modified the sentence imposed by the trial court. The Court reduced the sentence to a minimum term of 20 years actual imprisonment, considering the mitigating circumstances of the appellants. The Court also directed that the appellants would be entitled to remission as per the applicable rules and regulations, subject to their conduct in jail. The Court held that the appellants shall be entitled to the benefits of Section 428 of the CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment can be summarized as follows:

• A trial court does not have the jurisdiction to impose a sentence of life imprisonment for the remainder of a convict’s natural life, without any remission. This power rests solely with the High Court or the Supreme Court.
• Appellate courts must consider mitigating circumstances while sentencing, even if the conviction is upheld.
• The principle of reformation should be considered in sentencing, and a fixed term sentence without remission should only be imposed in exceptional cases.

Flowchart of the Case

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Vikas Chaudhary vs. State of Delhi clarifies the powers of trial courts and appellate courts in sentencing. The Court emphasized that trial courts do not have the power to impose fixed term sentences without remission in cases where the accused is convicted of offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. The judgment also highlights the importance of considering mitigating circumstances and the principle of reformation in sentencing. The Supreme Court modified the sentence to a minimum term of 20 years actual imprisonment, allowing for remission as per the applicable rules, which is in line with the principle of reformation. This case serves as an important precedent for sentencing in criminal cases, particularly in cases involving serious offences.