SC modifies Bengaluru court's order on life term to convict to rape cum murder of IT employee [Read Judgment]

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has declared that the power to impose a modified punishment of with any specific term of incarceration or till the end of convicts 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.

The top court on Tuesday sentenced a man to life imprisonment for committing rape and murder of a woman employee of an IT company, while driving her home on the fateful night in Bengaluru.

It ordered that he should not be released from jail until he served 30 years incarceration.

In its judgement on an appeal filed by convict- appellant Shiva Kumar alias Shiva alias Shivamurthy from Karnataka, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal also declared when a constitutional court finds that though a case is not falling in the category of rarest of the rare category, in view of gravity and nature of the offence and all other relevant factors, it can always impose a fixed-term sentence so that the benefit of statutory remission, etc is not available to the accused.  

In the appeal, the court issued notice to the state government on point of sentence only.

The convict questioned the validity of the trial court's order directing him to serve life sentence till remainder of his life, which was upheld by the High Court.

The bench said this is a case where a constitutional court must exercise the power of imposing a special category of modified punishment as it ordered that the appellant should be released only after he completed 30 years of actual sentence.  

"The life of the victim, a married woman and happily working in a prominent company, was cut short in this brutal manner at the age of 28 years," the bench noted.

The court, however, modified the trial court's judgement for the appellant to remain in jail till remainder of his life.

Referring to the facts of the case, Justice Oka, who authored the judgement, also raised concern over safety of women working in IT sectors.  

"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," the bench said.

In the arguments, the appellant's counsel relied upon the SC's judgements in 'Union of India vs V Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors' (Rajiv Gandhi case convicts) (2016) and 'Swamy Shraddananda (2) alias Murali Manohar Mishra vs State of Karnataka' (2008), to contend that a fixed term sentence or modified sentence can be imposed by constitutional courts in death penalty cases only.

It is to be noted that when an offender is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, the incarceration can continue till the end of his life. However, this is subject to a grant of remission under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the constitutional powers vested in the Governor and the President of India.  

The bench, while referring to the Sriharan case, explained 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 also held that power to impose a modified punishment of providing any specific term of incarceration or till the end of convicts 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," the bench added.

The court rejected the contention of the appellant that the power to impose modified sentence cannot be exercised by the constitutional courts unless the question is of commuting the death sentence.    

"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 CrPC," the bench said.

The court also pointed out 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 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 added.

While considering the possibility of reformation of the accused, it must be noted 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, the bench said.

[Read Judgment]