The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the life sentence of Shubha Shankar for murdering her fiancé Girish in 2003 with her boyfriend's help [Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.]

A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar ruled that Shubha had plotted the killing along with her college boyfriend and two others.

The Court dismissed their appeals against the Karnataka High Court judgment and also flagged the emotional and social breakdown that precipitated the crime, calling it a case of misjudged rebellion and romantic delusion.

“The voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind. This, backed by an unholy alliance of a mental rebellion and wild romanticism, led to the tragic murder of an innocent young man, while simultaneously destroying the lives of three others,” the Court said in its judgement.

The bench confirmed the Karnataka High Court’s judgment convicting Shubha (the main accused), her boyfriend Arun, and their co-accused Dinakaran and Venkatesh for murder under Section 302 read with Section 120B (conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.

Shubha’s separate conviction for destruction of evidence under Section 201 was also upheld.

The Court found that Shubha had conspired with the other accused to eliminate her fiancé whom she was unwilling to marry. Relying on mobile call records and the testimony of her close friend, the Court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete.

The case arose from the murder of BV Girish, a 26-year-old software engineer, who was engaged to Shubha, a law student, on November 30, 2003. Two days later, on the evening of December 3, Shubha asked him to take her to dinner. On their return, they stopped near the Airport Ring Road in Bangalore where Girish was assaulted with a steel rod and later died from his injuries.

According to the prosecution, Shubha had confided to her college friend Arun Verma that she did not want to marry Girish. Arun then brought in his cousin Dinakaran, who in turn roped in Venkatesh, a teenager, to carry out the attack. Shubha’s role was to bring Girish to the location and provide constant updates on their movements.

The trial court convicted all four accused for conspiracy. It found Venkatesh guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Shubha was also convicted for destruction of evidence. The Karnataka High Court later modified the conviction of all four to murder, holding that the conspiracy had been executed jointly.

Before the Supreme Court, the accused argued that the key eye witnesses were unreliable and the prosecution’s electronic evidence was not admissible. The Court rejected both submissions.

It noted that the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses, who claimed to have seen the assault were riddled with inconsistencies and showed unnatural conduct. One of them, despite being an ex-serviceman, failed to inform police and instead took Girish’s scooter home. The other gave his statement two months later.

With the eyewitnesses disbelieved, the Court held that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. It noted that in such cases, proving motive becomes critical.

The Court found the testimony of Shubha’s former classmate, one Pramod Dixit, to be reliable. He stated that Shubha told him she did not want to marry Girish as she disliked his lifestyle and wanted a more outgoing partner.

The Court also referred to the email Pramod sent to Shubha’s father a few months after the murder, which corroborated his testimony and showed that Arun and Shubha were in close contact.

The Court also analysed mobile call records from the period before and after the murder. These showed over 90 communications between Shubha and Arun in the two weeks before the murder, and 54 messages and calls exchanged between them on the day of the killing alone. The records also revealed that Dinakaran, who had no prior relationship with Shubha, exchanged 34 calls with her in the days leading up to the murder, and none afterwards.

Rejecting arguments that the call records were inadmissible, the Court held that the certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act were valid, and the officers who produced them were competent.

Shubha’s conduct at the time of the attack was also questioned. She admitted Girish to the hospital after the assault and told police an unknown assailant had attacked both of them. However, she had no injuries, while Girish had suffered six including a fatal head injury.

The Court concluded that the conspiracy was well established through motive, mobile records and the recovery of the weapon. It found that Venkatesh, a teenager from an impoverished background, had been brought in to execute the final act, and his role was supported by the call records and subsequent recovery of the weapon.

The Court said the accused had committed a heinous crime in their youth, but showed no adverse conduct since.

“They were not born as criminals, but it was an error of judgment through a dangerous adventure which led to the commission of a heinous crime,” the bench said.

While upholding the convictions, the Court gave the convicts liberty to file mercy petitions before the Governor of Karnataka under Article 161 of the Constitution for remission of sentence. It suspended the sentence for eight weeks to allow time for the petitions to be considered.

“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 Court noted.

The appellants were represented by Senior Advocates R Nedumaran, S Nagamuthu, Siddhartha Dave, Ranjit Kumar, and Jayant K Sud along with advocates Y Arunagiri, Shreyas Kaushal, M Sathishkumar, P Soma Sundaram, and T V Ratnam, Nirnimesh Dube, Shreeyash Lalit, Sonia Dube, Lavam Tyagi, Himanshu Vats, S K Kulkarni, M Gireesh Kumar, Uditha Chakravarthy, Debdeep Banerjee, Kartik Jasra, Prannit Stefano, Shayal Anand, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, and Ankur S Kulkarni.

The respondents were represented by Additional Advocate General Muhammed Ali Khan, Senior Advocates Tomy Sebastian and Kiran Suri along with advocates SJ Amith, Punith B, Alwyn Sebastian, Vidushi Garg, Vipin Gupta, Muhammed Ali Khan, V N Raghupathy, Omar Hoda, Eesha Bakshi, Uday Bhatia, Kamran Khan, Arjun Sharma, Jayanti Singh and Gurbani Bhatia.

[Read Judgment]