SHIVU AND ANR. versus R.G. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 555 · Decided: 13-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
SHIVU AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
R.G. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 13, 2007 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 376 & 302 rlw 34-Code of Criminal 
,_ 
~ 
Procedure, 1973-Section 366-Accused charged for rape and murder-
Trial Court convicted the accused on basis of circumstantial evidence and c 
awarded death sentence-High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence-
Correctness of-Held, on facts, accused guilty of rape and murder-Death 
sentence confirmed as the case falls under 'rarest of rare' category. 
Accused attempted to commit rape on two girls but were unsuccessful. 
The accused were admonished and were directed to mend their ways. D 
Thereafter, the accused raped and murdered the deceased to avoid detection. 
After investigation, Prosecution filed a charge sheet before trial court against 
the accused under sections 376 and 302 r/w section 34 IPC. The trial court 
·; 
convicted the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and awarded 
death sentence to the accused. High Court, in reference under section 366 
.. 
Cr.P.C. and appeal by the accused, confirmed the conviction and sentence . 
E 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants-accused contended that the case 
is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances highlighted do not 
• 
present a complete chain to warrant any inference about the guilt of the 
accused; and, in the alternative, the death sentence awarded is not warranted F 
( 
as it is not a case of rarest of rare case. 
The State contended that the appellants are hardened criminals as they 
have earlier attempted rape of two girls; and that no interference is called for 
as the trial court and the High Court have analysed the evidence in great 
detail and convicted the 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the court 
·~ 
HELD: l. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the 
inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and 
555 
H 
""" 
556 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 2 S.C.R. 
-
A circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused 
.,._ 
or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference 
as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable 
doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact 
sought to be inferred from those circumstances. When the evidence on record 
B 
is analysed, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has established 
its accusations. (Paras 12 & 2011560-H, 561-A, B; 563-Gf 
Hukum Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (1977) SC I 063; Eradu v. State 
of Hyderabad, AIR (1956) SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karna/aka, 
AIR (1983) SC 446; State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi, AIR (1985) SC 1224; Ba/winder 
~ 
c Singh v, State of Punjab, AIR (1987) SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. 
State of MP., AIR (1989) SC 1890; Bhagat Ram v. State of Pzmjab, AIR (1954) 
SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P., [1996J 10 SCC 193; Padala Veera 
Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR (1990) SC 79; State of UP. v. Ashok Kumar 
Sriva.1tava, (1992) Crl. LJ 1104; /fanumant Gov ind Nargundkar v. State of 
M.P., AIR (1952) SC 343 and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of 
D Maharashtra, AIR (1984) SC 1622, referred to. 
2. Proportion between crime and punishment is a respected in principle, 
and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the 
' 
determination of sentences. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity 
E 
for any serious crime is thought to be a measure of toleration that is 
unwarranted and unwise. But in fact quite apart from those considerations 
.. 
that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, 
,___
uniformly ~isproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical 
" 
consequences. There is no hesitation in holding that the case at hand falls in 
rarest of rare category and death sentence awarded by the trial court and 
• 
F confirmed by the High Court was appropriate. [566-H; 567-A, BJ 
') 
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1980J 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh 
& Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1983) 3 SCC 470, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 
G 2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 27.10.2005 and 7.11.2005 of the 
)..._ 
High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore in Criminal Reference Case No. 8/2005 
and Criminal Appeal No. I 394 of2005. 
'I
H 
BasavaPrabhu S. Patil, V.N. Raghupathy, B. Subrahman

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.