During arguments on the point of sentence, the prosecution sought capital punishment for Sharma and Pradeep while the defence opposed the notion that the murder was in any way “uncommon” or that it had shaken “the conscience of society”.

In the 13-page sentence order, ASJ Shastri accepted the defence plea and held that Shivani’s murder was an “abominable and heinous crime” but did not shock society’s conscience.

“I am not in consonance with the prosecutor labelling Sharma as a danger to society,” said the judge after discussing a catena of Supreme Court judgments that have laid the guidelines for sentencing a convict to death.

While deciding the quantum of sentence, the court termed 54-year-oldSharma’s distinguished services to the country as a “cogitating” factor and said: “Except for the crime in question, he is an asset to this nation.”

Also discussing the theories and implications of sending a person behind bars, the ASJ observed that while it remained the legislative discretion to frame laws regarding appropriate punishment in such cases, the court had no option but to award at least the minimum punishment prescribed by law.

Describing Pradeep, the hired killer, as a “distracted youth,” the court refused to award him the maximum punishment and said that his antecedents and circumstances did not warrant the death penalty. When he was asked by a court staff to deposit the fine amount, Sharma said: “I am not allowed to keep cash with me... I am a beggar. For the last five-and-half years, I have been like a beggar.” Taken aback, the court staffer said it was okay.