E-Paper
SC affirms life term for murder convict, urges Governor to consider pardon
The court granted the convicts eight weeks to file appropriate petitions seeking pardon under Article 161
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the life imprisonment of a woman lawyer and her three associates for the 2003 murder of her fiancé, but called on the Karnataka governor to consider their pleas for pardon, observing that society itself cannot escape responsibility for the deviant behavior it often helps shape.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, while affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Karnataka High Court to advocate Shubha Shankarnarayan (42) and her three co-accused, delved deep into the sociological underpinnings of criminality and appealed for compassion, transformation and community responsibility.
“Society, through its own systemic failures, inequalities, or neglect often plays a role in shaping criminal behavior,” the bench said, adding that the responsibility of reintegrating and rehabilitating such offenders must also be borne by the society that may have contributed to their alienation.
Shubha, daughter of a prominent Bangalore-based lawyer, was engaged to software engineer BV Girish on November 30, 2003. Four days later, on December 3, she asked Girish to take her out for dinner and then insisted on stopping at a spot on the Indiranagar-Koramangala Intermediate Ring Road to watch airplanes land. There, Girish was attacked and murdered by Arun Verma, Shubha’s alleged boyfriend and two of his accomplices.
All four were convicted by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2010. After the high court affirmed their conviction, they had moved the Supreme Court assailing the verdict, which the top court dismissed on Monday. The bench held that the evidence on record was sufficient and endorsed the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Even as it upheld the conviction, the top court refused to end its intervention at a purely punitive level. Citing 161 of the Constitution that vests the power of pardon in the governor, it urged that a broader view of justice be taken in light of the passage of time and subsequent conduct of the convicts.
“The appellants, who committed the offence with adrenaline pumping in their veins, have now reached middle age… They were not born as criminals, but it was an error of judgment through a dangerous adventure,” said the court, adding that none of the four had attracted any adverse conduct reports from jail authorities since their conviction.
Accordingly, the court granted the convicts eight weeks to file appropriate petitions seeking pardon under Article 161. It directed that they shall not be arrested and their sentence shall remain suspended until the governor has considered their mercy plea.
The 132-page judgment delved into the possible causes of crime, particularly when it arises from emotional rebellion, systemic inequity and gendered oppression.
Describing the internal turmoil of Shubha, it noted: “The voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind… backed by an unholy alliance of a mental rebellion and wild romanticism, (it) led to the tragic murder of an innocent young man.”
Crime, Justice Sundresh wrote, must be seen not merely as an individual’s deviance but as an outcome of multiple interlinked social and psychological factors.
“A crime constitutes a mental rebellion of norms and rules…triggered by causes which are both distant and immediate…The offender becomes a victim, requiring adequate measures for treatment by compassionate correction, structural support, and opportunities for genuine transformation,” said the bench, highlighting the need to move beyond retributive justice.
Importantly, the court made a special mention of the gendered dimensions of criminal behaviour and societal control.
Referring to the predicament of a young woman forced into an unwanted marriage and denied autonomy, the court observed: “An unwarranted marriage thrust upon her is the worst form of alienation that she can experience both mentally and physically… A forced marriage, divorcing her from her professional ambitions and curtailing her further education, would certainly warrant a reaction. Such reactions would vary from one woman to another, depending upon the circumstances.”
