Cabbie held guilty for BPO girl's rape, murder

BANGALORE: Almost five years after Bangalore girl Pratibha Srikantamurthy was raped and murdered by cab driver Shivakumar in December 2005, 11th additional civil and sessions judge B N Gudali pronounced him guilty on Wednesday.
For Pratibha’s mother Gowramma, it was the moment she was waiting for. Having lost her only child, she fought single-handed for justice, attending every hearing since the trial began three years and nine months ago.Society remained mostly indifferent to her plight and tragedy, as she persevered with the case so Pratibha got justice.
It was 1.50 am on December 13, 2005, when Pratibha, 27, was ready for another gruelling night at work, and the deadly call came saying that a new cab driver would pick her up. In all innocence, Pratibha gave directions to the driver and at 2 am, she was on the vehicle to death. What unfolded in the next 20 minutes on that night is something the city will not forget. Pratibha was mercilessly raped and murdered in an isolated spot in Anjanapura Layout.
On Wednesday, the court hall was packed from 10 am, in anticipation of the judgment. Shivakumar was brought to court at 11.30 am. Judge B B Gudali told Shivakumar: ‘‘You are proved guilty of the charges against you. Do you have anything to say?’’ A visibly shaken Shivakumar tried to defend himself, pleading: "I am innocent and not
done anything like that. I have been forcibly implicated in the case. I have old parents to look after. Please reduce the punishment for me.’’ But Gowramma countered by saying, "What about me? Who do I have?"
After an hour-long argument and counter-argument between public prosecutor V K Patil and defence lawyer Shankarappa on whether capital punishment should be awarded or not, the judge pronounced: ‘‘Order of sentence has been posted to October 8.’’ The quantum of punishment will be known on Friday.
After Shivakumar pleaded for mercy, V K Patil took over the argument to prove why this case should be treated as a ‘rarest of rare’ case and award capital punishment to the killer. Citing the example of a Supreme Court judgment of 2009, where capital punishment was awarded to the accused in the murder of a newly married woman, Patil said the court had noted that ‘‘capital punishment should be awarded when there was credible and cogent evidence’’.
‘‘This case is an offence against society, and committed on a helpless woman at odd hours. The Supreme Court has also noted that the sentence imposed should be consistent with the enormity of crime committed. The court should respond to society’s cry for justice. If a lenient view is taken, it will be counter-productive in the long run,’’ he argued.