Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Kidnapping and Murder Case: Vikas Chaudhary vs. State of Delhi (21 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 21 April 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 349

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

Can a trial court impose a fixed-term sentence, without remission, in cases involving serious crimes? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the powers of trial courts versus higher courts in sentencing. This case revolves around the modification of a sentence imposed by a trial court in a kidnapping and murder case, where the trial court had imposed a fixed term sentence of 30 years without remission, which was beyond its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, modified the sentence to a minimum term of 20 years of actual imprisonment.

Case Background

The case involves the kidnapping of an 18-20 year old individual on 18 January 2003, who was subsequently murdered by strangulation on the same day. The body was then burnt to eliminate evidence. The deceased’s father filed a missing person report on 18 January 2003, and received multiple ransom calls between 19 January 2003 and 11 March 2003. Through call record tracking, the police linked the calls to the accused. The accused were identified as A-1, A-2 and A-3. A gold chain and a motorcycle belonging to the deceased were recovered from A-1. A wristwatch and a muffler used in the strangulation were recovered from A-2. A car used in the abduction was also recovered based on A-1’s disclosure. The body was found by another police station on 19 January 2003, and identified by the father. The trial court convicted the accused, and the High Court upheld the conviction of A-1 and A-2, while acquitting A-3.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the three accused under Sections 302, 364A, 201, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A-1 and A-2 were also convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with A-1 additionally convicted under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life, with an additional condition that they would not be entitled to any parole, remission, or furlough before completing 30 years of imprisonment. The High Court acquitted A-3 of all charges and acquitted A-1 and A-2 of the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but affirmed their conviction for other offences and the corresponding sentence. The Supreme Court issued notice on the limited question of sentence.

Legal Framework

The relevant legal provisions include:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Kidnapping for ransom, etc.—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 pay ransom, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—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; and if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.”
• Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Dishonestly receiving stolen property.—Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, 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 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Forgery for purpose of cheating.—Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, 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 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.—Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.”

These provisions outline the offenses for which the accused were convicted and the corresponding punishments.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing a fixed term sentence of 30 years without remission, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan &Ors. [2015] 14 SCR 613: (2016) 7 SCC 1, which held that only the High Court or Supreme Court could impose such a sentence.
• The High Court did not properly consider the arguments on sentencing, failing to examine the order on sentence even after upholding the conviction, as required by Section 386(b)(ii) and (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
• The High Court failed to call for a report by the Officer under the Probation of Offenders Act, and/or psychological assessment report, to adjudicate the same.
• Mitigating circumstances, such as the age of the appellants at the time of the offense, the possibility of reformation, and the absence of prior criminal records, were not given due weight.
• The probation officer’s report, jail conduct report, and psychologist’s report, which were prepared in compliance with the Supreme Court’s orders, strongly supported the possibility of reformation and reintegration into society.
• The appellant Vikas Chaudhary was below 18 years of age at the time of kidnapping and murder, and the conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence.
• The sentencing policy in cases where the death penalty is substituted with life imprisonment for a fixed number of years, as evolved in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka [2008] 11 SCR 93: (2008) 13 SCC 767, still requires consideration of mitigating factors.
• Reliance was placed on various judgments of the Supreme Court, including Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra [2018] 14 SCR 585: (2019) 12 SCC 460, 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, to emphasize the importance of reformation and rehabilitation.

State’s Arguments:

• The conviction was based on concurrent findings, and the sentence was commensurate with the crime, which was a cold-blooded murder.
• The abduction was planned and premeditated, and the deceased was murdered to eliminate evidence.
• The appellants continued to demand ransom from the family even after the murder, demonstrating a lack of remorse.
• The gruesome nature of the murder of a young victim, despite the appellants being educated, justified the sentence.
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 11 SCC 1 was cited to argue that intervention by the court was unwarranted when the sessions court had passed a specified sentence, which was upheld by the High Court.
• While conceding that only the High Court or Supreme Court had the power to pass a sentence in excess of life imprisonment, but lesser than capital punishment, it was contended that the High Court had affirmed the sentence, which meant the spirit of the law laid down in Sriharan had been given effect to.
• Reliance was placed on Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab (2021) 3 SCC 380, where the court upheld the session’s court order on sentencing due to the grotesque nature of the crime.
• The VIMHANS report could not be relied on as demonstrating ‘mitigating circumstances’ as it cannot speak to the mental state of the appellants at the time of commission of the offences, and does not necessarily support any prospect of rehabilitation or reformation.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. 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:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Sriharan [2015] 14 SCR 613: (2016) 7 SCC 1* to reiterate that trial courts do not have the power to impose a fixed term sentence as an alternative to the death penalty.
• The Court approved the ratio in Swamy Shraddananda [2008] 11 SCR 93: (2008) 13 SCC 767*, which allows for a special category of sentence for serious crimes.
• The Court discussed the principles laid down in Bachan Singh [1983] 1 SCR 145: (1980) 2 SCC 684*, Machhi Singh [1983] 3 SCR 413: (1983) 3 SCC 470*, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar [2009] 9 SCR 90: (2009) 6 SCC 498*, and Shankar Kisanrao Khade [2013] 6 SCR 949: (2013) 5 SCC 546* regarding the imposition of capital punishment and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
• The Court relied on Manoj [2022] 9 SCR 452: (2023) 2 SCC 353* for guidelines to collect mitigating circumstances.
• The Court distinguished Arvind Singh (2021) 11 SCC 1* and Gauri Shankar (2021) 3 SCC 380* from the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court considered several factors in its decision to modify the sentence:

• The trial court’s lack of jurisdiction to impose a fixed-term sentence.
• The need to consider mitigating circumstances, such as the age of the appellants at the time of the offense, their educational backgrounds, and their conduct during incarceration.
• The reports from the probation officer, jail administration, and VIMHANS, which indicated a strong possibility of reformation and reintegration into society.
• The need to balance the aggravating circumstances of the crime with the mitigating factors.

The Court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations and the need to correct the jurisdictional error of the trial court, while also giving due weight to the mitigating circumstances and reformation potential of the accused.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Trial courts cannot impose fixed-term sentences without remission as an alternative to the death penalty. Only High Courts and the Supreme Court have this power.
• Mitigating circumstances, such as age, background, and conduct during incarceration, must be considered in sentencing.
• Reports from probation officers, jail authorities, and psychological evaluations play a crucial role in determining the possibility of reformation and reintegration into society.
• The Supreme Court has clarified the procedure for collecting and evaluating mitigating circumstances, emphasizing the need for a nuanced approach in sentencing, especially in cases involving serious crimes.
• The judgment underscores the importance of individualized sentencing, balancing the gravity of the crime with the potential for reformation.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the sentence awarded to both appellants to a minimum term of 20 years of actual imprisonment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that trial courts do not have the power to impose a fixed term sentence as an alternative to the death penalty, and only the High Court and Supreme Court can exercise such power. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Sriharan and emphasizes the importance of considering mitigating factors and the potential for reformation in sentencing. This case also clarifies the procedure for collecting and evaluating mitigating circumstances, aligning with the guidelines laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment reinforces the existing legal framework.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vikas Chaudhary vs. State of Delhi clarifies the sentencing powers of trial courts and emphasizes the importance of considering mitigating factors and the potential for reformation in sentencing. By modifying the sentence to a minimum term of 20 years of actual imprisonment, the Court balanced the gravity of the crime with the possibility of rehabilitation, while also correcting the jurisdictional error of the trial court. This judgment serves as a crucial guide for lower courts in the sentencing process, particularly in cases involving serious crimes.