2003 Bengaluru Techie Murder: SC Upholds Life Sentence Of Law Student Fiancée & Others, But...
The court let the convicts seek pardon from the Karnataka governor under Article 161, citing the crime as a result of youthful misjudgment rather than inherent criminality
The Supreme Court on July 14 upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a then BA-LLB student, her boyfriend, and two others for the murder of her fiancé in 2003. However, while affirming their culpability, the court granted them liberty to seek pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution, noting the psychological and circumstantial complexities that surrounded the crime.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar dismissed the appeals filed by Kum Shubha alias Shubhashankar and co-accused Arun Verma, Dinesh alias Dinakaran, and Venkatesh, challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision upholding their conviction and sentence for the murder of BV Girish, a 26-year-old software engineer employed with Intel, Bengaluru.
The murder, which occurred just two days after the victim's engagement to Shubha, was, in the court's words, not the result of innate criminality but a 'dangerous adventure born out of emotional rebellion and wild romanticism". The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstantial evidence, including continuous call records between Shubha and the co-accused, pointing to a clear conspiracy and 'meeting of minds".
The court also acknowledged the mental state of the girl, observing that 'the voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind." Ita remarked that this inner conflict, paired with emotional entanglements, culminated in the tragic loss of an innocent life and simultaneously derailed the lives of four young individuals.
The bench, however, made it clear that empathy could not override culpability. 'We cannot condone her action as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life," the court said, while also noting that years had passed since the crime and that the appellants were no longer the same individuals they were at the time of the offence.
Two of the four convicts were teenagers at the time of the incident, while Shubha had just crossed that threshold. The fourth accused, a 28-year-old man, was recently married and had a child when the appeal was decided. The court acknowledged their middle-aged status today, observing that 'adrenaline-pumped decisions of youth must sometimes be revisited through the lens of reform, not just retribution".
Liberty to Seek Pardon
While dismissing the appeal and affirming the life sentence, the court invoked Article 161 of the Constitution, allowing the appellants to file petitions for gubernatorial pardon before the governor of Karnataka. The bench expressed hope that the constitutional authority would take into account the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the case.
'We would only request the constitutional authority to consider the same, which we hope and trust would be done by taking note of the relevant circumstances governing the case," the judgment stated. The court granted the convicts eight weeks to file the pardon plea and ordered that they shall not be arrested and that their sentence shall remain suspended until the governor's decision is made.
What Happened?
According to the prosecution, Shubha was unwilling to marry Girish and confided in her college friend and romantic partner, Arun Verma. Moved by her distress, Verma sought help from his cousin Dinesh, who, in turn, brought in his teenage friend Venkatesh to execute the plan.
The engagement took place on November 30, 2003. Two days later, on December 3, Shubha invited Girish to dinner. On their return, they stopped at the 'Air View Point" along the Airport Ring Road to watch planes land, a popular hangout spot in Bengaluru. It was there that Girish was attacked with a steel rod by an 'unknown assailant" and left with critical head injuries. He succumbed to the wounds the following day in the hospital.
While initially appearing as a random act of violence, investigations soon revealed a web of mobile communication between the accused. The prosecution's case rested primarily on circumstantial evidence, supported by call detail records (CDR), which placed the accused in constant contact before, during, and after the murder.
The trial court convicted all four under Section 302 (murder), read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court affirmed the conviction, following which the appeals landed before the Supreme Court.
In perhaps the most humanising portion of the verdict, the SC refrained from using the harsh language usually associated with murder convictions. It instead focused on the circumstances of compulsion, familial pressure, and emotional immaturity, concluding that while the crime cannot be forgiven, the convicts deserve the opportunity for rehabilitation.
'This Court seeks to view the matter from a different perspective, only for the purpose of giving a new lease of life to the appellants," the judgment said, striking a rare balance between justice for the deceased and reformative justice for the offenders.
Under Article 161, a governor has constitutional power to pardon, remit, or suspend a sentence. The Supreme Court's order does not mandate such relief but merely permits the convicts to make the request.
The final decision lies with the governor of Karnataka, who must weigh the circumstances, including the gravity of the offence and the passage of time, before granting any clemency.
Until then, the sentence imposed on the convicts remains suspended, and they won't be taken into custody.
About the Author
Sanya Talwar
Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...Read More
Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
West Bengal Governor to move Supreme Court over control of state universities
In another escalation of the ongoing tussle between the West Bengal government and the Raj Bhavan over higher education governance, Governor CV Ananda Bose on Saturday said he plans to seek clarity from the Supreme Court on whether ultimate authority over state universities lies with the chancellor (governor) or the state government. The move comes after a meeting between Bose and vice chancellors (VCs) of state-run universities at the Raj Bhavan, convened to address key issues in the state's higher education sector. The meeting was attended by nine VCs, with most others remaining absent. Several VCs who skipped the meeting claimed they faced obstructions from the higher education department, while others alleged they were gheraoed or faced hostile conditions on campus. Some sought appointments with the governor to explain their absence. Sources in Raj Bhavan suggest absenteeism has not been taken lightly. 'This is an issue that requires clarification. What is the role of the chancellor or the role of the government? The Supreme Court will be approached to determine who holds the ultimate authority over state universities — the chancellor (governor) or the state government,' Bose told reporters at the Raj Bhavan. The meeting had a wide-ranging agenda, from digital reforms and manpower gaps to implementation of NEP 2020 and awareness on cybersecurity and drug addiction.
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose to move Supreme Court over control of state universities
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel In another escalation of the ongoing tussle between the West Bengal government and the Raj Bhavan over higher education governance, Governor CV Ananda Bose on Saturday said he plans to seek clarity from the Supreme Court on whether ultimate authority over state universities lies with the chancellor (governor) or the state move comes after a meeting between Bose and vice chancellors (VCs) of state-run universities at the Raj Bhavan, convened to address key issues in the state's higher education sector. The meeting was attended by nine VCs, with most others remaining VCs who skipped the meeting claimed they faced obstructions from the higher education department, while others alleged they were gheraoed or faced hostile conditions on campus. Some sought appointments with the governor to explain their in Raj Bhavan suggest absenteeism has not been taken lightly."This is an issue that requires clarification. What is the role of the chancellor or the role of the government? The Supreme Court will be approached to determine who holds the ultimate authority over state universities - the chancellor (governor) or the state government," Bose told reporters at the Raj meeting had a wide-ranging agenda, from digital reforms and manpower gaps to implementation of NEP 2020 and awareness on cybersecurity and drug addiction.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
43 minutes ago
- Business Standard
EC's refusal to accept Aadhaar as voter ID in Bihar is 'absurd': ADR
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has told the Supreme Court that the Election Commission's (EC) claim of having constitutional powers to verify voters' citizenship during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls contradicts earlier court rulings. According to a report by The Indian Express, ADR also criticised the EC for excluding Aadhaar and ration cards as acceptable proof of identity, calling the move 'patently absurd,' especially as Aadhaar is widely used for passports, caste certificates, and permanent residency documents. 'Grave fraud' in rush to revise rolls The ADR, the petitioner in the matter, argued that the EC has not provided valid reasons for hurrying through the revision ahead of Bihar's Assembly polls. The group described the process as a 'grave fraud' on the state's electorate. The revision exercise, announced on June 24, has been controversial due to its timing and new requirement that voters registered after 2003 must provide several documents to stay on the electoral rolls. This has raised fears that many legitimate voters could be disenfranchised. ADR has submitted its response to the EC's affidavit, filed on July 21. In that affidavit, the EC claimed that Article 326 of the Constitution permits it to verify the citizenship of voters and clarified that being removed from the electoral roll does not mean loss of citizenship. The matter will be heard next on 28 July. Citizenship verification against court judgments? ADR argued that the EC's claim of authority to verify citizenship goes against earlier Supreme Court decisions. It cited Lal Babu Hussain vs Union of India (1995), which stated that the burden of proving citizenship lies with new applicants, not existing voters. It also referenced Inderjit Barua vs ECI (1985), where the court held that being on the electoral roll is strong proof of citizenship, and the onus to disprove it lies with those who object. ADR criticised the EC's directive requiring voters added after 2003 to produce one of 11 specified documents, saying this wrongly shifts the burden of proof to voters. 'It is submitted that the SIR process shifts the onus of citizenship proof on all existing electors in a state, whose names were registered by the ECI through a due process,' ADR said. The group questioned why the existing legal procedures under the Representation of the People Act and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 had to be replaced with a fresh set of documentation and a new form. ADR also said the EC had not provided any data showing foreign nationals or illegal migrants had been included in the electoral rolls. EC's Aadhaar rejection 'absurd' In its July 21 affidavit, the EC refused to accept the Supreme Court's suggestion to include Aadhaar, ration cards, and Voter ID as valid documents, arguing that Aadhaar and ration cards can be obtained using false papers. ADR countered that the EC's list of 11 acceptable documents is also open to fraud. It added, 'The fact that Aadhaar card is one of the documents accepted for obtaining Permanent Residence Certificate, OBC/SC/ST Certificate and for passport – makes ECI's rejection of Aadhar (which is most widely held document) under the instant SIR order patently absurd.' 'Violations' by officials ADR alleged that EC officials on the ground are not following the Commission's own rules. The June 24 guidelines required Block Level Officers (BLOs) to visit each home and provide two forms per voter. But ADR said many voters had not met any BLOs and had not signed any forms, yet their submissions were recorded online. 'Forms of even dead individuals have been reported to have been submitted,' it added. ADR also criticised the lack of a clear process for verifying these forms and documents, saying this gave Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) excessive powers that could lead to widespread disenfranchisement. Why target post-2003 voters? The EC's order says that the 2003 electoral roll is proof of citizenship for voters already registered. For those born after July 1, 1987, the EC asks for proof of citizenship from at least one parent. If the parent appears on the 2003 roll, the child may rely on that. ADR said this distinction was unfair and placed those registered after 2003 at 'a larger risk of disenfranchisement.' It also questioned why the EC had not submitted the 2003 revision order to the Court and asked for it to be produced. In contrast, during the 2004 revision exercise in the North East, only new voters had to submit documents, and that process took over six months (July 1, 2004 to January 3, 2005). In Bihar, the entire process is being compressed into three months -- from June 25 to September 30. 2025 roll already revised ADR also asked why a fresh revision is needed when the 2025 electoral roll was already updated and published in January this year. The group said the roll is regularly updated to account for deaths, migration, and other changes. ADR also highlighted an August 11, 2023 EC circular to state CEOs, directing them to delete names of electors who had died, moved, or were duplicates. The EC claimed the current SIR was being held in response to concerns raised by political parties. But ADR said, 'not a single political party had asked ECI for a de novo exercise such as the one prescribed in the instant SIR order'. Instead, parties had raised concerns about fake votes being added, genuine opposition voters being deleted, and irregular voting after polls had closed. Supreme Court's interim observations The case was first heard on July 10 by a vacation bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Joymalya Bagchi. While the Court did not halt the process, it suggested the EC consider allowing Aadhaar, Voter ID, and ration cards as valid documents, in addition to the 11 listed. The EC was told to submit its affidavit by July 21, and the matter will be heard again on July 28. As of Friday, the EC said it had received forms from 72.3 million voters for inclusion in the draft roll. Around 6.5 million names are to be deleted due to death, permanent migration, duplicate entries, or because the voter was untraceable. Further deletions may occur after the draft roll is published. Between August 1 and September 1, those whose names are missing from the draft will be able to file claims and objections.
