Court has no option to impose sentence lesser than life imprisonment for murder convicts: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that murder convicts should be punished with nothing less than the death penalty or life imprisonment, as envisaged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..The judgment passed by Justices B Veerappa and K Natarajan to this effect reads, ."In view of the above, it is appropriate to make an observation that whenever an accused person is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, he/she shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, with fine as per the mandate of the said provisions and the Court has no option to impose a sentence lesser than the life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC."Karnataka High Court.Factual Background.The first accused, who was doing silk handloom work at the house of the deceased, had developed an intimate relationship with the second accused, who was the wife of the deceased. This prompted the deceased to dismiss the first accused from work. On the second accused's insistence, the deceased allowed the first accused to resume work. .On January 1, 2013, the deceased was found dead by his son, who suspected that the first accused and his mother having illicit intimacy, might have committed the murder of his father. .Based upon the complaint, the police registered a case and arrested both accused. The trial court found both the accused persons guilty and convicted them for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC. .A sentence of seven years with fine of Rs.10,000 was imposed against the first accused, while a life term was handed to the second accused, for the offence of murder..Being aggrieved by the same, the second accused preferred an appeal before the Karnataka High Court..Arguments of parties and what the Court held .Advocate MR Nanjunda Gowda, appearing for the second accused, vehemently contended that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is not sustainable in law, as the prosecution had relied upon circumstantial evidence. .Special Public Prosecutor Vijaykumar Majage supported the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court. However, he admitted that the sentence passed against the first accused was not sustainable in law. Section 302 of IPC mandates a minimum punishment of life imprisonment and awarding of lesser punishment is impermissible in law, he argued. .After careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Court was of the view that the entire case of the prosecution mainly rested on circumstantial evidence. .Further, the Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Digamber Vaishnav v. State, which laid down the principles to be followed while considering a case based on the circumstantial evidence. The Court also noted that all the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile..After this exercise, the Court was certain that the second accused had to be given the benefit of the doubt, as the prosecution had failed to connect all the circumstantial evidence. The order reads,"...except the homicidal death of the deceased, no other circumstance connected by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused that Accused No.2 with the common intention with Accused NO.1 committed the murder of her husband...Therefore, we hold that the prosecution failed to connect all the circumstances relied upon in order to prove that the accused and the accused alone caused death of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the Accused No.2 – appellant.".With this, the Court allowed the appeal preferred by the second accused and set aside the order of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial Judge. .Before parting with the matter, the Court remarked that the trial court had erred in awarding a "meagre" punishment of only seven years to Accused No.1, who was convicted of murder. ."Section 302 of IPC clearly depicts that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Such being the case, awarding punishment lesser than minimum sentence of life is impermissible in law. The Trial Court without applying its mind in the proper perspective and without following the mandate of the provisions of Section 302 of IPC, very strangely imposed punishment of seven years for conviction of the Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC."Karnataka High Court.The Court also noted that the State did not file a criminal appeal challenging the imposition of "inadequate sentence of seven years" for the first accused, who was convicted under Section 302 IPC..The Registry has been directed to send copies of the observations made in the penultimate paragraphs of this judgment to all Principal District Judges, who are in turn required to circulate the same to all judicial officers..[Read judgment here]