(IPC) – Sections 302, 364A, 201, read with Section 120B – Kidnapping for ransom and murder – In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, and for the reasons, this court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to modify the sentence awarded to both appellants to a minimum term of 20 years actual imprisonment – Appeals partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

VIKAS CHAUDHARY — Appellant

Vs.

THE STATE OF DELHI — Respondent

( Before : K.M. Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. )

Criminal Appeal No(S). 2276 of 2022 with Criminal Appeal No(S). 2277 of 2022

Decided on : 21-04-2023

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302, 364A, 201, read with Section 120B – Kidnapping for ransom and murder – Conviction and sentence – Remission – Appellants kidnapped the deceased, an 18-year-old boy, and sought ransom in exchange – Appellants strangulated the kidnapped boy, burnt his body to eliminate evidence, and disposed of the body in a nala – Sole motive for this crime seems to have been greed. Undoubtedly, there was premeditation in the commission of the crime – Recently, this court, on three previous occasions, was faced with a similar situation – wherein the trial court had sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment for the remainder of their life, or without entitlement to remission for a fixed term (of not less than 20 years) – In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, and for the reasons, this court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to modify the sentence awarded to both appellants to a minimum term of 20 years actual imprisonment – Appeals partly allowed.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Advocate, Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Sunita Arora, Advocate, Ms. Monisha Handa, Advocate, Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Bedi, Advocate, Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Gopal Jha, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate, Mr. Shailendra P. Singh, Advocate and Mr. Rishabh Shivhase, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Cases Referred

• Amit v. State of Maharashtra, [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 285: (2003) 8 SCC 93
• Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra, [2014] 3 SCR 34: (2014) 4 SCC 69
• Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 11 SCC 1
• Bachan Singh v. Union of India, [1983] 1 SCR 145: (1980) 2 SCC 684
• Birju v. State of MP, [2014] 1 SCR 1047: (2014) 3 SCC 421
• Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2018] 14 SCR 355: (2019) 12 SCC 438
• Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, [1979] 3 SCR 1059: (1979) 3 SCC 745
• Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab, (2021) 3 SCC 380
• Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, [1961] 3 SCR 440
• Kishori Lal v. King Emperor, (1945) 58 LW 251
• Laxman Naskar v. West Bengal, [2000] Supp. 3 SCR 62: (2000) 7 SCC 626
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, [1983] 3 SCR 413: (1983) 3 SCC 470
• Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2022] 9 SCR 452: (2023) 2 SCC 353
• Maru Ram v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCR 1196
• Mohd Firoz v. State of MP, (2022) 7 SCC 433
• Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, [2018] 14 SCR 585: (2019) 12 SCC 460
• Raju Jagdish Paswan v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 16 SCC 380
• Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan, [2011] 4 SCR 585: (2011) 3 SCC 685
• Sangeet v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452
• Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, [2009] 9 SCR 90: (2009) 6 SCC 498
• Satish @ Sabbe v. State of UP, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 791
• Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, [2013] 6 SCR 949: (2013) 5 SCC 546
• Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan, [2001] 3 SCR 656: (2001) 6 SCC 296
• State of Haryana v. Jagdish, [2010] 3 SCR 716: (2010) 4 SCC 216
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh, [1976] Supp. 1 SCR 552: (1976) 3 SCC 470
• Subash Chander v. Krishan Lal, [2001] 2 SCR 864: (2001) 4 SCC 458
• Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, [2008] 11 SCR 93: (2008) 13 SCC 767
• Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan &Ors., [2015] 14 SCR 613: (2016) 7 SCC 1

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J. – The limited question on which this Court issued notice[1] was to consider the correctness of the sentence imposed on the accused/appellants. The appellants grievance is with the imposition of a fixed term sentence of 30 years, without remission, by the trial court, which was affirmed by the impugned judgment[2] passed by the Delhi High Court.

2. The facts of the case briefly are that the deceased (aged 18-20 years), had been kidnapped for ransom on 18.01.2003. On the same day itself, he was killed by strangulation, and the body was burnt, to eliminate evidence. The deceaseds father (complainant) filed a missing person report with the police on 18.01.2003 itself, after which he received six ransom calls (on 19.01.2003, 20.01.2003, 01.02.2003, 02.02.2003, 10.03.2003, 11.03.2003) from different people, seeking money in exchange for information about his sons whereabouts, and his safety. By tracking of call records, a link was established first with A-1, who disclosed involvement of A-2 and A-3. A gold chain belonging to the deceased, and a motorcycle on which the deceased was last seen, were recovered at the behest of A-1; the deceaseds wristwatch, and a black muffler used to strangle him, were recovered from A-2. A-1s disclosure also led to recovery of the car used to abduct, and in which the deceased had been strangulated. Evidence collected against them included voice samples to compare ransom call recordings, and identification by PW-7, PW-2, and others as to the deceased last being seen with them. On 09.05.2003, the three accused persons disclosed where the dead body had been dumped, but the same could not be recovered. Upon investigation, it was found that another police station, in which jurisdiction the nala fell, had recovered a half-burned dead body on 19.01.2003 itself (i.e., one day after abduction). This was identified by the father, to be that of the deceased. 41 prosecution witnesses were examined over the course of 11 years, and 8 defence witnesses.

3. The trial court[3] convicted the three accused persons for the commission of offence under Sections 302, 364A, 201, read with Section 120B IPC. A-1 and A-2 (present appellants) were also convicted under Section 411, with A-1 additionally being convicted for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life, and an additional condition was imposed on A-1 and A-2 – that they would not be entitled to any parole, remission, or furlough, before completing 30 years of imprisonment. They were also sentenced to each pay ^ 2,10,000 as fine, and ^ 4,00,000 as compensation to the victims family.

4. The High Court, by its common impugned judgment, on an appreciation of the facts at hand, acquitted A-3 Joginder @ Mintu of all charges; and acquitted the present appellants only for offence under Section 411, but affirmed their conviction for other offences, as well as the corresponding sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, A-1 and A-2 have approached this court, challenging both the conviction and sentence; this court issued notice on the limited question of sentence.

Appellants contentions

5. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants, placed strong emphasis on this courts decision in Union of India v. Sriharan @ Murugan &Ors., [2015] 14 SCR 613: (2016) 7 SCC 1 (hereafter Sriharan), which categorically held that it was outside the jurisdiction of the trial court, to provide a specific term punishment or till the end of ordinary life, as an alternative to the death penalty. It was urged that this aspect, however, was overlooked by the High Court – which was reason enough to set aside the erroneous decision.

6. It was urged that the High Court had, in its impugned judgment, while dismissing the appeal on conviction, also rejected the arguments made on sentencing, without proper consideration. Reliance was placed on Section 386(b)(ii) and (iii) of the CrPC to argue that adjudication and examination of the order on sentence was still necessary, even when order of conviction has been upheld or modified under Section 386(b)(i); the appellate court had to specifically hear the accused on the quantum and nature of sentence imposed. While doing so, it is imperative to call for the report by the Officer under the Probation of Offenders Act, and/or psychological assessment report, to adjudicate the same.

7. Ms. Arora submitted that weight had to be given to mitigating circumstances, to guide sentencing discretion; relevant factors being – age at which the offence was committed, likelihood of convict reforming in jail, etc. Reliance was placed on this courts decisions in Amit v. State of Maharashtra, [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 285: (2003) 8 SCC 93 [para 10] and Laxman Naskar v. West Bengal, [2000] Supp. 3 SCR 62: (2000) 7 SCC 626 [para 6]. Counsel submitted that there was strong evidence supporting good and normal social behaviour, reformation, and possibility of reintegration into society, as per the probation officers report, jail conduct report, and psychologists report – all of which were prepared in compliance of this courts orders. That the appellants had no criminal antecedents was also a factor in their favour. It was pointed out 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.

8. Counsel also relied on judgments of this court, which elaborated on sentencing policy in the case of imposing death penalty. In Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, [2018] 14 SCR 585: (2019) 12 SCC 460 [para 47] (hereafter Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik), a three-judge bench of this court emphasised the importance of determining whether the accused, notwithstanding their crime, can be reformed, rehabilitated, and reintegrated, and that the activity of obtaining this information is essential, and must be undertaken. It was argued that the mitigating circumstances, and report of the probation officer were neither considered by the trial court, nor High Court. Counsel stressed on the importance of the theory of reformation through punishment and submitted that the special category of sentence for serious crimes where death sentence 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 [para 94-95] (hereafter Swamy Shraddananda), and upheld in Sriharan), still requires consideration of these factors. Reliance was also placed on Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, [2009] 9 SCR 90: (2009) 6 SCC 498 [para 127-128] (hereafter Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar), State of Haryana v. Jagdish, [2010] 3 SCR 716: (2010) 4 SCC 216 [para 41, 44-46], Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan, [2011] 4 SCR 585: (2011) 3 SCC 685 [para 66, 69, 76], Birju v. State of MP, [2014] 1 SCR 1047: (2014) 3 SCC 421 [para 20], Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, [2013] 6 SCR 949: (2013) 5 SCC 546, Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra, [2014] 3 SCR 34: (2014) 4 SCC 69 [para 33] (hereafter Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph), Raju Jagdish Paswan v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 16 SCC 380 [para 20], Satish @ Sabbe v. State of UP, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 791 [para 13], and Mohd Firoz v. State of MP, (2022) 7 SCC 433 [para 60].

States contentions

9. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, learned counsel for the State, contended that the conviction based on concurrent findings, and sentence imposed was commensurate in the present case, which was a cold-blooded murder. It was submitted that the act of abduction committed in a clandestine manner and the thought process that guided the series of events, was executed with preplanning and premeditation. This was evidenced by the fact that the deceased was murdered on 19.01.2003, and the family was made to believe that their son was alive, and in view of which they regularly demanded ransom from the family. Reliance was placed on Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 11 SCC 1 [para 94, 98, 101, 102] for the submission that if a mere threat for the purpose of ransom or otherwise becomes reality, and the victim is done to death, then if the sessions court had passed a specified sentence which is upheld by the High Court, intervention by this court was unwarranted.

10. It was pointed out 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 – of kidnapping, murder, and finally, disposing of the body by burning and dumping the remains in a pond. These circumstances, it was argued, justified that this was a cold-blooded murder, which fell within the gravest of grave category of cases.

11. Counsel conceded that this court in Sriharan (supra) held 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; however, it was pointed out that this court had also denied in that judgment, the proposition that the court awarding punishment should merely impose the punishment of death or life imprisonment, as prescribed in the CrPC. Therefore, merely because the sessions court had exercised such power, did not vitiate the sentence altogether. Instead, it was contended that the fact that the High Court had affirmed the sentence, meant the spirit of the law laid down in Sriharan (supra) had been given effect to. Reliance was placed on Gauri Shankar v. State of Punjab, (2021) 3 SCC 380 wherein in view of the grotesque nature of the crime, this court had upheld the sessions court order on sentencing, which had been passed in excess of the scope of its powers.

12. Mr. Shroff also submitted that the VIMHANS report submitted pursuant to this courts directions, was a neutral report which 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. It does not necessarily support any prospect of rehabilitation or reformation.

Analysis and Reasoning

13. In Bachan Singh v. Union of India, [1983] 1 SCR 145: (1980) 2 SCC 684, this court upheld the imposition of capital sentence, subject to the caveat that it should be invoked in the rarest of rare cases. The court, in its later judgments sought to evolve a principled approach towards capital sentencing. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, [1983] 3 SCR 413: (1983) 3 SCC 470 this court, building upon the observations in Bachan Singh, observed that a balance sheet of “aggravating and mitigating circumstances” needs to be drawn where “mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised”. The court also laid down a broad two-pronged approach:

14. During the last two decades or so, however, the capital sentencing decisions adopted no symmetrical approach; this led to the court to lament, on more than one occasion, that the exercise of considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances (which Bachan Singh had highlighted) had become more of a formality. In Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar (supra), this court enunciated a two-step process to decide whether a convict deserved the death sentence: first, that the case belonged to the “rarest of rare” category, and second, that the option of life imprisonment would simply not suffice. The aggravating and mitigating circumstances – according to the first step, were to be identified and considered equally. The court, in the second step, was to consider whether the alternative of life imprisonment was unquestionably foreclosed as the sentencing aim of reformation was unattainable, for which the State was obliged to provide material. In Shankar Kisanrao Khade (supra) the court fashioned the crime; the criminal and the R&R test (rarest of rare test) which emphasized the need to look intensively into all factors. This court also highlighted that in many previous decisions, sentencing was resorted to without considering mitigating circumstances, and without any material on the possibility of reformation of the convict.

The decision in Sriharan

15. In Swamy Shraddananda (supra) this court had to decide the appropriate sentence to be imposed in a case, where two judges had differed on the issue of imposition of capital sentence. The court considered its previous Constitution Bench ruling in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, [1961] 3 SCR 440, observations in other judgments (such as Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, [1979] 3 SCR 1059: (1979) 3 SCC 745, Subash Chander v. Krishan Lal, [2001] 2 SCR 864: (2001) 4 SCC 458; Shri Bhagwan v. State of Rajasthan, [2001] 3 SCR 656: (2001) 6 SCC 296; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh, [1976] Supp. 1 SCR 552: (1976) 3 SCC 470 and other cases). The court had, in Swamy Shraddananda (supra), observed as follows [SCR, p. 143-144]:

16. 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. The majority decision, after considering the previous decisions, held that the ratio in Swamy Shraddananda (supra) was correct. Commenting on the decision in Swamy Shraddananda, the court held in Sriharan that [SCR, p. 701; and 710-711]:

17. It is thus clear that Sriharan (supra), 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”. This was seen as serving the following purposes:

18. It is hence clear that the trial courts, are foreclosed from imposing such a modified or specific term sentence, or life imprisonment for the remainder of the convicts 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 (supra) 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[4] 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).

19. This court, in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2022] 9 SCR 452: (2023) 2 SCC 353, considered the judgments reported as Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik (supra), Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh, [2018] 14 SCR 355: (2019) 12 SCC 438, Anil @ Anthony Arikaswamy Joseph (supra) and several other decisions, the Law Commissions reports, and held that [SCR, p. 573-576]:

20. 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 (supra), having regard to the decision in Bachan Singh (supra) and importantly, the fact that it is in a position to actually gather the materials. Its task is to present the facts- relating to the accused, which are favourable and unfavourable, for the court to impose a just sentence.

21. Since the judgment in Sriharan (supra) 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 (as elaborated in Manoj), 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[5].

22. In view of the above discussion, it is held that 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, for evaluation. 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 courts 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).

Sentence in the present case

23. Recently, this court, on three previous occasions, was faced with a similar situation – wherein the trial court had sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment for the remainder of their life[6], or without entitlement to remission for a fixed term (of not less than 20 years)[7]. This, in light of the judgment in Sriharan (supra) was clearly beyond the scope of jurisdiction that the trial court is empowered with. However, the High Courts in each of the three cases, had affirmed the conviction and sentence. In these cases, the offending part of the life imprisonment sentence (i.e., remainder of life, or fixed term without entitlement of remission) was either set aside, and life imprisonment simplicitor was imposed[8], or based on the facts and circumstances, modified to a term sentence[9].

24. During the course of hearing this matter, it was noticed that there was limited material regarding the mitigating circumstances of the appellants; existing jail reports and probation officer reports, were also outdated. So, on 05.08.2021, 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 courts consideration, to ascertain the individualised sentences appropriate in the present case. Counsel for the appellants have also placed on record, written submissions outlining the mitigating factors and justification for a modification, on the question of sentence.

25. The appellant Vikas Chaudhary, was merely 18-19 years old at the time of offence and is currently about 37-38 years old. As per the social investigation report (probation report), he comes from an educated, urban, middle-class family background; he has passed 10th standard, but his 12th standard was interrupted by the facts relating to this offence. He continues to undertake written work during his time in custody. He has undergone more than 17 years of actual sentence, during which he has demonstrated satisfactory conduct (as per jail reports dated 30.11.2017 and 18.11.2020). The report dated 08.09.2021, regarding work done in jail is positive and mentions that he has worked as Sahayak in the Langar, jail control room, and ward, during his incarceration period, for which he has received appreciation certificates. Barring three episodes of aggression which were prior to 2012, there is no other negative instance on the record. The VIMHANS report too, did not disclose any cause for concern. The latest probation report dated 06.09.2021 is encouraging; similar to the earlier report (dated 01.12.2017) given the to the trial court, the report mentions that the appellant had strong continuing relations with his parents and relatives. His parents have accepted him and remain worried about his future. The interviews with the neighbours of his family home, i.e., members of the community, were also positive. He has no other criminal antecedents. The report further suggests that the appellant has ample scope for reformation and reintegration into society, and that the appellant could look after his parents and lead a normal social life.

26. The appellant, Vikas Sidhu, who was in his early 20s at the time of offence, is currently 40-41 years old, and has undergone over 17 years of actual imprisonment. He is a graduate of Delhi University and was a medical representative at the time of the offence. His family consisted of five people; however, he has lost his father who was a government servant, and his younger brother, to illness. He too grew up in an urban, middle-class, educated family setting. He is married, and enjoys the affection of his mother, spouse, and elder sister. During his incarceration period, he worked as a volunteer teacher under the Padho aur Padhao, and at different times as a sahayak at the legal cell, jail control room, IGNOU study center, vocational training institute, bakery unit, jail dispensary; he also worked in the paper making unit of jail factory for a few months. In addition to having attended some vocational training and cultural programmes, he has received numerous appreciation certificates for work done in jail – especially most recently, for his efforts during the COVID-19 crisis. As per request made in the initial report received from VIMHANS, Vikas Sidhu underwent a more detailed psychometric evaluation – the results of which reflected no clinical signs or symptoms of psychopathology; there is no negative inference made in the report. He has no criminal antecedents and continues to enjoy a strong bond with his family members. In his case as well, the probation report suggested that there was sufficient scope for his reformation and reintegration into society, and that he showed promise in looking after his wife and aged mother.

27. This court is also cognizant of the nature of the crime that the appellants committed. They kidnapped the deceased, an 18-year-old boy, and sought ransom in exchange. The prosecution was able to prove that these appellants strangulated the kidnapped boy, burnt his body to eliminate evidence, and disposed of the body in a nala. 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.

28. Both appellants in the present 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 meaningfully – 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.

29. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, and for the above reasons, this court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to modify the sentence awarded to both appellants to a minimum term of 20 years actual imprisonment. The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms.