In the case of Jeevak Nagpal @ Veevek Nagpal @ Shanky v. State According to the judgement wherein the appellant was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860, the Trial Court had submitted its order on sentence for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the appellant. In parallel, the appellant had also challenged the Trial Court’s said judgement. The dead had gone to a neighbouring stationery store, and when he didn’t come back, the deceased’s uncle reported him missing to the police, who logged the information. The deceased’s father was contacted by phone and informed that he had received a text message on his phone about his son being kidnapped and being demanded money. A rukka was created based on the complainant’s statement and the FIR required by Section 364-A of the IPC was filed. Technical monitoring of the phone number from which the text message was received allowed for the position of the mobile device to be determined, which allowed for the deployment of covert informants in the vicinity. The stated suspicious person was captured and subsequently arrested as a result of the covert informer’s alertness. The appellant took the police to the crime scene and to the dry drain where he had dumped the deceased’s body after killing it. Later, the appellant took the police to his home, where they found one silver Wagon-R parked on the street in front of it. The mobile crime team was summoned by the investigation officer, who discovered bloodstains on the seat cover next to the driver’s seat and one jack handle with blood on its sharp side when inspecting the vehicle. In addition, the appellant directed the responding officers to the stationary store where he had abducted the deceased. After the inquiry was complete, a charge sheet was prepared, and the appellant was accused of violating Sections 364-A, 302, 201, and 506 of the IPC.
Analysis of court order
According to Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal of the Delhi High Court’s Division Bench, the current case did not fit the definition of a “rarest of rare cases” and the appellant could not be prevented from reforming. This Court additionally said that a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for 20 years would be the proper punishment. As a result, this Court changed the appellant’s sentence to strict life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 20 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.
This Court noticed that the appellant’s father owed money to someone and that he owed money as well. The appellant was enrolled in the Chartered Accountant Programme, and neither he nor any of his family members had ever been convicted of a crime. A psychological evaluation of the appellant revealed no such condition or history. In light of this, the Court concluded that the current instance did not constitute one of the “rarest of rare cases” and therefore the appellant could not be reformatted. The court additionally stated that a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for 20 years would be the proper punishment. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, this Court modified the sentence of the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for life with no remission until 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The sentences imposed by the Trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 201, and 506 of the IPC were not modified and would remain the same.