The legal landscape in India witnessed a significant development on July 18, 2023, as the Karnataka High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Harish vs. State of Karnataka. This judgment, rendered by a learned Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice K Somashekar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Rai K, addressed a critical issue concerning the authority of Trial Courts to impose “special category sentences” or life imprisonment without the possibility of remission, commonly referred to as imprisonment till the last breath of the convict.

1. Trial Courts Cannot Impose Life Imprisonment till Last Breath: Karnataka HC

2. The legal landscape in India witnessed a significant development on July 18, 2023, as the Karnataka High Court
delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Harish vs. State of Karnataka. This judgment, rendered by a
learned Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice K Somashekar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Rai K,
addressed a critical issue concerning the authority of Trial Courts to impose “special category sentences”
or life imprisonment without the possibility of remission, commonly referred to as imprisonment till the
last breath of the convict. The court emphatically reiterated that such sentencing powers rest exclusively
with the Supreme Court and the High Courts, as previously established in the case of Union of India vs. V
Sriharan alias Murugan and others (2014) 4 SCC 242. Summary of the Case: The judgment arose from
Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2017 C/W Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 2017, filed before the Karnataka High
Court by Harish and Lokesh, the first and third accused in the murder of Dr. Kumar. The second convict,
Radha, did not file an appeal. The Appeals challenged the judgment of conviction and the order of
sentence passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan. The Trial Court had sentenced
accused No.1 (Harish) to rigorous imprisonment, life imprisonment till his last breath, and imposed fines
for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. 1. Trial Court’s Sentencing Authority The Karnataka High Court’s judgment in the case of Harish
vs. State of Karnataka underscores a crucial legal principle regarding the sentencing authority
of Trial Courts. This fundamental point, highlighted in para 1 of the judgment, emphatically
states that Trial Courts lack the jurisdiction to impose “special category sentences” or life
imprisonment without the possibility of remission. The exclusive authority for such
sentencing powers rests with the Supreme Court and High Courts, a principle reinforced by
the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. V Sriharan alias Murugan and others (2014) 4
SCC 242. This aspect of the judgment serves as a cornerstone in defining the scope of Trial
Courts in imposing specific categories of sentences.
2. Background of the Case In para 2, the judgment provides a succinct yet comprehensive
overview of the prosecution’s case, detailing the circumstances that led to the charges
against the accused. This section sets the contextual stage for the subsequent analysis,
offering a narrative foundation for understanding the complexities of the legal issues at hand.
It delves into the timeline of events, specifically the complaint lodged by Radha, the wife of
the deceased, leading to the initiation of legal proceedings. This contextualization is pivotal in
grasping the nuances of the case and the subsequent legal determinations.

4. 3. Evidence and Circumstances The judgment, particularly in para 31, acknowledges
the critical role played by evidence and circumstances in establishing the guilt of
the accused. The court recognizes the prosecution’s success in proving various
circumstances, with a special emphasis on the recovery of the deceased’s body,
the exhumation process, and the opinions of experts. This point amplifies the
importance of concrete evidence in criminal proceedings and underscores the
court’s reliance on a meticulous examination of facts.
4. Admissibility of Evidence Para 32 of the judgment delves into the admissibility of
evidence, specifically focusing on the recovered remains of the deceased. The
court elucidates on the relevance of the accused pointing out the burial site and
the video-graphed exhumation proceedings. This detailed analysis emphasizes the
meticulous scrutiny applied to the admissibility of evidence, ensuring that legal
procedures are adhered to with precision.

5. 5. Inference and Conviction The court, in para 33, makes a significant observation regarding the
inference drawn from the established circumstances, particularly against accused No.1. It discusses
the legal concept of adverse inference and refers to the precedent set in Swamy Shraddananda vs.
State of Karnataka (2007) 12 SCC 288. This point highlights the court’s commitment to a rigorous
evaluation of the evidence and its implications for reaching a conviction.
6. Non-examination of Witnesses Addressing the defense’s contention in para 39 regarding the non-
examination of the deceased’s mother, the court refers to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunil
Clifford Daniel vs. State of Punjab (2012) 11 SCC 205. The court asserts that when alternative
evidence is available, the non-examination of a specific witness may be inconsequential. This
nuanced consideration reflects the court’s commitment to a pragmatic and context-specific
approach to legal proceedings. 7. Validity of the Sentence Para 42 forms a critical juncture in the
judgment, delving into the heart of the matter—the validity of the sentence imposed by the Trial
Court on accused No.1. The court refers to Union of India vs. V.Sriharan Alias Murugan and others
(2016) 7 SCC 1, clarifying that the power to impose special category sentences rests exclusively with
the High Court or Supreme Court. This pivotal analysis speaks directly to the constitutional
separation of powers and the proper legal channels for imposing specific types of sentences.

6. 7. Validity of the Sentence Para 42 forms a critical juncture in the judgment, delving into the heart of
the matter—the validity of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court on accused No.1. The court
refers to Union of India vs. V.Sriharan Alias Murugan and others (2016) 7 SCC 1, clarifying that the
power to impose special category sentences rests exclusively with the High Court or Supreme
Court. This pivotal analysis speaks directly to the constitutional separation of powers and the
proper legal channels for imposing specific types of sentences.
8. Modification of Sentence The concluding point in para 43 involves the modification of the sentence
imposed on accused No.1. The court, after scrutinizing the circumstances and applying the tests
laid down in Dharma Deo Yadav (supra), modifies the sentence from imprisonment till the last
breath to life imprisonment. This modification underscores the court’s commitment to a nuanced
application of sentencing principles, ensuring that the severity of the sentence aligns with
established legal norms.
Implications and Conclusion: The Karnataka High Court’s judgment in the case of Harish vs. State of
Karnataka carries significant implications for the judicial landscape in India. It underscores the
limitations on Trial Courts regarding the imposition of certain sentences, aligning with the
precedent set by the Supreme Court. The decision emphasizes the need for adherence to legal
principles and the careful consideration of evidence in criminal cases.

7. In conclusion,
the meticulous analysis and elucidation provided by the Karnataka High Court in this judgment
serve as a guiding precedent for Trial Court Judges and legal practitioners across India. The
decision ensures a more nuanced approach to sentencing, balancing the interests of victims
and convicts while upholding the principles of justice. The call to refrain from imposing
sentences till the last breath underscores the importance of allowing for the possibility of
remission after a reasonable period, aligning with established legal norms. It is imperative
that the legal community embraces and implements the principles set forth by the Karnataka
High Court to enhance the fairness and efficacy of the criminal justice system in the country.
Tags: high court judgments
Read more at: https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/trial-courts-impose-life-imprisonment-
breath-karnataka-hc.html
Copyright © Taxguru.in