VIKAS CHAUDHARY versus THE STATE OF DELHI

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 748 · Decided: 21-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 18 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
   [2023] 4 S.C.R. 748
748
VIKAS CHAUDHARY
v.
THE STATE OF DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 2276 of 2022)
APRIL 21, 2023
[K. M. JOSEPH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Sentence/Sentencing:
Imposition of a fixed term sentence of 30 years, without
remission – Correctness of – Victim aged 18 years, kidnapped for
ransom and on the same day was killed by strangulation, and the
body was burnt, to eliminate evidence – Pursuant to the commission
of murder, the accused regularly made ransom calls to the family –
Trial court convicted all the accused persons u/ss. 302, 364A, 201,
r/w s. 120B – Appellants-A-1 and A-2 also convicted u/s. 411 with
A-1 additionally u/ss. 420, 468 and 471 and sentenced to life
imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life without any
parole, remission, or furlough before completing 30 years of
imprisonment – Upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: Power
to impose “special” or “fixed term sentences” is with this Court
and the High Court – 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
– On basis of the report of the probation officer, report on nature of
work done while in jail and a psychological and psychiatric
evaluation report strong case made out in support of the appellants’
probability of reform and reintegration into society – Thus, the
sentence awarded to both the appellants is modified to a minimum
term of 20 years actual imprisonment – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 120
B, 201, 302, 364 A, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.
433A.
Special or fixed term sentence – Imposition of, as an
alternative to death penalty in serious crimes – Held: Power to impose
special or fixed term sentence beyond the minimum sentence
specified in s. 433A CrPC reserved solely with High Courts and
Supreme Court as per decision in *Sriharan’s case – Code of
Criminal Procedure – s.433A.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
749
Procedure to be followed – Offences where death penalty
proposed by prosecution – Role of trial court and State – Held:
Trial court under obligation to balance aggravating and mitigating
circumstances – Whereas, State must produce material disclosing
psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused (collected
beforehand), and all objective materials whether favourable or
unfavourable, as it is in a position to collect this information and
facilitate the court in arriving at a just sentence.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
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
VIKAS CHAUDHARY v. THE STATE OF DELHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
750
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
to facilitate the court to carry out the exercise of balancing the
aggravating factors with the mitigating circumstances – the test
p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.