Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy versus State of Karnataka

Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy  versus State of Karnataka 

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 942 OF 2023

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017)

Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy             …Appellant

versus

State of Karnataka    ...Respondent

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.  

FACTUAL ASPECTS

2. The   appellant   has   been   convicted   for   the   offences

punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 302 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).  The controversy is limited

to the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of

the   IPC.   The   learned   Sessions   Judge   (Fast­Track   Court)

sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

the rest of his life.   The appellant preferred an appeal before

1

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

the High Court to challenge the conviction and sentence.  The

State Government preferred an appeal for enhancement of the

sentence.     The   High   Court,   by   the   impugned   judgment,

dismissed both appeals.  On 21st April 2017, notice was issued

by this Court only on sentence.

SUBMISSIONS

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant­accused

submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Constitution

Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of  Union   of   India   v.   V.

Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors.1

, a modified sentence can be

imposed  only   by  the  Constitutional  Courts   and  not   by  the

Sessions Courts.  He submitted that the Constitutional Courts

can grant life sentence either for the entirety of life or for a

specific   period,   only   while   commuting   the   death   penalty

imposed on an accused.  If the death penalty is not imposed,

the Courts are powerless to impose a modified sentence.   He

also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Swamy

Shraddananda  (2)  alias  Murali  Manohar  Mishra v.  State

of Karnataka2

.  He invited our attention to paragraph 105 of

the   decision   of   the   Constitution   Bench   in   the   case   of  V.

1  2016 (7) SCC 1

2  2008 (13) SCC 767

2

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

Sriharan1

, wherein this Court has laid down that a modified

sentence can be an alternative only to the death penalty.  He,

therefore, submitted that the Constitution Bench held that a

fixed­term sentence or modified sentence can be imposed by

way of substitution for the death penalty.  

4. He submitted that even the subsequent decisions of this

Court show that imposition of a modified sentence was made

only in the cases where the death penalty has been commuted.

He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sahib

Hussain alias Sahib Jan v. State of Rajasthan3 and in the

case of Gurvail Singh alias Gala v. State of Punjab4

.

5. On   facts,   he   pointed   out   that   at   the   time   of   the

commission of the offence, the appellant’s age was 22 years.

He pointed out that the appellant has a young wife, a small

child and aged parents.   Moreover, he has no antecedents and

poses no threat to society.  Moreover, his conduct in jail is all

throughout  satisfactory and in  fact, he has  completed B.A.

degree course while in jail.   Lastly, he pointed out that the

3  2013 (9) SCC 778

4  2013 (10) SCC 631

3

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

appellant has undergone sentence for approximately seventeen

years and two months.

6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent – State is that the Constitutional Courts are not

powerless to impose modified sentences considering the gravity

of the offence, the conduct of the accused and other relevant

factors even though the death penalty has not been imposed.

He submitted that the power of the Constitutional Courts to

grant   a   modified   sentence   could   not   be   circumscribed   by

holding that the said power can be exercised only when the

question is of commuting the death sentence.  By pointing out

findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, he submitted

that in the facts of this case, the most stringent punishment

was contemplated.   He submitted that in any case, the High

Court, after considering all the factual aspects, has reiterated

the view taken by the Sessions Court by imposing a sentence

for the entirety of the appellant’s life.

OUR VIEW

7. Under Chapter III of the IPC, different punishments have

been   provided.     Section   53   provides   for   five   categories   of

punishments:   the   death   penalty,   imprisonment   for   life,

4

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

imprisonment (either rigorous or simple), forfeiture of property

and fine.  It is also a settled position that when an offender is

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, the incarceration

can continue till the end of the life of the accused.  However, it

is subject to a grant of remission under the provisions of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) and the

Constitutional powers vested in the Hon’ble Governor and the

Hon’ble President of India, as the case may be.  While imposing

a life sentence, if it is directed that the accused shall not be

released   for   a   specific   period,   it   becomes   a   modified

punishment.   In such a case, before the expiry of the fixed

period provided, the power to grant remission under Cr.P.C.

cannot be exercised.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied

upon what is held in paragraph 56 of the decision of this Court

in the case of Swamy Shraddananda2

, which reads thus:

“56. But  this leads to  a  more important

question   about   the   punishment

commensurate   to   the   appellant's   crime.

The sentence of imprisonment for a term of

14 years, that goes under the euphemism

of life imprisonment is equally, if not more,

unacceptable.   As   a   matter   of   fact,   Mr.

Hegde informed us that the appellant was

taken   in   custody   on   28­3­1994   and

5

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

submitted that by virtue of the provisions

relating to remission, the sentence of life

imprisonment, without any qualification or

further direction would, in all likelihood,

lead  to   his   release   from   jail   in  the   first

quarter   of   2009   since   he   has   already

completed   more   than   14   years   of

incarceration.   This   eventuality   is   simply

not acceptable to this Court. What then is

the answer? The answer lies in breaking

this   standardisation   that,   in   practice,

renders the sentence of life imprisonment

equal to imprisonment for a period of no

more than 14 years; in making it clear that

the   sentence   of   life   imprisonment when

awarded   as   a   substitute   for   death

penalty would   be   carried   out   strictly   as

directed   by   the   Court.  This   Court,

therefore,   must   lay   down   a   good   and

sound   legal   basis   for   putting   the

punishment   of   imprisonment   for   life,

awarded as substitute for death penalty,

beyond any remission and to be carried

out as  directed  by  the Court  so  that  it

may be followed, in appropriate cases as

a uniform policy not only by this Court

but  also  by  the  High  Courts,  being  the

superior   courts   in   their   respective

States.  A   suggestion   to   this   effect   was

made by this Court nearly thirty years ago

in Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab [(1979) 3

SCC 745 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 848] . In para 14

of   the   judgment   this   Court   held   and

observed as follows: (SCC p. 753)

“14. The sentences of death in the

present   appeal   are   liable   to   be

reduced   to   life   imprisonment.   We

may   add   a   footnote   to   the   ruling

in Rajendra   Prasad   case [Rajendra

Prasad v. State   of   U.P.,   (1979)   3

SCC 646 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 749] .

6

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

Taking   the   cue   from   the   English

legislation   on   abolition,   we   may

suggest   that   life   imprisonment

which strictly means imprisonment

for the whole of the men's life but in

practice   amounts   to   incarceration

for   a   period   between   10   and   14

years   may, at   the   option   of   the

convicting   court,   be   subject   to   the

condition   that   the   sentence   of

imprisonment shall last as long as

life   lasts,   where   there   are

exceptional indications of murderous

recidivism   and   the   community

cannot   run   the   risk   of   the   convict

being   at   large. This  takes care of

judicial apprehensions that unless

physically   liquidated   the   culprit

may   at   some   remote   time   repeat

murder.”

We think that it is time that the course

suggested   in Dalbir   Singh [(1979)   3   SCC

745 :1979 SCC (Cri) 848] should receive a

formal recognition by the Court.”

                 (emphasis added)

9. In the case of V. Sriharan1

, the Constitution Bench was

dealing with the question which is quoted in paragraph 50,

which reads thus:

“50. Having   thus   noted   the   relevant

provisions in the Constitution, the Penal

Code,   the   Criminal   Procedure   Code   and

the DSPE Act, we wish to deal with the

questions referred for our consideration in

seriatim. The first question framed for the

consideration   of   the   Constitution   Bench

reads as under : (V. Sriharan case [Union of

7

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

India v. V.   Sriharan,   (2014)   11   SCC   1   :

(2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 1] , SCC p. 19, para 52)

“52.1. Whether imprisonment for life in

terms of Section 53 read with Section 45

of the Penal Code meant imprisonment

for rest of the life of the prisoner or a

convict undergoing life imprisonment has

a right to claim remission and whether

as per the principles enunciated in paras

91   to   93   of   Swamy   Shraddananda

(2) [Swamy   Shraddananda   (2) v. State

of   Karnataka,   (2008)   13   SCC   767   :

(2009)   3   SCC   (Cri)   113], a   special

category of sentence may be made for

the   very   few   cases   where   the   death

penalty   might   be   substituted   by   the

punishment of imprisonment for life or

imprisonment   for   a   term   in   excess   of

fourteen years and to put that category

beyond application of remission?”

10. While   answering   the   question,   the   Constitution   Bench

(majority   view)   held   that   imprisonment   for   life   in   terms   of

Section   53   read   with   Section   45   of   the   IPC   means

imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict.  In such a

case, right to claim remission, commutation etc. in accordance

with law will always be available.   Thereafter, in paragraph

105, the Constitution Bench held thus:

“105. We,   therefore,   reiterate   that   the

power  derived   from  the  Penal  Code   for

any   modified   punishment   within   the

punishment   provided   for   in   the   Penal

Code   for   such   specified   offences   can

8

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

only be exercised by the High Court and

in   the   event  of   further   appeal  only   by

the Supreme Court and not by any other

court   in   this   country.  To   put   it

differently, the power to impose a modified

punishment providing for any specific term

of   incarceration   or   till   the   end   of   the

convict's   life   as   an   alternate   to   death

penalty, can be exercised only by the High

Court and the Supreme Court and not by

any other inferior court.”

                      (emphasis added)

11. What   is   held   by   the   Constitution   Bench,   cannot   be

construed in a narrow perspective.   The Constitution Bench

has held that there is a power which can be derived from the

IPC to impose a fixed term sentence or modified punishment

which can only be exercised by the High Court or in the event

of any further appeal, by the Supreme Court and not by any

other   Court   in   this   country.     In   addition,   the   Constitution

Bench held that power to impose a modified punishment of

providing any specific term of incarceration or till the end of

convict’s   life   as   an   alternative   to   death   penalty,   can   be

exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court and

not by any other inferior Court. 

12. In a given case, while passing an order of conviction for

an offence which is punishable with death penalty, the Trial

9

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

Court may come to a conclusion that the case is not a ‘rarest of

the   rare’   case.     In   such   a   situation,   depending   upon   the

punishment   prescribed   for   the   offence   committed,  the  Trial

Court can impose other punishment specifically provided in

Section 53 of the IPC.  However, when a Constitutional Court

finds that though a case is not falling in the category of ‘rarest

of the rare’ case, considering the gravity and nature of the

offence and all other relevant factors, it can always impose a

fixed­term sentence so that the benefit of statutory remission,

etc. is not available to the accused.  The majority view in the

case of V. Sriharan1 cannot be construed to mean that such a

power cannot be exercised by the Constitutional Courts unless

the   question   is   of   commuting   the   death   sentence.     This

conclusion is well supported by what the Constitution Bench

held in paragraph 104 of its decision, which reads thus:

“104. That apart, in most of such cases

where death penalty or life imprisonment

is   the   punishment   imposed   by   the   trial

court and confirmed by the Division Bench

of the High Court, the convict concerned

will get an opportunity to get such verdict

tested by filing further appeal by way of

special   leave   to   this   Court.   By   way   of

abundant   caution   and   as   per   the

prescribed   law   of   the   Code   and   the

criminal   jurisprudence,   we   can   assert

10

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

that  after  the   initial   finding  of  guilt  of

such   specified   grave   offences   and   the

imposition   of   penalty   either   death   or

life   imprisonment,   when   comes   under

the   scrutiny   of   the   Division   Bench   of

the High Court, it is only the High Court

which   derives   the   power   under   the

Penal Code, which prescribes the capital

and   alternate  punishment,   to   alter   the

said punishment with one either for the

entirety  of  the  convict's   life  or  for  any

specific  period  of  more   than  14  years,

say 20, 30 or so on depending upon the

gravity of the crime committed and the

exercise of judicial conscience befitting

such offence found proved to have been

committed.”

                  (emphasis added)

13. Hence, we have no manner of doubt that even in a case

where capital punishment is not imposed or is not proposed,

the Constitutional Courts can always exercise the power of

imposing a modified or fixed­term sentence by directing that a

life sentence, as contemplated by “secondly” in Section 53 of

the IPC, shall be of a fixed period of more than fourteen years,

for example, of twenty years, thirty years and so on. The fixed

punishment cannot be for a period less than 14 years in view

of the mandate of Section 433A of Cr.P.C.

11

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

14. Now, we come to the facts of the case.  The facts are such,

which will shock the conscience of any Court.  The deceased

woman,   who   was   happily   married,   worked   in   a   prominent

company   having   an   office   at   Electronic   City,   Bengaluru.

Considering the nature of her duty, she had to work till late

night or even till early in the morning.  The company used to

provide her conveyance in the form of a car.   The company

used   to   provide   cars   to   employees   on   different   designated

routes.   On the fateful day, the deceased left the office at 2:00

a.m. in a vehicle provided by the company.   She used to take a

vehicle plying on route no.131.   On that day, she was informed

by the appellant, who was the driver, that the vehicle operating

on route no.131 was not available.  The appellant told her that

she will have to travel by his vehicle operating on route no.405.

The   deceased,   accordingly,   sat   in   the   car   driven   by   the

accused.     The   maternal   uncle   of   the   deceased   lodged   a

complaint   by   stating   that   the   deceased   was   missing.

Ultimately, her dead body was recovered at the instance of the

appellant.  The clothes on the person of the deceased, footwear,

etc.   were   found   near   the   dead   body.     The   prosecution

successfully   established   the   charge   of   the   offence   of   rape,

12

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

punishable under Section 376 of the IPC as well as the offence

under Section 366 of IPC.   The appellant–accused was also

convicted for the offence under Section 302.   The life of the

victim was cut short in this brutal manner at the age of 28

years.

15. In many leading cities, IT hubs have been established.  In

fact, Bengaluru is known as the Silicon Valley of India.  Some

of these companies have customers abroad and that is why the

company staff members work at night.  A large number of staff

members in such companies are women.  The issue is of safety

and security of women working with such companies.  We have

perused the judgment of the Trial Court.   It is true that the

Trial Court could not have directed that the appellant shall not

be released till the rest of his life.  The Trial Court noted the

fact that on the date of conviction, the age of the appellant was

27 years and he had a wife and small child as well as aged

parents.  Considering these factors along with the fact that this

was  the   first  offence  committed  by  the  appellant,  the  Trial

Court found that the case was not falling in the category of the

‘rarest of the rare’ cases.  We must hasten to add that the fact

that the accused has no antecedents, is no consideration by

13

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

itself for deciding whether the accused will fall in the category

of the ‘rarest of the rare’ cases.   It all depends on several

factors.   The State Government failed in its endeavour to get

capital punishment by way of filing an appeal.

16. This   is   one   case   where   a   Constitutional   Court   must

exercise the power of imposing a special category of modified

punishment.     The   High   Court   expressed   the   view   that   the

punishment   imposed   by   the   Trial   Court   was   justified   after

considering the balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating

circumstances.   It is the duty of the Court to consider all

attending circumstances.   The Court, while considering the

possibility   of   reformation   of   the   accused,   must   note   that

showing undue leniency in such a brutal case will adversely

affect the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system.

The Court must consider the rights of the victim as well.  After

having considered these circumstances, we are of the opinion

that this is a case where a fixed­term sentence for a period of

thirty years must be imposed.

14

Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017

17. Accordingly, we modify the order of sentence of the Trial

Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

We direct that the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for

life.   We also direct that the appellant shall be released only

after he completes thirty years of actual sentence.  The appeal

is partly allowed to the above extent. 

.…………………J.

             (Abhay S. Oka)

..…………………J.

          (Rajesh Bindal)

New Delhi;

March 28, 2023. 

15