In CRIM. APP. No.942 of 2023-SC- Even in case where capital punishment is not proposed, Constitutional Courts can impose modified or fixed term sentence: SC sentences rape, murder convict to 30 years in jail
Justices Abhay S. Oka & Rajesh Bindal [28-03-2023]

Read Judgment: Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy Vs. State Of Karnataka

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, April 1, 2023:  While highlighting the issue of safety and security of women working late at night with companies in Bengaluru, the Supreme Court has directed that the rape and murder accused will be released only after he completes thirty years of actual sentence.

“This is one case where a Constitutional Court must exercise the power of imposing a special category of modified punishment”, the Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal said.

The deceased woman, in this case, who was happily married, worked in a prominent company having an office at Electronic City, Bengaluru. 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 a particular route. 

On that day, she was informed by the appellant, who was the driver, that the vehicle operating on that route. The appellant told her that she will have to travel by his vehicle operating on another route. 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, 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.

The appellant-accused had approached the Apex Court challengign his conviction under Sections 366, 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The controversy was limited to the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The Sessions Judge (Fast-Track Court) sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the rest of his life. The appellant preferred an appeal before 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. 

The Bench reiterated 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 and the Constitutional powers vested in the Governor and the 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”, the Bench said.

After extensively discussing its judgment in Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors., the Top Court held, “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 fixed-term 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.”

The Bench was of the opinion 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 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”, the Bench said.

Emphasizing on the aspect that it is the duty of the Court to consider all attending circumstances, the Bench further held, “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.”

Thus, the Bench modified the order of sentence of the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and directed the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for life and shall be released only after he completes thirty years of actual sentence.