Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar has held that a reformative approach must be adopted for women who commit crimes under societal pressure, especially in cases like forced marriage, where deep-rooted gender inequalities restrict their freedom and autonomy. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr (2025). 

What was the Background of Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr , Case ? 

• Shubha Shankar (A-4) was a 20-year-old law student at BMS Law College, Bangalore. 
• Arun Verma (A-1) was her close friend and fellow law student at the same college. 
• Dinesh @ Dinakaran (A-3) was a 28-year-old married man and cousin of Arun Verma. 
• Venkatesh (A-2) was a 19-year-old teenager and friend of Dinesh. 
• B.V. Girish (deceased) was a 26-year-old software engineer at Intel, engaged to Shubha. 
• Both families were residents of the same locality in Bangalore and had cordial relations. 
• Shubha's parents proposed marriage to Girish's parents in October 2003, which was accepted. 
• The engagement ceremony took place on 30th November, 2003, with marriage fixed for 11th April, 2004. 
• Shubha was unwilling to marry the deceased and confided her reluctance to friends and her beautician. 
• Shubha expressed her opposition to the marriage to her close friend Arun Verma. 
• On 3rd December, 2003, Shubha asked the deceased to take her for dinner at T.G.I. Friday's Hotel. 
• After dinner, they stopped at "Air View Point" at Airport Ring Road to watch aeroplanes landing. 
• At this location, the deceased received fatal head injuries from an unknown assailant using a steel rod. 
• Shubha helped shift the injured deceased to Manipal Hospital with assistance from passers-by. 
• The deceased was declared dead on 4th December, 2003, at 8:05 AM. 
• An FIR was registered against unknown persons for offence under Section 302 IPC. 
• All four accused were arrested on 25th January, 2004. 
• Charges were framed under Section 120-B and Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC. 
• Shubha was additionally charged under Section 201 IPC for destruction of evidence. 
• The prosecution alleged that all accused conspired to murder the deceased to prevent Shubha's forced marriage. 
• The prosecution claimed Arun and Venkatesh followed the couple, with Dinesh coordinating the plan through calls. 
• According to prosecution, Venkatesh struck the deceased with a steel rod while Arun waited on a scooter. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence where each link is connected and proved beyond reasonable doubt, with motive, means, and opportunity clearly established. 
• The Court established that deliberate destruction of evidence, particularly communication records on mobile phones, warrants drawing adverse inference against the accused, especially when no sufficient explanation is provided for such conduct. 
• The Court recognized that raising a false plea of alibi demonstrates consciousness of guilt and strengthens the prosecution's case, particularly when hospital records fail to substantiate the claimed presence at the alleged location. 
• The Court applied the principle that in criminal conspiracy, each conspirator is liable for acts committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the common criminal design, regardless of their direct physical participation in the actual offense. 
• The Court distinguished that constitutional powers under Article 161 are fundamentally different from statutory powers - constitutional powers originate from the Constitution itself and embody broader ethical vision prioritizing humanity and equity, while statutory powers are derived from legislature-enacted laws. 
• The Court established that mere punishment cannot constitute a complete remedy for crime, especially when the offender is not entirely responsible for causes leading to the criminal act, emphasizing a reformative approach through compassionate correction. 
• The Court recognized that women face heightened prejudices and gendered victimization, with social norms and constraints significantly influencing their actions and expressions, particularly regarding forced marriages that curtail professional and educational aspirations. 
• The Court held that society, through systemic failures, inequalities, or neglect, often plays a role in shaping criminal behavior, making the offender also a victim requiring treatment through structural support and genuine transformation opportunities. 
• The Court established that Article 161 has in-built laudable objective of facilitating offender reintegration into society after realizing mistakes, with sovereign power exercised on Council of Ministers' advice, subject to limited judicial review. 
• The Court emphasized that constitutional pardoning power under Article 161 is broader than statutory provisions and must be applied discretely on case-by-case basis, unlike statutory provisions that govern classes of convicts collectively. 
• The Court granted eight weeks' time from the date of the judgment for the appellants to file appropriate petitions seeking to invoke the power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution. Until the appellants' pardon petitions are considered, their sentences have been suspended by the court. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred? 

Constitution of India,1950 

Article 72 - President's Pardoning Power 

• President can grant pardons, reprieves, respites, remissions, suspend, remit or commute sentences 
• Exclusive powers: Court martial cases, Union law offenses, all death sentences 
• Does not affect Governor's power in death sentence cases under state laws 

Article 161 - Governor's Pardoning Power 

• Governor can grant pardons, reprieves, respites, remissions, suspend, remit or commute sentences 
• Limited to: Offenses under state executive power 
• Cannot handle: Death sentences (President's exclusive domain) 

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 

Section 473 - Power to Suspend/Remit Sentences 

• Appropriate Government can suspend or remit sentences with/without conditions 
• Can seek trial judge's opinion before deciding 
• Conditions: If not fulfilled, suspension/remission can be cancelled 
• Petition rules: For adults, petitioner must be in jail; petition through jail officer or with jail declaration 

Section 474 - Power to Commute Sentences 

• Appropriate Government can commute without consent:  
  • Death → Life imprisonment 
  • Life → Minimum 7 years 
  • 7+ years → Minimum 3 years 
  • Less than 7 years → Fine 
  • Rigorous → Simple imprisonment 

Key Distinctions: 

• President: All death sentences, court martial, Union matters 
• Governor: State matters only (excluding death sentences) 
• Appropriate Government: Suspension/remission and commutation powers based on jurisdiction (Central vs State) 

How do Societal Constraints and Gendered Pressures Lead Women Toward Crime? 

• Crime is defined as a mental rebellion against social norms, often triggered by a mix of internal and external causes. 
• Key causes include alienation, environmental conditions like family and education, material deprivation, and the breakdown of moral structures. 
• When these factors apply to women, they result in gender-specific victimization and heightened social prejudice. 
• Forced marriage is cited as a prime example, where a woman’s autonomy is stripped, separating her from her education and career ambitions. 
• Under such pressures, women may feel driven to flee, engage in violence, or suffer emotional and psychological collapse. 
• Additional constraints—such as stigma, lack of support, and restrictive value systems—distort their perception of freedom and resistance. 
• These conditions can lead women to believe compliance is their only option or push them toward desperate, defiant actions against the law.