Lack of criminal antecedents of convict not sole criterion to decide whether case is 'rarest of rare': Supreme Court

Lack of criminal antecedents of a convict is not the sole criterion to decide whether the case falls under the rarest of rare category, the Supreme Court held on Tuesday [Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy vs State of Karnataka]..A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal said that in cases involving death sentence, several others factors have to be considered and showing undue leniency in brutal offences will negatively impact the confidence of public in the legal system."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 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," the bench held.Pertinently, the Court held that Constitutional courts can modify sentence of life imprisonment to mandate a minimum term like 20 years or 30 years, even in cases where the trial court has not prescribed death penalty. .The judgment was passed in an appeal filed by a convict who was sentenced to life imprisonment in a case of rape and murder. .The appellant was convicted for murdering a woman working in an IT firm in Bengaluru. The incident happened when she used the appellant's vehicle for conveyance from her office to home at 2 am in the morning. The woman then went missing and her dead body was recovered at the instance of the appellant.The prosecution successfully established charges of rape and murder and the appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the rest of his life by the trial court.Both the State and the appellant filed appeals against the same before the High Court. Both the appeals were dismissed. The appellant then moved the apex court.The Court proceeded to consider the limited issue of sentence.The counsel for the appellant submitted that the convict was only 22 years old at the time of the offence, and he now had a young wife and child, along with aged parents. His conduct in jail, where he completed an undergraduate degree, had been satisfactory and he posed no threat to society, it was added. Pertinently, he submitted that 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 and if the death penalty is not imposed, courts are powerless to impose a modified sentence.The counsel for the State government argued that Constitutional courts are not powerless to impose modified sentences considering the gravity of the offence, even where a death penalty has not been imposed..The Supreme Court placed reliance upon various precedents to hold that Constitutional courts are not barred from modifying sentence even in cases where death penalty has not been imposed.“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 fixed-term sentence so that the benefit of statutory remission, etc. is not available to the accused,” the Court said.Even in a case where capital punishment is not imposed or is not proposed, Constitutional courts can always exercise the power of imposing a modified or fixed-term sentence by directing that a life sentence shall be of a fixed period of more than fourteen years, the Court underlined..In the present case, the Court noted that facts of the case were such that it would "shock the conscience of any court." The bench observed that the issue was of safety and security of women working tech jobs in IT hubs where late hours are common."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." Apart from the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, courts must also consider other attending circumstances, it was stressed.The bench noted that that the Karnataka government had failed in its endeavour to get capital punishment in the heinous case.Taking all factors into account, the Court said that this was a case where it must exercise its powers to impose a special modified punishment by prescribing life sentence for minimum of thirty years before any consideration for remission."This is one case where a Constitutional Court must exercise the power of imposing a special category of modified punishment ... we are of the opinion that this is a case where a fixed term sentence for a period of thirty years must be imposed," the bench concluded.The appeal was, thus, partly allowed..Advocates Shekhar G Devasa, K Parameshwar, Manish Tiwari, Thashmitha Muthanna, Prashanth Dixit, Ajay Melric Noronha, Vishwanath Chaturvedi, Shashi Bhushan Nagar, and Sunil Ambavelil briefed by Devasa & Co appeared for the appellant.Advocates Shubhranshu Padhi, Vishal Banshal, and Rajeshawari Shankar, and Niroop Sukirithy appeared for the Karnataka government.[Read Judgment]