The State of Haryana v. Anand Kindo & Anr. Etc.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. The heinous and brutal crime was committed where the trusted
employees of an aged couple for the greed of money murdered them.
The brutality is reflected by the fact that the couple was sleeping, there
was no occasion to resist any force and yet using hammer and Ta va,
their faces were so disfigured that they were almost unrecognize d. No
doubt, the circumstantial evidence gave rise to the conviction but if the
circumstantial evidence was of such a nature that it practically leaves
no doubt, the natural consequence of conviction under Section 302, IPC
must follow.
2. It is not necessary for us to go beyond the aforesaid facts since
the accused have not filed any appeal before us against the concurre nt
findings of the trial Court and the High Court but the trial Court having
thought it fit to give death sentence, the High Court interfered with that
aspect of the matter by imposing life sentence. The appeals are preferred
by the State and by the complainant.
3. On the issue of sentence to be imposed, once the conviction is
under Section 302, IPC, the option is limited. It has to be death or life.
The third option is also available where at times the court looking to the
scenario does not impose the death sentence but gives conviction whereby
the accused has to serve at least for a fixed term. T his fixed term
THE STATE OF HARYANA v. ANAND KINDO & ANR. ETC.
conviction can only be by the High Court or this Court and not b y the
trial Court [Union of India vs. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1.]
4. We now turn to the reasons why the death sentence was
awarded by looking to the judgment of the trial Court dated 12.06.2008.
The two accused who were convicted (the wife of one the accus ed
charged under Section 201, IPC, was convicted by the trial Court but
the High Court overturned the conviction and one other accused who
remained untraced) intentionally killed Major General K ailash Chand
Dhingra (K.C. Dhingra) and his wife Smt. Sangeeta Dhingr a in a
gruesome and brutal manner. The victims never obstructed the robbery
but were actually sleeping when they were battered. The accused were
stated to have planned their action with precision and attacked the victims
simultaneously and the death was immediate as declared by the medical
officers who conducted the autopsy. The order of sentence discus ses
elaborately the aspect of imposition of an appropriate punishment in the
manner in which the Court’s response to the society’s cry for justice
against the criminals and yet balances this aspect with a ny mitigating
circumstance. The crime is understood in the context of not only the
individual victims but the society as a whole. In this behalf the Court
referred to the judgment in the case of Desraj vs. State of Punjab, (2007)
12 SCC 494 specifying special reasons for attracting death pena lty as:
manner of commission of murder, motive of murder, the abhorrent nature
of crime and magnitude of crime or even the personality of the victim.
The crime having been committed without any provocation, w ith the
sole greed for money and against two aged people, one of whom was a
decorated Major General of the Army, it was opined that the death
sentence would be the appropriate sentence and on the gruesom eness,
it was further opined that the faces were battered beyond rec ognition.
5. The High Court in its judgment on the aspect of sentence while
discussing the confirmation of death sentence has referred to the various
judicial pronouncements and the plea of the convicts that it wa s not a
rarest of the rare case. All that was opined is that it was not a fit case
under rarest of rare case in which the sentence should have been imposed
on the convicts. Thus life sentence was granted under Section 302, IPC.
6. We may also note another aggravating circumstance point ed
out by learned counsel for the complainant who had preferred an appeal.
He submits that after the conviction, the convicts endeavoured to escape
out of the prison by digging a tunnel on 18.10.2008 but were caught and
341
on trial were convicted by order dated 18.12.2013 under provisions of
Sections 224 and 120-B, IPC.
7. We must note the fair submission of the learned counsel for the
complainant who really did not press for restoration of the death sentence
but submitted that the brutality of the crime and the aforesaid aggravating
circumstances require this Court to exercise jurisdiction t o impose a
fixed term sentence before which the convicts are not lia ble to be
considered for grant of remission. His initial plea of co urse was that
‘life’ should mean ‘life’ in this Case but as an alternati ve plea, it was
submitted that there should be at least a fixed term sentence .
8. We have considered the rival submissions. Learned counsel
for the accused who has been engaged by the Supreme Court Lega l
services Committee seeks to strenuously contend that two accused were
aged 22 and 24 years at the time of commission of the crime and were
young people. They have already served fifteen years. They ha ve a
chance to be rehabilitated in the society. This Court should not interfere
with the aspect of sentence and the present crime should be treated as
one which receives the normal life sentence under Section 302, IPC.
9. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are in agreement
with the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant as well
as the State on the aspect of the brutality of the crime. T he aspects
which weighed with us are that it was a pre-planned murder f or 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 emolume nts. It is
nobody’s case that Anand Kindo was mal-treated or ill-treated by them
and was not looked after in the house. At an advanced stage in s uch
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 memb ers. 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 u tter element on
deterrence which is in any aspect of conviction. The approac h 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 pe rsons who
THE STATE OF HARYANA v. ANAND KINDO & ANR. ETC.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
may have the propensity to carry out the crime feel they will g et 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.
10. 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.
11. If we turn to the redeeming factors, the only redeeming factor
which we find is the age at which the accused committed the offence
but simultaneously to unleash such people back in the societ y has its
own ramifications.
12. On consideration of the matter, we consider appropriate to
impose a fixed term sentence of 30 years. Even at that age, the convicts
would be in their 50s and we hope and pray that they would have
learned their lesson and joined the society as responsible members at
that stage.
13. In Shankar Kishanrao khade vs. State of Mahrashtra
(2013) 5 SCC 546, it was held that if there is any circumstance favouring
the accused such as lack of intention to commit the crime, possibility of
reformation, young age of the accused, accused not being a menance to
the society, no previous criminal record etc., the accused m ay avoid
capital punishment. The Court opined that the crime is important but so
is the criminal and hence the Supreme Court in recent past has substituted
death penalty with fixed term sentences exceeding 1 4 years. 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.
14. The appeals are allowed to the limited extent, leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
Devika Gujral Appeals partly allowed.
(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)