Vikas Chaudhary vs The State of Delhi

HELD: 1.1 The appropriateness of imposing a punishment (termed as a special or fixed term sentence) in serious crimes, which carried, as a sentencing option, the death penalty (apart from life sentence), was considered by this court in Sriharan’s case. The majority decision, after considering the previous decisions, held that the ratio in Swamy Shraddananda’s case was correct. It is clear that Sriharan, approved an alternative third sentencing option in cases where the accused are convicted of serious and grave crimes which carried with it the option of capital sentence. Realising that a life sentence per se can lead to early release of accused upon their undergoing the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 433A, and highlighting that the asymmetry in state rules with respect to minimum incarceration in different kinds of life sentences, this court decided to retain to itself (and the High Courts) the option of imposing what Sriharan termed as “special” or “fixed term sentences”. [Paras 16, 17][762-A-B; 763-B-C]

*Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. (2016)

7 SCC 1 : [2015] 14 SCR 613 – relied on.

1.2. It is clear that the trial courts, are foreclosed from imposing such a modified or specific term sentence, or life imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s life, as an alternative to death penalty. The court, when trying an offence punishable by death penalty or life imprisonment, has merely these two options. While the principles evolved in Sriharan’s case are clear, there are nevertheless issues which still remain unexplored and unresolved. Whenever the state proposes and urges for imposition of death sentence, it has to, per force provide material to facilitate the court to carry out the exercise of balancing the aggravating factors with the mitigating circumstances – the test propounded in Bachan Singh and examined in many cases; the recent trend being that the reformative element acquires equal attention. The obligation to carry out this balancing interest is upon the courts imposing the sentence in the first instance, i.e., the trial courts; the prosecution (per Bachan Singh) is also under an obligation to show that the mitigating circumstances are absent especially that there are no chances of reformation of the accused. Since this exercise is mandated whenever a heinous capital crime is committed, at the stage of conviction, the court has no idea that the prosecution may urge for capital sentence. When that stage occurs, and the prosecution seeks a capital sentence, the court has to carry out the exercise of conducting a review of aggravating circumstances (which are already on the record, being factors that lead to the conviction of the accused) and balancing the mitigating circumstances (which are not matters of the record and have to be adduced by the prosecution and the accused). [Para 18][763-G-H; 764-A-D]

1.3. The imperative to conduct evaluation of mitigating circumstances at the trial stage, “to avoid slipping into a retributive response to the brutality of the crime” which this court noticed was frequently occurring in several cases, was underlined, and it was categorically held that the court had to elicit information from the state and the accused. The prosecution also is mandated to produce before the Sessions Court, material disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused, which is to preferably be collected beforehand. At the stage when the trial court is informed that the prosecution intends to press for imposition of capital sentence, the evaluation should be insisted upon; the state is under a duty to present all objective materials, as mentioned in Manoj’s case, having regard to the decision in Bachan Singh’s case and importantly, the fact that it is in a position to actually gather the materials. Its task is to present the factsrelating to the accused, which are favourable and unfavourable, for the court to impose a just sentence. [Para 20][767-G-H; 768A-B]

1.4. Since the judgment in Sriharan’s case reserves the power to impose special or fixed term sentences (which may be longer than the minimum specified in Section 433A CrPC-i.e., may extend to considerably long periods, such as 30 years), with only the high courts and this court, it is imperative that this exercise is carried out even in cases where the accused might eventually not be imposed the death sentence. To put it simply although the trial courts are not empowered to impose such special sentences, yet at the stage when they arrive at findings of guilt in the case of a heinous offence, what would be the nature of the sentence imposed eventually, is unknown; therefore, the prosecution would have to inform the court, and present relevant materials, in case the death sentence is proposed. In that event, if ultimately death sentence is not imposed, it is open to the state (or the aggrieved party, under Section 372 CrPC) to appeal against the trial court judgment on the point of sentence; at that stage the evaluation before the High Court would be nuanced, and informed with full materials, about the convict, which otherwise it would not have the benefit of. Further, if considerable time has elapsed since the trial stage at which this exercise was undertaken, the appellate court should direct that a fresh attempt be made, to take into account the contemporaneous progress, if any, made by the convict. Wherever the prosecution is of the opinion that the crime an accused is convicted for, is so grave that death sentence is warranted, it should carry out the exercise of placing the materials, in terms of Manoj’s case. In case this results in imposition of death sentence, at the stage of confirmation, the High Court would have the benefit of independent evaluation of these materials. On the other hand, if death sentence is not imposed, then, the High Court may still be in a position to evaluate, if the sentence is adequate, and wherever appropriate and just, impose a special or fixed term sentence, in the course of an appeal by the State or by the complainant/informant. Given the imperative need for such material to form a part of the court’s consideration, it has to be emphasized that in case the trial court has failed to carry out such exercise (for whatever reason), the High Court has to call for such material while considering an appeal filed by the State or complainant for enhancement of sentence (whether resulting in imposition of capital punishment, or a term sentence). [Paras 21, 22][768-CH; 769-A-B]

1.5. There was limited material regarding the mitigating circumstances of the appellants; existing jail reports and probation officer reports, were also outdated. So, this court directed the preparation and submission of three reports, to facilitate fairer consideration of the question of sentence. These were: a report of the probation officer, report on nature of work done while in jail (by the jail administration), and a psychological and psychiatric evaluation report (by Director of VIMHANS); these are on record, and form part of this court’s consideration, to ascertain the individualised sentences appropriate in the present case. The Counsel placed on record, written submissions outlining the mitigating factors and justification for a modification, on the question of sentence. [Para 24][769-E-F; 770-A-B]

1.6. The sole motive for this crime seems to have been greed. Undoubtedly, there was premeditation in the commission of the crime. These are the aggravating circumstances. [Para 27][771-D-E]

1.7. Both the appellants in the instant case, share some commonalities: they were of young age at the time of offence, hail from educated backgrounds, and they continue to enjoy the love and affection of their families, each of which have a good standing and strong ties within the communities they live in. While the material relating to their lives and social conditions pre-conviction do not offer an explanation as to the cause for commission of offence, it can certainly be said that the material available regarding their conduct post-conviction, remains encouraging. They have applied themselves during the time of incarceration and used their time to contribute meaningfull-for which they have each received commendations. Their psychological and psychiatric evaluations were concluded to be normal, without cause for concern. A strong case is made out in support of the appellants’ probability of reform (as already evidenced by their jail conduct), and reintegration into society. The State, too, has not indicated any material to the contrary, regarding this aspect. [Para 28][771-E-H]

1.8. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to modify the sentence awarded to both appellants to a minimum term of 20 years actual imprisonment. [Para 29][771-H; 772-A]

Amit v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 8 SCC 93 : [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 285; Laxman Naskar v. West Bengal (2000) 7 SCC 626 : [2000] Supp. 3 SCR 62; Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460 : [2018] 14 SCR 585; Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767 : [2008] 11 SCR 93; Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498 : [2009] 9 SCR 90; State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216 : [2010]

3 SCR 716; Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 3 SCC

685 : [2011] 4 SCR 585; Birju v. State of MP (2014) 3 SCC 421 : [2014] 1 SCR 1047; Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 546 : [2013] 6 SCR 949; Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 4 SCC 69 : [2014] 3 SCR 34; Raju Jagdish Paswan v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 16 SCC 380; Satish @ Sabbe v. State of UP 2020 SCC OnLine SC 791; Mohd Firoz v. State of MP (2022)

7 SCC 433; Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 11 SCC 1; Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab (2021) 3 SCC 380; Bachan Singh v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 684 : [1983] 1 SCR 145; Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 : [1983] 3 SCR 413; Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra [1961] 3 SCR 440; Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab (1979) 3 SCC 745 : [1979] 3 SCR 1059; Subash

Chander v. Krishan Lal (2001) 4 SCC 458 : [2001] 2 SCR 864; Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 6 SCC 296 : [2001] 3 SCR 656; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh (1976) 3 SCC 470 : [1976] Supp. 1 SCR 552; Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 353: [2022] 9 SCR 452; Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 12 SCC 438 : [2018] 14 SCR 355 – referred to.