Supreme Court imposes 30-year fixed term sentence in IT employee’s rape and murder case.
On March 28, 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy vs. State of Karnataka. The Court observed that even if a Trial Court may not find a case to be a “rarest of the rare” case and therefore not award the death penalty, a Constitutional Court may still impose a fixed-term sentence considering the gravity and nature of the offense and all other relevant factors. The Court held that the Constitutional Courts can impose a modified or fixed-term sentence even when capital punishment is not imposed or proposed, and that a life sentence can be of a fixed period of more than fourteen years, for example, of twenty years, thirty years, and so on.
The case concerned the appellant’s conviction for offenses punishable under Sections 366, 376, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the rest of his life, and both the appellant and the State Government appealed the sentence. The High Court dismissed both appeals, reiterating the view taken by the Sessions Court by imposing a sentence for the entirety of the appellant’s life.
The Supreme Court observed that Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code provides for five categories of punishment, including the death penalty, imprisonment for life, 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, subject to a grant of remission under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Constitutional powers vested in the Hon’ble Governor and the Hon’ble President of India.
The Court considered the brutal nature of the crime committed by the accused, who was convicted for the rape, kidnapping, and murder of a woman who worked at an IT company in Bengaluru. The Court found that a fixed-term sentence of thirty years must be imposed and modified the order of sentence of the Trial Court accordingly. The Court noted that showing undue leniency in such a brutal case will adversely affect the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system and that the rights of the victim must also be considered. The Court held that 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 alternative to the death penalty can be exercised only by the High Court and the Supreme Court and not by any other inferior court.
Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy vs. State of Karnataka.
