1. Conspiracy to commit murder to avoid forced marriage — Conviction under Sections 302, 120-B, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1048
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1029 of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No. 1030 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 1225 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 2943 of 2025
Decided on : 14-07-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R Nedumaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Y Arunagiri, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. M Sathishkumar, Adv. Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Shreeyash Lalit, Adv. Ms. Sonia Dube, Adv. Mr. Lavam Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Vats, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Mr. Debdeep Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Kartik Jasra, Adv. Mr. Prannit Stefano, Adv. Mr. Shayal Anand, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tomy Sebastian, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.j. Amith, Adv. Mr. Punith B, Adv. Mr. Alwyn Sebastian, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Muhammed Ali Khan, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv. Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Kamran Khan, Adv. Mr. Arjun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Jayanti Singh, Adv. Ms. Gurbani Bhatia, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R Nedumaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Y Arunagiri, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv. Mr. M Sathishkumar, Adv. Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Adv. Mr. Shreeyash Lalit, Adv. Ms. Sonia Dube, Adv. Mr. Lavam Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Vats, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Mr. Debdeep Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Kartik Jasra, Adv. Mr. Prannit Stefano, Adv. Mr. Shayal Anand, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tomy Sebastian, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.j. Amith, Adv. Mr. Punith B, Adv. Mr. Alwyn Sebastian, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Muhammed Ali Khan, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv. Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Kamran Khan, Adv. Mr. Arjun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Jayanti Singh, Adv. Ms. Gurbani Bhatia, Adv.
The court affirmed that conspiracy and motive for murder were proven through extensive call records and witness testimonies, underscoring the role of societal pressures in the crime.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 161 - Murder conviction and sentencing - Accused convicted of murder for conspiracy and premeditated attack on the deceased - Evidence included call detail records demonstrating conspiracy and eye-witness accounts supporting the prosecution's case - A-4 expressed unwillingness to marry deceased, prompting conspiracy among accused - Court emphasized societal pressures influencing actions, while maintaining judicial duty to prevent injustice - Life sentences upheld. (Paras 2, 32, 92, 101)
Facts of the case:
A young woman's forced engagement leads to the murder of her fiancé, resulting from a conspiracy involving several individuals. Evidence presented included eyewitness testimonies and call records indicating communication among the conspirators. (Paras 1, 19, 24)
Findings of Court:
Conviction upheld on substantive evidence, including motive and conspiracy established through extensive communication records - Conduct of accused raised concerns about their intent - Case exemplifies the need to address root causes of crime while ensuring justice. (Paras 96, 100)
Issues: Whether evidence sufficiently established conspiracy and motive for murder; the role of societal pressures in the actions of the accused. (Paras 56, 99)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the motive was clearly established through witness testimony and extensive communication among the accused, illustrating a conspiracy that culminated in murder. The decision reflects broader societal issues impacting individual actions, further necessitating a reassessment of punitive measures. (Paras 87, 95, 102)
Result: Appeals dismissed; life sentences affirmed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to eyewitness credibility — Dispute over admissibility of electronic records under Section 65-B, IEA — Contestation of weapon recovery under Section 27, IEA. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )
3. Rejection of eyewitnesses due to unnatural conduct — Reliance on motive, CDR patterns, and weapon recovery to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 )
4. Admissibility of electronic records requires Section 65-B compliance — Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding innocence — Constitutional pardon powers are distinct from statutory remissions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 86 )
5. Conviction and life sentence confirmed — Liberty granted to seek pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution, with sentences suspended pending the Governor's decision. (Para 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 )
6. What are the requirements for the admissibility of electronic records like Call Detail Records (CDR) under the Indian Evidence Act?
Admissibility requires compliance with Section 65-B, specifically a certificate under Section 65-B(4) from a responsible official. While a prescribed format is preferred, the authenticity of the document and the official's knowledge or belief are the primary considerations. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 )
7. When can a conviction be based on circumstantial evidence in a murder case?
Conviction requires a complete chain of evidence that is consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, excludes every other possible hypothesis, and leaves no reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. (Para 54 , 86 , 96 )
8. How does the Governor's power to grant pardon under Article 161 differ from statutory powers of remission?
Constitutional powers are broader, originate from the Constitution, and embody a broader ethical vision of humanity and equity. Statutory powers are derived from legislation, govern classes of convicts collectively, and are subject to amendment or repeal. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
9. Is a joint disclosure statement by multiple accused persons inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act?
No, joint or simultaneous disclosures are not per se inadmissible. What is relevant is that the information leads to the discovery of a fact, and the credibility of such disclosure is a matter of evaluation of evidence. (Para 87 )
JUDGMENT :
M. M. Sundresh, J.
1. 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.
2. A studied scrutiny of the charges, along with the evidence placed on record led to the confirmation of the conviction rendered against the appellants, by the High Court, for the major offence punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) while upholding the decision delivered by the Court of Sessions. The appellants who are before us seek to assail the life sentence imposed upon them by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka.
3. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Mr. Siddhartha Dave, and Mr. R. Nedumaran appearing for the appellants, and learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) Mr. Muhammed Ali Khan and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Tomy Sebastian appearing for the respondents, at considerable length. In the process, all the documents placed on record along with the written arguments, are also taken due note of.
CRIME AND ITS CAUSES
4. A crime constitutes a mental rebellion of norms and rules that have been created for the establishment of social order. It can be described as a deviant behavior, triggered by causes which are both distant and immediate. An idea of rebellion against the regulatory norms imposed by the society, thus, leads to a deviant conduct, which often happens through social conditioning and a series of habits. It is the strained mind, irked by alienation and material deprivation, that ignores the moral stage, all while focusing on the avoidance of punishment which might be the consequence of being in pursuit of a self-justified solution to the predicament which afflicts them.
5. There are multiple causes for a deviant behavior. To commit a crime, there is always a cause which, very often, has no nexus with the accused, who is shackled by social constraints thus, making him a victim of his circumstances. Even the genealogy of individuals can very well be influenced due to external environmental factors, such as, family, economy, education and social mores. Deficiencies in these factors are the primary causes for an offence that is ultimately committed. But for these causes, an offence would not have been committed, as it is nothing but a manifestation of the mind, body and action. One can even say that multiple causes are responsible for the crime, both external and internal, while an offender merely plays a role in committing it.
6. Alienation in different forms is one of the major causes for a crime being committed, upon feeling a disconnect from the community, society, or social institutions. Alienated individuals often feel powerless and neglected, which can lead them to feel rejected by the society and its social norms. The breakdown of social norms contributes to a deviant behaviour, especially when individuals lack clear moral guidance from their communities. Since law keeps changing from time to time, what is legal, may not necessarily be moral. Rapid social change, orchestrated by law, often creates conducive conditions for criminal behaviour.
CRIME AND WOMEN
7. We shall now concentrate specifically on the offences committed by women. If the factors highlighted above are applied in the context of a woman, it would result in heightened prejudices against her, leading to a gendered response of victimization. A woman is pushed into a dark corner by external elements, that contribute substantially to the inequalities in her life. Thoughts of a woman would differ based on the place, person and group that she interacts with. It is the social norms and values which determine an action on her part, that is nothing but a form of her expression.
8. We shall test this proposition throu
