Sentence/Sentencing – Murder committed for greed of money by trusted employees of an aged couple while they were sleeping – Trial Court awarded the death sentence u/s.302 IPC to accused persons – High Court interfered with sentencing and imposed life sentence – On appeal, Held: It was a pre-planned murder for gain and greed by somebody who was in a position of trust with the family – The two victims were aged people who engaged one of the convicts to look after them and paid appropriate emoluments – Battering two sleeping people beyond recognition who imposed trust in their employee certainly calls for something more than merely a life sentence under s.302, IPC, even if death sentence is not to be imposed – Subsequent conduct of the accused in the endeavour to escape from the custody also put a question mark on their conduct – Imposing a fixed term sentence creates a possibility for the convict to re-integrate into society after serving his/her sentence – It strikes a balance between the victims’ plea for justice and rehabilitative justice for convicts – Therefore, a fixed term sentence of 30 years imposed.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: It was a pre-planned murder for gain and greed by somebody who was in a position of trust with the family. The two victims were aged people who engaged one of the convicts to look after them and were being paid appropriate emoluments. It is nobody’s case that respondent-accused was mal-treated or illtreated by them and was not looked after in the house. At an advanced stage in such health respect, there is always an element of trust and faith in the person by a person who employs them as well as the family members. Work takes other family members elsewhere and with the joint family system having broken down, the role of such trusted help becomes even more significant. It is also the significance of the society where a wrong signal goes if a trusted person breaches that trust to kill the person who had employed them in such a gruesome manner. As stated by the trial Court, the society itself demands justice, apart from an utter element on deterrence which is in any aspect of conviction. The approach cannot be the vindictive but lack of appropriate sentence leaves the cry of justice of the society un-addressed apart from the fact that other persons who may have the propensity to carry out the crime feel they will get away with the lighter sentence, in case they are caught. Battering two sleeping people beyond recognition who imposed trust in their employee certainly calls for something more than merely a life sentence under Section 302, IPC, even if death sentence is not to be imposed. The subsequent conduct of the accused in the endeavour to escape also put a question mark on their conduct but for the fact that they were apprehended they would have escaped. A fixed term sentence of 30 years imposed. Even at that age, the convicts would be in their 50s and it is hoped and prayed that they would have learned their lesson and joined the society as responsible members at that stage. In appropriate cases such as the present case, imposing a fixed term sentence creates a possibility for the convict to re-integrate into society after serving his/her sentence. It strikes a delicate balance between the victims’ plea for justice and rehabilitative justice for the convicts. [Paras 9, 10, 12, 13][341E-H; 342-A-B, D, F] Union of India v. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1 : [2015] 14 SCR 613; Shankar Kishanrao khade v. State of
Mahrashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546 : [2013] 6 SCR 949 – relied on.
Desraj v. State of Punjab (2007) 12 SCC 494 : [2007]
9 SCR 774 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.