SHIVA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 366, 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). The controversy is limited to the sentence for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge (FastTrack Court) sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the rest of his life. The appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court to challenge the conviction and sentence. The State Government preferred an appeal for enhancement of the sentence. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, dismissed both appeals. On 21/4/2017, notice was issued by this Court only on sentence.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellantaccused submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors. 2016 (7) SCC 1, a modified sentence can be imposed only by the Constitutional Courts and not by the Sessions Courts. He submitted that the Constitutional Courts can grant life sentence either for the entirety of life or for a specific period, only while commuting the death penalty imposed on an accused. If the death penalty is not imposed, the Courts are powerless to impose a modified sentence. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Swamy Shraddananda (2) alias Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka, 2008 (13) SCC 767. He invited our attention to paragraph 105 of the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of V. Sriharan, wherein this Court has laid down that a modified sentence can be an alternative only to the death penalty. He, therefore, submitted that the Constitution Bench held that a fixedterm sentence or modified sentence can be imposed by way of substitution for the death penalty.