Shivakumar, then 22, had raped and murdered Pratibha, 28, in Anjanapura Layout on the night of December 13, 2005, after picking her up from home to ferry her to HP Global Soft, a BPO where she was doing night shifts.
The sentence granted to Pratibha Srikant Murthy’s killer, cab driver K Shivakumar, clearly states that that if he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the rest of his life (till his death) it would act as a deterrent to others committing similar crimes, even as it gave him a chance to reform.
Shivakumar, then 22, had raped and murdered Pratibha, 28, in Anjanapura Layout on the night of December 13, 2005, after picking her up from home to ferry her to HP Global Soft, a BPO where she was doing night shifts.
“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also having taken into consideration aggravating and mitigating circumstances, I feel the punishment granted will meet the ends of justice,” the order sentencing Shivakumar to remain in jail “until his last breath” by the presiding officer of the 11th Fast Track Court (FTC), BV Gudli, stated.
“I have carefully gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. I have given reasons for having convicted the accused in this case... In the present case, the murder is not by a hired assassin for gains of a person. The accused was only a driver of the cab in which the deceased was travelling,” it stated.
“He had no dominating control over the deceased. It is not a murder of a member of scheduled caste or a minority community, bride burning or a dowry death,” it stated.
“The deceased was not a helpless woman. She was not infirm. This crime is not enormous in nature. In view of the above discussions, I feel that it is not the ‘rarest of the rare cases’.
Hence, the decisions relied upon by the special public prosecutor does not apply to the case in hand. Hence, I am not inclined to impose death penalty on the accused in this case,” the order regarding the sentence, a copy of which is with DNA, said.
“In the case on hand, the accused was aged about 22 at the time of commission of the crime. He is now aged about 27 years. Therefore he is young. The prosecution has not produced any documents to show that the present accused is a habitual offender and that has been previously convicted. Hence, I am of the opinion that the accused in not a threat to the society. I feel that the accused is sent to jail by way of punishment as there are chances of reformation and rehabilitation,” the order of sentence said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}