Summary of Judgment: Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (2025 INSC 830)

Relevant Laws Involved

1. Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Punishment for murder with criminal conspiracy.

2. Section 201 of IPC – Causing disappearance of evidence.

3. Article 161 of the Constitution of India – Power of the Governor to grant pardons, remissions, or commute sentences.

4. Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) – Admissibility of electronic records (Call Detail Records - CDR).

5. Section 27 of IEA – Recovery based on disclosure statements.

Background of the Case

• Incident Date: 03.12.2003

• Victim: B.V. Girish (deceased), a 26-year-old software engineer.

• Accused:
  A-1 (Arun Verma) – Friend of A-4, law student.
  A-2 (Venkatesh) – Teenager (19 years), associate of A-3.
  A-3 (Dinesh @ Dinakaran) – Cousin of A-1, orchestrated the crime.
  A-4 (Shubha Shankar) – Engaged to the deceased, law student.

Key Events Leading to the Crime

1. Engagement & Discontent:
   A-4 was engaged to the deceased on 30.11.2003, but she was unwilling due to differing lifestyles.
   She confided in friends (PW-8, PW-11, PW-23) about her reluctance and desire to avoid marriage.
   She was in constant contact with A-1, with whom she shared a close relationship.

2. Conspiracy & Murder:
   A-4 expressed her distress to A-1, who involved A-3. A-3 then roped in A-2.
   On 03.12.2003, A-4 took the deceased to "Air View Point" after dinner.
   A-2 attacked the deceased with a steel rod (M.O.11) while A-1 waited nearby on a scooter (M.O.12).
   The deceased succumbed to injuries the next morning.

Prosecution’s Case

1. Motive:
   A-4’s unwillingness to marry the deceased, supported by testimonies of PW-8 (beautician), PW-11 (friend), and PW-23 (close confidant).
   Extensive Call Detail Records (CDR) showed frequent communication between the accused before and after the incident.

2. Evidence:
   Eyewitnesses (PW-15 & PW-16): Claimed to have seen A-2 attacking the deceased. However, their testimonies were discarded due to inconsistencies and unnatural conduct.
   CDR Analysis: Proved a conspiracy through voluminous calls/SMSes between the accused, especially on the day of the murder.
   Recovery of Weapons:
   Steel rod (M.O.11) recovered at A-2’s instance.
   Scooter (M.O.12) recovered from A-1’s house.

3. Conviction by Lower Courts:
   Trial Court (2010): Convicted all accused under Section 302 read with 120-B IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. A-4 was additionally convicted under Section 201 IPC for destroying evidence.
   High Court: Upheld the conviction.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Reliability of Evidence

• Eyewitnesses (PW-15 & PW-16): Rejected due to delayed statements, contradictions, and unnatural conduct.

• CDR Evidence:
  Admissible under Section 65-B IEA despite minor technical discrepancies.
  Showed coordinated communication between accused before, during, and after the crime.

• Motive: Established through PW-23’s testimony, proving A-4’s reluctance to marry the deceased.

2. Circumstantial Evidence (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Test)

The Court applied the five golden principles for circumstantial evidence:

1. Fully established circumstances (CDR, motive, recovery).

2. Consistent only with guilt (no other plausible explanation).

3. Conclusive nature (overwhelming CDR data).

4. Exclusion of every other hypothesis (no evidence of third-party involvement).

5. Complete chain of evidence (motive, conspiracy, execution).

3. Role of Each Accused

• A-4: Orchestrated the crime due to her unwillingness to marry; deleted SMSes to hide evidence.

• A-1 & A-3: Actively conspired; A-3 directed A-2 to execute the murder.

• A-2: Physically attacked the deceased.

Final Judgment & Conclusion

• Conviction Upheld: Supreme Court confirmed the life sentence under Section 302/120-B IPC for all accused.

• Additional Conviction for A-4: Under Section 201 IPC for destroying evidence.

• Recommendation for Pardon:
  Considering the young age of the accused (A-2 was 19, A-4 was 20) and passage of time (22 years), the Court allowed them to seek pardon under Article 161 from the Governor of Karnataka.
  8 weeks’ time granted to file mercy petitions; sentence suspended till decision.

Key Takeaways

1. Electronic Evidence (CDR) can be crucial in proving conspiracy.

2. Motive is critical in circumstantial cases.

3. Eyewitness reliability must be scrutinized for inconsistencies.

4. Constitutional remedy (Article 161) can be explored post-conviction.