BENGALURU: In a major development in the infamous 2003 Bengaluru ‘Ring Road Murder’ case, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the life imprisonment sentences of Shubha Shankarnarayan and three others convicted in the premeditated killing of Shubha’s fiancé, B.V. Girish. The court also granted the convicts eight weeks to submit mercy petitions to the Karnataka Governor, ruling that they should not be taken into custody during this period.
The case, which shocked the city over two decades ago, involved a chilling plot where Shubha, then a 20-year-old law student, conspired with her boyfriend and two of his associates to murder her fiancé. On December 3, 2003, Girish, 27, took Shubha—his fiancée of just three days—out for dinner. Later, at her request, they stopped near HAL airport to watch planes take off from a viewpoint on Inner Ring Road.
As Girish stood facing the runway, he was bludgeoned with a motorcycle shock absorber by assailants. He succumbed to his injuries the next morning in a private hospital.
Investigators, led by then-Viveknagar inspector K.A. Nanaiah, cracked the case using mobile call detail records (CDRs)—a relatively new technology at the time. The investigation revealed that Shubha had been in a relationship with Arun Varma, her 19-year-old college junior, and had conspired with him and his friends, Venkatesh and Dinesh, to eliminate Girish so she could marry Arun.
In July 2010, a local court found all four accused guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Karnataka High Court later upheld the verdict. In 2012, Shubha appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted her bail; the other three convicts were also released on bail subsequently.
Delivering the final verdict, a two-judge Supreme Court bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar upheld the convictions but chose to go beyond a routine ruling.
“We do not wish to end our judgment by merely rendering a conviction. We believe this Court has a greater role to play,” the bench noted.
The court acknowledged that the tragedy might have been averted had Shubha’s family shown more empathy toward her emotional turmoil, observing that although she had reached the age of majority, she was mentally conflicted and struggled to make independent decisions.
“Despite being an adult, she was unable to decide for herself. However, we cannot condone her actions, which led to the loss of a young and innocent life. Shubha chose a tragic and unacceptable route to address her personal issues,” the judgment stated.
Importantly, the bench emphasized a rehabilitative perspective, stating:
“We now choose to examine the matter from a different lens—one that considers the possibility of offering the appellants a chance at rehabilitation.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling not only upholds justice for Girish but also opens a narrow window for the convicts to seek clemency—an option that may ultimately determine their future beyond prison walls.
