STATE OF DELHI Vs. SIDHARTHA VASHISHT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide our judgment dated 18th December, 2006 in Crl.A.193/2006, we had held respondents Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma guilty for an offence under Section 302 IPC, Section 201/120-B IPC and under Section 27 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 court today 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 which was in the heat of passion. It was not premeditated nor committed in a brutal manner. It is also argued that the convict is not a habitual criminal or incorrigible and that it cannot be said that he cannot be reformed. Counsel submits that law does not envisage vengeance but cares for reformation. He submits that the law would be satisfied if a sentence 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 multinational company 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 other offence and is a first offender and he is an educated man from a responsible family, married and has two school going children. He is also responsible for looking after his aged parents who are in advanced age. Counsel further submits that this court would be pleased to take into consideration the protracted trial that has caused grave anguish and mental torture and has burdened him with exceptional expenses, besides the fact that the convict has already spent 16 days in jail before he was granted bail during which time he has shown exemplary behaviour. He prays that he be dealt with under the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and/ or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 Vikas Yadav contends that Vikas Yadav is a young man of 28 years of age. He has just stepped into the threshold of life and deserves to be dealt with in a manner so as to rehabilitate him in society. The crime committed by him was not intentional nor was of a nature that could amount to an offence of great magnitude. He also submits that he is a qualified Engineer and an MBA. Counsel goes on to submit that this highly qualified man's career should not be brought to an end by imposing sentence that would ruin him. He also submits that the convict has undergone more than 2 ? years of incarceration in this case.