/2023 INSC 0234/
Criminal Appeal @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3400 of 2017
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 21 st
 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 Karnataka 2
.   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
Sriharan 1
,   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 Rajasthan 3
  and in the
case of  Gurvail Singh alias Gala v. State of Punjab 4
.
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 Shraddananda 2
, 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.   Sriharan 1
, 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. Sriharan 1  
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