Life For Death

Vide our judgment dated 18th December, 2006 in Crl.A.193/2006, we had held respondents Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma guilty for an offence underSection 302 IPC, Section 201/120-B IPC and under Section2 7 of the Arms Act. We had also held respondents Amardeep Singh Gill and Vikas Yadav guilty for an offence under Section 201/120-B IPC. All three of them are present in courttoday in custody.

2. We have today heard the parties on the question of sentence. It is argued on behalf of Sidharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma that this was a murder whichwas in the heat of passion. It was not premeditated nor committed in a brutal manner. It is alsoargued that the convict is not a habitual criminal or incorrigible and that it cannot be said that he cannot be reformed. Counselsubmits that law does not envisage vengeance but cares for reformation. He submits that the law would be satisfied if asentence of imprisonment for life is inflicted upon this convict.

3. Counsel arguing on behalf of respondent No.3, Amardeep Singh Gill, submits that Amardeep Singh Gill is a responsible officer in a multinationalcompany serving as its General Manager. He submits that respondent No.3 is 41 years of age and has clean antecedents. He has not been involved in any otheroffence and is a first offender and he is an educated man from a responsiblefamily, married and has two school going children. He is also responsible forlooking after his aged parents who are in advanced age. Counsel further submitsthat this court would be pleased to take into consideration the protracted trialthat has caused grave anguish and mental torture and has burdened him withexceptional expenses, besides the fact that the convict has already spent 16days in jail before he was granted bail during which time he has shown exemplarybehaviour. He prays that he be dealt with under the provisions of Section 360Cr.P.C. and/ or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 Vikas Yadav contendsthat Vikas Yadav is a young man of 28 years of age. He has just stepped intothe threshold of life and deserves to be dealt with in a manner so as torehabilitate him in society. The crime committed by him was not intentional norwas of a nature that could amount to an offence of great magnitude. He alsosubmits that he is a qualified Engineer and an MBA. Counsel goes on to submitthat this highly qualified man's career should not be brought to an end byimposing sentence that would ruin him. He also submits that the convict hasundergone more than 2 ? years of incarceration in this case.

5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, Ms. Mukta Gupta,submits that the crime committed by Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma deserves noleniency. She submits that his crime has shocked the society and his actionsbelie any possibility of his getting reformed. She also submits that thisconvict has left no stone unturned to bury the criminal justice in this countryand should be dealt with in an exemplary manner.

6. She further contends that Amardeep Singh Gill as also Vikas Yadav knewthe nature of crime and went out of the way to remove evidence and shield theguilty. In their case also, counsel submits, that there is no sign of remorsewhich should entitle them to a lenient sentence.

7. We have heard counsel for the parties and very carefully examined thecase before us. We are of the view that though this case is one that hasshocked the confidence of the society in the criminal delivery system yet itcannot be said that there is material to suggest probability that the convictSidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma would continue to commit acts of violence thatwould constitute a threat to the society. There is also nothing on record tosuggest that there is no probability that the convict can be reformed orrehabilitated. The murder though intentional having been committed withoutpremeditation we feel justice would be satisfied if we award the sentence ofimprisonment for life to Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma. Consequently, wesentence Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma for life imprisonment together with afine of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the family of the victim, if recovered, and indefault of payment of fine he shall undergo further three years of imprisonment.We also sentence him to four years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and indefault three months imprisonment for the offence under Section 27 Arms Act. Wealso sentence him to imprisonment for four years together with a fine ofRs.2,000/- and in default three months of imprisonment under Section 201/120-BIPC.

8. As regards Vikas Yadav and Amardeep Singh Gill, we feel ends of justicewould be met if they are sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment eachand a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default three months of imprisonment underSection 201/120-B IPC.

9. We have consciously considered the case of Amardeep Singh Gill underSection 360 Cr.P.C. but find that knowing that a grave offence had beencommitted he continued to commit an act by which he intended to shield theguilty and remove the evidence. So, we do not think it expedient that thisconvict should be released on probation of good conduct. This prayer is, thus,rejected.

10. Substantive sentences of imprisonment in respect of Sidhartha Vashisht@ Manu Sharma shall run concurrently and all the three convicts would be givenbenefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

A copy of this order be given free of cost to all the three convicts.(R.S.SODHI)JUDGE(P.K.BHASIN)JUDGEDecember 20, 2006