New Delhi: Relying on the psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the Institute of Human Behavior and Allied Sciences (IHBAS), as well as the conduct of the convict in prison and his educational background, the Delhi High Court awarded death sentence to a man for kidnapping and murder. has been changed. Minor in 2009.
In a judgment delivered last week, a bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal commuted the death sentence awarded to Jeevak Nagpal alias Vivak Nagpal alias Shanky to life imprisonment without any remission for 20 years. A Delhi trial court had in October 2020 sentenced him to death for the abduction and murder of 12-year-old boy Manan Mahajan.
The court noted that the prosecution had not produced any material to show that Nagpal was a menace to the society with no prospect of any reformation and had no option but to award him the harshest sentence of death.
It then relied on a landmark judgment delivered in May last year, when the Supreme Court issued guidelines and mandated psychological evaluation of convicted prisoners, along with other relevant additional information, including seeking reports on the prisoner’s conduct at the time of investigation. Gave. Is hanging the only appropriate punishment.
Relying on this decision, the court directed for psychiatric and psychological evaluation of Nagpal.
Accordingly, the IHBAS submitted a report to the court on May 23, which stated: “Based on the clinical history, sequential mental assessment, psychological testing and evaluation, clinical interview by the members of the medical board, it The opinion is that the patient does not have any mental disorder.
The high court also noted that when Nagpal was arrested, he was enrolled in a chartered accountancy course and had no previous criminal history. It stated that his jail conduct has also been satisfactory and he was working as a Assistant in the legal office.
The High Court then concluded that the case did not fall within the category of “rarest of rare”. Therefore, it was felt that a sentence of life imprisonment without any remission of 20 years would be appropriate, as this is “not a case where reformation of the appellant is not possible”.
IHBAS Report
On May 2, during the hearing of the appeal, the High Court had ordered the Superintendent of Tihar Jail to submit a report regarding Nagpal’s conduct in custody. The superintendent was also directed to get Nagpal’s mental and psychological evaluation done within a week and send the report to the court.
Court issued the order citing a Holocaust In April this year the Supreme Court passed. The apex court had said that when the prosecution seeks death penalty, it will also have to produce all the material disclosing the psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused.
“The prosecution is also mandated to place before the Sessions Court the material disclosing the psychiatric and psychological assessment of the accused, which should preferably be collected beforehand. At the stage when the trial court is informed that the prosecution intends to press for the death penalty, the assessment should be insisted upon; The apex court had said, “It is the duty of the State to produce all objective material”.
The decision was based on the May 2022 judgment of the Supreme Court, in which the court explained the importance of psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused. “This would help in establishing proximity (in terms of timeline) with the mental state (or mental illness, if any) of the accused person at the time of commission of the offense and guide on mitigating factors as stated in Bachan Singh.” The apex court had said.
“Even for the other factors in (3) and (4) – a responsibility placed entirely on the State – to conduct this form of psychological and psychiatric evaluation on the heels of the commission of the offense , will provide a baseline for the appellate courts to use for comparison, i.e., to evaluate the progress of the accused towards reformation during the period of incarceration.
Relying on the April 2023 judgment, the Delhi High Court also asked the state to submit a report regarding Nagpal’s age, family background, educational background, income and criminal antecedents.
On May 18, IHBAS informed the court that the evaluation would take two to three weeks. However, the High Court expedited the assessment.
On May 19, the court said that despite its order, it has not received the IHBAS report. The order said, “The appellant (Nagpal) was initially referred to IHBAS on May 9, 2023, thereafter dates of May 16 and 17 were fixed for appointment and the next date has been fixed today i.e. May 19, 2023 ”
The court then ordered the Medical Superintendent, Ihbas, to appear before the court at 2.15 pm on May 23 along with the psychological evaluation evaluation report of Nagpal. The court received the report on the same day,
Nagpal was represented in the High Court by advocates Bharat Dubey, Shubhalakshmi Dubey, Sonia Dubey and Tanya Kapoor.
‘Rare than rare’
The crime dates back to March 18, 2009, when the minor boy had gone to collect a stationery Shop But did not return home. Her father had received a text message demanding ransom on her mobile phone.
Delhi Police The court was told that Nagpal had taken the police to the crime scene and a dry drain in Rohini, where he had dumped the victim’s body. According to the prosecution, after Nagpal’s car broke down, he “strangled the victim and using the jack handle of his car inflicted injuries on the deceased so that he died”.
In his defence, Nagpal had said that he had been framed and denied all the allegations. He claimed that he was at his home throughout the day on March 18, when Mahajan was abducted.
The defense also alleged that a day after the victim was abducted, Nagpal was picked up and forcibly taken to the Special Cell’s office in Delhi. Nagpal told the court that he was then thrashed and asked to confess to the crime.
Nagpal’s lawyer had questioned his mother to prove illegal arrest and custodial violence. However, the court dismissed the plea saying that Nagpal was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate soon after his arrest and he had not raised any such plea then.
His lawyer had also said that his mother had made a complaint, on which a vigilance probe was conducted. However, that report could not be displayed as the records had been destroyed.
“Hence, the plea of late custodial violence cannot be entertained in the absence of any evidence,” the high court said.
It also referred to the ransom messages from the cell phone recovered from Nagpal and said, “These messages establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant abducted a 12-year-old child, son Rajesh Mahajan, and demanded ransom, failing which his son would be killed.”
However, the court felt that the nature of the offense did not merit a place in the “rarest of rare category”.
“Though causing someone’s death is a perversion in itself, the infliction of death by strangulation and by inflicting injury with a jack handle, although considered consistent with acute torture, is considered to be the diabolical or gravest act of killing for the purpose of shocking.” Perverted way cannot be considered in the collective consciousness of the society and it falls under the category of rarest of rare cases,” the court said.
It added that Nagpal was “in financial straits and needed money for which he had abducted the child”. It also claimed that Nagpal had no weapon and killed the victim only when his car broke down.
“Therefore, even though the crime of kidnapping for ransom was committed in a premeditated manner, it cannot be held that the murder of the victim was premeditated,” the court said.
(Editing by Richa Mishra)
Read also: The ‘murderer’s mother’ – not just the prisoners, their families too go on death row in India