New Delhi: Relying on a psychiatric and psychological evaluation by the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS), along with the convict’s conduct in jail and his educational background, the Delhi High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to a man for kidnapping and murdering a minor in 2009.
In a judgment delivered last week, a bench comprising Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal commuted the death sentence awarded to Jeevak Nagpal alias Veevak Nagpal alias Shanky to life imprisonment with no remission for 20 years. A trial court in Delhi had sentenced him to death in October 2020 for the kidnapping and murder of a 12-year-old boy, Manan Mahajan.
The court noted that the prosecution had not submitted any material to show that Nagpal was a menace to society with no possibility of any reform and that there was no option except to award him the extreme sentence of death.
It then relied on a landmark judgment passed in May last year, when the Supreme Court issued guidelines and made psychological evaluation of the condemned prisoner mandatory, along with other relevant additional information, including seeking a report on the inmate’s conduct, at the time of examining whether the gallows remains the only fitting punishment.
Relying on this judgment, the court directed Nagpal’s psychiatric and psychological evaluation.
Accordingly, IHBAS submitted a report to the court on 23 May, which said: “Based on clinical history, serial mental assessments, psychological testing and evaluation, clinical interview by medical board members, it is opined that the patient does not have any psychiatric disorder.”
The high court also noted that Nagpal was enrolled in a chartered accountancy course when he was arrested, and has no previous criminal history. It pointed out that his jail conduct has also been satisfactory and that he was working as a sahayak at the legal office.
The high court then concluded that the case did not fall in the category of “rarest of rare cases”. It, therefore, felt that a sentence of imprisonment for life with no remission till 20 years would be appropriate, since this “is not a case where reformation of the appellant is not possible”.
Also Read: Are courts awarding too many death sentences? 539 convicts on death row in 2022, highest in 17 yrs
The IHBAS report
During the hearing of the appeal on 2 May, the high court had ordered the superintendent of Tihar Jail to submit a report regarding Nagpal’s conduct while in custody. The superintendent was also directed to get Nagpal’s psychiatric and psychological evaluation done within a week and send a report to the court.
The court issued the orders citing a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in April this year. The apex court had held that the prosecution must also produce all the material disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused, when it seeks a capital sentence.
“The prosecution also is mandated to produce before the Sessions Court, material disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused, which is to preferably be collected beforehand. At the stage when the trial court is informed that the prosecution intends to press for imposition of capital sentence, the evaluation should be insisted upon; the state is under a duty to present all objective materials,” the top court had observed.
This judgment had relied on the SC’s May 2022 verdict, in which the court had explained the importance of psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused. “This will help establish proximity (in terms of timeline), to the accused person’s frame of mind (or mental illness, if any) at the time of committing the crime and offer guidance on mitigating factors…spelled out in Bachan Singh,” the apex court had said.
“Even for the other factors of (3) and (4) — an onus placed squarely on the state — conducting this form of psychiatric and psychological evaluation close on the heels of commission of the offence, will provide a baseline for the appellate courts to use for comparison, i.e., to evaluate the progress of the accused towards reformation, achieved during the incarceration period.”
Relying on the April 2023 judgment, the Delhi High Court also asked the state to submit a report with regard to age, family background, educational background, income and criminal antecedents of Nagpal.
On 18 May, IHBAS informed the court that the assessment will take two to three weeks. However, the high court expedited the assessment.
On 19 May, the court noted that, despite its order, it hadn’t received the IHBAS report. “The appellant (Nagpal) was initially sent to IHBAS on 9 May, 2023, thereafter the date fixed for appointment was 16 and 17 May and the next date has been fixed for today i.e. 19 May 2023,” the order said.
The court then ordered the medical superintendent, IHBAS, to be present along with Nagpal’s psychological assessment evaluation report before the court on 23 May at 2.15 pm. The court received the report the same day.
Nagpal was represented by advocates Bharat Dubey, Shubhlaxmi Dubey, Sonia Dubey and Tanya Kapoor in the high court.
Also Read: How a 15-yr-old spent 5 yrs on death row for rape-murder before being released by Supreme Court
‘Not rarest of rare’
The crime dates back to 18 March 2009, when the minor boy had gone to a stationery shop but did not return home. His father had then received a text message from on his mobile phone demanding a ransom.
The Delhi Police told the court that Nagpal had led the police to the scene of the crime and a dry drain in Rohini where he had disposed of the victim’s body. According to the prosecution, after Nagpal’s car broke down, he “smothered the victim and used the jack handle of his car to inflict injuries on the deceased so as to cause his death”.
In his defence, Nagpal had submitted that he had been framed and denied all allegations. He claimed that he was at his house through the day on 18 March, when Mahajan was kidnapped.
The defence also alleged that a day after the victim was kidnapped, Nagpal was picked up and forcibly taken to the office of Special Cell in Delhi. Nagpal told the court that he was then beaten and asked to confess to the crime.
Nagpal’s lawyer had examined his mother to prove illegal arrest and custodial violence. However, the court rejected this plea, noting that Nagpal was produced before the metropolitan magistrate soon after his arrest and that he had not raised any such plea back then.
His lawyer had also submitted that his mother had made a complaint, on which a vigilance inquiry was carried out. However, that report could not be exhibited because the records had been destroyed.
“Hence, the plea of custodial violence belatedly cannot be looked into in the absence of any evidence to support the same,” the high court said.
It also referred to the ransom messages from the cell phone recovered from Nagpal, and observed, “From these messages it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant kidnapped the 12-year-old child, S/o Rajesh Mahajan and demanded ransom, failing which his son would be killed.”
However, the court felt that the nature of the crime did not find place in the “rarest of the rare category”.
“Though causing death of someone in itself is perversity, however, causing death by smothering and inflicting injuries by jack handle though opined to be consistent with intense torture, cannot be held to be a diabolic or seriously perverse manner of committing murder so as to shock the collective conscience of the society and fall in the category of rarest of rare cases,” the court said.
It added that Nagpal was “in financial stringency and needed money for which he had kidnapped the child”. It also asserted that Nagpal was not armed and that he murdered the victim only when his car broke down.
“Hence, even though the offence of kidnapping for ransom was committed in a pre-planned manner, it cannot be held that the murder of the victim was committed in a pre-planned manner,” the court said.
(Edited by Richa Mishra)
Also Read: ‘Murderer’s mom’—Not just the prisoner, their family also goes on death row in India