Supreme Court: In an appeal seeking to assail the life sentence on the appellants (‘accused persons’), the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, JJ., upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused persons. However, the Court observed that that it did not condone the action of Accused 4, a 20-year-old woman (‘accused woman’) as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life, her fiancé. The Court stated that the accused persons were not born as criminals, but it was an error of judgment through a dangerous adventure which led to the commission of a heinous crime. Thus, the Court facilitated the accused persons’ right to seek pardon by permitting them to file appropriate petitions before Governor of Karnataka.
Background
The present case revolved around the conviction for four accused persons for the murder of the deceased man, who was a 26 year old software engineer at the time of his death.
During October 2003, considering the long-standing cordial relations between the families of accused woman and the deceased, the accused woman’s parents extended a proposal for her marriage with the deceased. Both the families consented to the said proposal and fixed the date of the engagement ceremony as 30-11-2003.
Two days after the engagement ceremony, the accused woman and the deceased went for a dinner and while returning for home, they stopped at the “Air View Point” to watch the landing of aeroplanes. At that time, the deceased received fatal injuries on his head by an unknown assailant, who fled after inflicting the injuries, using a steel rod. Subsequently, accused woman with the help of passers-by, admitted him in the Hospital and on the next day, 4-12-2003, the deceased passed away.
The FIR was registered against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Subsequently, after investigation, four accused, including the accused woman was arrested and charges were framed by the Trial Court against all the accused persons.
On 13-7-2010, the Trial Court convicted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. Subsequently, an appeal was filed before the Karnataka High Court, whereby the life imprisonment imposed upon the accused persons was confirmed and the conviction was modified to the one under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that a forced marriage of a young woman, divorcing her from her professional ambitions, would certainly warrant a reaction. Such reactions would vary from one woman to another, depending upon the circumstances. In some cases, she might internalize these pressures, while in others, she might resist through quiet despair, emotional withdrawal, or even clandestine acts of defiance.
The Court observed that in the present case, the voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind. This, backed by an unholy alliance of a mental rebellion and wild romanticism, led to the tragic murder of an innocent young man, while simultaneously destroying the lives of three others.
i. Eye-Witness Testimonies
The Court noted that two witnesses claimed to have been present at the place of occurrence. However, more closely the testimonies of these witnesses were scrutinized, the less reliance could be placed on them, due to their unnatural conduct and the material discrepancies in their testimonies. Thus, the Court stated their presence at the place of occurrence was highly doubtful and could not be relied upon.
ii. Motive
The Court relied on the testimony of the accused woman’s friend from Pre-University College. As per the testimony, it was observed that the accused woman and Accused 1, who was the student in the same college where the accused woman studied, were close to each other. Though the extent of the relationship was not known, but it was sufficient to show that accused woman was disinclined towards her marriage with the deceased and Accused 1 was a close confidant of hers.
Thus, the Court relied on this testimony to demonstrate that the accused woman was unwilling to marry the deceased, and to show the close relationship between Accused 1 and the accused woman.
iii. Call Detail Records (‘CDR’)
The Court stated that while CDR data might not be construed as a substantive piece of evidence, it could be used for appropriate corroboration. The Court noted that the CDR showed the extensive communications exchanged between the accused persons before the incident, on the day of the incident and after the incident.
The Court stated that the communications between the accused persons were too many, having a distinct pattern, following one after the other and even during odd hours of the night. The sudden rise in communications on the date of the incident and even a day prior to it, followed by a sudden drop in the communications on the very night of the unfortunate incident and days thereafter, consistently pointed only towards the guilt of the accused and served as proof of the conspiracy that was hatched to murder the deceased.
iv. Conduct of accused woman
The Court observed that the conduct of the accused woman was strange, as she was continuously in touch with Accused 1 daily, even after her engagement. Further, her conduct was also unnatural on the day of the incident, as she was constantly communicating with Accused 1, when she had gone for dinner with her then fiancé, the deceased. Further, she also caused destruction of evidence, as all the messages in her phone, especially the ones exchanged on the day of the incident, were deleted.
Therefore, the Court upheld the conviction and sentence rendered in the impugned judgment.
Further, the Court stated that it did not condone the accused woman action as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life of a young man. The accused persons who committed the offence with adrenaline pumping in their veins, have now reached the middle age. The accused persons were not born as criminals, but it was an error of judgment through a dangerous adventure which led to the commission of a heinous crime. It was difficult for us to decide at this stage who influenced the other, although there was a clear meeting of minds. Thus, the Court facilitated the accused persons’ right to seek pardon by permitting them to file appropriate petitions before Governor of Karnataka.
Consequently, the Court granted grant eight weeks’ time, for the accused persons to file petitions to invoke the power of pardon under Article 161 of Constitution, and till these petitions were duly considered and decided, they should not be arrested, and their sentence should remain suspended.
[Shubha v. State of Karnataka, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1426, decided on 14-7-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice M.M. Sundresh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: R Nedumaran, Sr. Adv., Y Arunagiri, Adv., Shreyas Kaushal, Adv., M Sathishkumar, Adv., P. Soma Sundaram, AOR, T. V. Ratnam, AOR , Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR, Nirnimesh Dube, Adv., Shreeyash Lalit, Adv., Sonia Dube, Adv., Lavam Tyagi, Adv., Himanshu Vats, Adv., Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Jayant K. Sud, Sr. Adv., S. K. Kulkarni, Adv., M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv., Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR, Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv., Debdeep Banerjee, Adv., Kartik Jasra, Adv., Prannit Stefano, Adv., Shayal Anand, Adv.
For the Respondent: Tomy Sebastian, Sr. Adv.; Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv.; S.j. Amith, Adv.; Punith B, Adv.; Alwyn Sebastian, Adv; Dr. Vipin Gupta, AOR; Aishwarya Kumar, Adv.; Muhammed Ali Khan, A.A.G.; V. N. Raghupathy, AOR; Omar Hoda, Adv.; Eesha Bakshi, Adv.; Kamran Khan, Adv.; Arjun Sharma, Adv.; Jayanti Singh, Adv.; Gurbani Bhatia, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Sec 6 (5) HSA if registered partition deed is between only father and sons before 20/12/2004 excluding daughters isn’t it injustice caused to those daughters.