In Rare Order, Top Court's "New Lease Of Life" To Woman Who Killed Fiance
In a rare judgment, the Supreme Court on Monday stayed the arrest and life sentence of a girl and her boyfriend while upholding their conviction in her fiance's murder case. The court has also granted them 8 weeks' time to approach the Karnataka Governor for a pardon, calling it a case of "misjudged rebellion" and "romantic delusion".
Shubha Shankar had killed her fiance Girish in 2003 with the help of her boyfriend, Arun and two others (Dinakaran and Venkatesh).
Taking a sympathetic view, the top court observed that most of the accused were teenagers at that time and had the family not pressured the woman for marriage, the life of an innocent young man would have been saved. The court made these observations while dismissing their appeals against the Karnataka High Court judgment.
"Voice of a young, ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind. This, backed by an unholy alliance of a mental rebellion and wild romanticism, led to the tragic murder of an innocent young man, while simultaneously destroying the lives of three others," said the Supreme Court.
The top court said that it wants to view the matter from a different perspective to give "a new lease of life to the appellants who have committed a heinous crime, notwithstanding the availability of other alternative avenues to resolve the problems faced by A-4 (the woman)".
It flagged the emotional and social breakdown that precipitated the crime, calling it a case of misjudged rebellion and romantic delusion. Giving them eight weeks' time to approach Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot for a pardon, urging him to note the circumstances governing the case.
"We would like to facilitate the appellants' right to seek pardon by permitting them to file appropriate petitions before His Excellency the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka. We would only request the constitutional authority to consider the same, which we hope and trust would be done by taking note of the relevant circumstances governing the case," the court said.
"Accordingly, we grant eight weeks' time from the date of this judgment for the appellants to file appropriate petitions seeking to invoke the power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution. Till these petitions are duly considered and decided, the appellants shall not be arrested and their sentence shall remain suspended," it said.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar also made several important observations.
"We do not wish to end our judgment by merely rendering a conviction. We do believe that this Court has a little more role to play. Considering that we started our discussion keeping in mind that this unfortunate event would not have occurred, had the family been more sympathetic in understanding the mental predilection and disposition of the convicted girl ... It is important for us to make some observations." The judgment read.
The bench observed: "Ultimately, the girl was unable to make a decision for herself, despite being an individual who had attained majority. Having said so, we cannot condone her action as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life of a young man. We would only state at this juncture that she was made to commit this offence by adopting the wrong course of action in order to address her problem."
The top court added, "Years have rolled on since the occurrence of the crime, which was 2003. The appellants, who committed the offence with adrenaline pumping in their veins, have now reached middle age. Two out of the four accused persons were teenagers at the time of the occurrence, while the girl had barely crossed that phase. Accused 3 was a man aged 28 years, and was recently married with one child."
The Supreme Court also cited the convicts' conduct in prison, which, it said, was "not adverse".
"Their conduct in the prison is also not adverse. They were not born as criminals, but it was an error of judgment through a dangerous adventure which led to the commission of a heinous crime," the bench observed.
The court also upheld Ms Shankar's separate conviction for destruction of evidence under Section 201.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
38 minutes ago
- The Print
In TDP letter to CEC on Special Intensive Revision, praise, suggestions, and echoes of Oppn's concerns
While recognising the SIR as 'a valuable opportunity to ensure that the electoral rolls are updated in a fair, inclusive, and transparent manner,' the TDP stated that 'to ensure voter confidence and administrative preparedness, the SIR process should be conducted with sufficient lead time, ideally not within six months of any major election'. In a four-page submission to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in New Delhi Tuesday, the Chandrababu Naidu-led party has red-flagged some contentious matters like the timing and verification linked to citizenship. Hyderabad/New Delhi: Amid the Opposition bloc's objections to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in poll-bound Bihar, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), a key NDA partner, has highlighted several considerations for the Election Commission (EC) in conducting the exercise. Many of these suggestions echo the Opposition's concerns. Opposition parties are questioning the exercise, taken up 3-4 months before the Bihar polls. The timing of the ECI's exercise in Bihar is a concern which the Supreme Court also highlighted while hearing petitions opposing the SIR process. The SC in its order listed three questions the petitioners raised, one of them being: 'The timing for undertaking the present exercise including the time line given for preparation of the Draft Electoral Rolls, objections, etc, and the final publication of Electoral Roll, considering the fact that Bihar State Assembly elections are due in November, 2025, for which notifications will come weeks in advance'. Seeking clarity on SIR purpose, scope, the TDP said that it should be 'limited to electoral roll correction and inclusion'. 'It should be explicitly communicated that the exercise is not related to citizenship verification, and any field instructions must reflect this distinction,' it added. In its order directing the SIR in Bihar last month, the ECI had cited Article 326 of the Constitution, which says that elections to the Lok Sabha and the legislative assemblies shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. This, the provision says, means 'every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than eighteen years of age…shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election'. However, during the hearing on petitions challenging the Bihar electoral roll revision, lawyers appearing for the petitioners had taken objection to the ECI determining 'citizenship' through the revision exercise. For instance, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for RJD MP Prof Manoj Kumar Jha, asserted that it is only the Government of India that can contest a person's citizenship and not a 'small officer of the EC'. The TDP said voters already enrolled in the most recent certified electoral roll should not be required to re-establish their eligibility unless specific and verifiable reasons are recorded. 'In line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer prior inclusion creates a presumption of validity, and any deletion must be preceded by a valid inquiry,' the party said in its submission adding that 'the burden of proof lies with the ERO or objector, not the voter, especially when the name exists in the official roll.' The petitioners challenging the revision in Bihar have relied on a 1995 judgment the TDP also cited. In this verdict, the Supreme Court had taken objection to the generalised removal of individuals who were voters in past elections, and them being asked to prove their eligibility to find their place back in the rolls. It had asserted that in cases in which persons were voters in previous elections, it would be presumed that before entering their names, the concerned officer must have gone through the procedural requirements under the statute. The party requested the commission to issue 'clear procedural guidance stating that deletion of any voter must be based on a reasoned order, proper notice, and an opportunity to respond.' 'Where voters are unable to submit documents at the time of visit, stage-wise verification should be permitted, instead of immediate exclusion.' 'Nothing to do with SIR in Bihar' A delegation of TDP leaders including AP unit chief Palla Srinivasa Rao, MPs Lavu Sri Krishna Devarayalu, Byreddy Shabari, Prasada Rao, and party leader Jyothsna Tirunagari submitted the suggestions to ECI, on a day party supremo is also in New Delhi. 'Our submissions have nothing to do with the SIR in Bihar. It is part of our party's larger support for reforms in the election processes, be it eradication of duplicate cards or other matters. We want technology-enabled electoral roll management.,' Tirunagari told ThePrint. Though Andhra Pradesh is not due for assembly elections until 2029, the ruling party requested the ECI to start the process in the state as early as possible. The ECI, in its order announcing the Bihar revision had also said that it has decided to begin such a revision in the entire country for 'discharge of its constitutional mandate to protect the integrity of the electoral rolls', but was starting the exercise in Bihar since it will go to polls this year. Since Andhra Pradesh has high levels of seasonal migration, particularly from rural and coastal regions, SIR should deploy mobile BLO units and accept temporary address declarations to prevent exclusion of such workers and displaced families, TDP said in the letter. (Edited by Gitanjali Das) Also Read: No legal, valid 'citizenship' document that's issued—how it puts big question mark on ECI's Bihar exercise
News18
an hour ago
- News18
2003 Bengaluru Techie Murder: SC Upholds Life Sentence Of Law Student Fiancée & Others, But...
Last Updated: The court let the convicts seek pardon from the Karnataka governor under Article 161, citing the crime as a result of youthful misjudgment rather than inherent criminality The Supreme Court on July 14 upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a then BA-LLB student, her boyfriend, and two others for the murder of her fiancé in 2003. However, while affirming their culpability, the court granted them liberty to seek pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution, noting the psychological and circumstantial complexities that surrounded the crime. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar dismissed the appeals filed by Kum Shubha alias Shubhashankar and co-accused Arun Verma, Dinesh alias Dinakaran, and Venkatesh, challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision upholding their conviction and sentence for the murder of BV Girish, a 26-year-old software engineer employed with Intel, Bengaluru. The murder, which occurred just two days after the victim's engagement to Shubha, was, in the court's words, not the result of innate criminality but a 'dangerous adventure born out of emotional rebellion and wild romanticism". The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstantial evidence, including continuous call records between Shubha and the co-accused, pointing to a clear conspiracy and 'meeting of minds". The court also acknowledged the mental state of the girl, observing that 'the voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind." Ita remarked that this inner conflict, paired with emotional entanglements, culminated in the tragic loss of an innocent life and simultaneously derailed the lives of four young individuals. The bench, however, made it clear that empathy could not override culpability. 'We cannot condone her action as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life," the court said, while also noting that years had passed since the crime and that the appellants were no longer the same individuals they were at the time of the offence. Two of the four convicts were teenagers at the time of the incident, while Shubha had just crossed that threshold. The fourth accused, a 28-year-old man, was recently married and had a child when the appeal was decided. The court acknowledged their middle-aged status today, observing that 'adrenaline-pumped decisions of youth must sometimes be revisited through the lens of reform, not just retribution". Liberty to Seek Pardon While dismissing the appeal and affirming the life sentence, the court invoked Article 161 of the Constitution, allowing the appellants to file petitions for gubernatorial pardon before the governor of Karnataka. The bench expressed hope that the constitutional authority would take into account the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the case. 'We would only request the constitutional authority to consider the same, which we hope and trust would be done by taking note of the relevant circumstances governing the case," the judgment stated. The court granted the convicts eight weeks to file the pardon plea and ordered that they shall not be arrested and that their sentence shall remain suspended until the governor's decision is made. What Happened? According to the prosecution, Shubha was unwilling to marry Girish and confided in her college friend and romantic partner, Arun Verma. Moved by her distress, Verma sought help from his cousin Dinesh, who, in turn, brought in his teenage friend Venkatesh to execute the plan. The engagement took place on November 30, 2003. Two days later, on December 3, Shubha invited Girish to dinner. On their return, they stopped at the 'Air View Point" along the Airport Ring Road to watch planes land, a popular hangout spot in Bengaluru. It was there that Girish was attacked with a steel rod by an 'unknown assailant" and left with critical head injuries. He succumbed to the wounds the following day in the hospital. While initially appearing as a random act of violence, investigations soon revealed a web of mobile communication between the accused. The prosecution's case rested primarily on circumstantial evidence, supported by call detail records (CDR), which placed the accused in constant contact before, during, and after the murder. The trial court convicted all four under Section 302 (murder), read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court affirmed the conviction, following which the appeals landed before the Supreme Court. In perhaps the most humanising portion of the verdict, the SC refrained from using the harsh language usually associated with murder convictions. It instead focused on the circumstances of compulsion, familial pressure, and emotional immaturity, concluding that while the crime cannot be forgiven, the convicts deserve the opportunity for rehabilitation. 'This Court seeks to view the matter from a different perspective, only for the purpose of giving a new lease of life to the appellants," the judgment said, striking a rare balance between justice for the deceased and reformative justice for the offenders. Under Article 161, a governor has constitutional power to pardon, remit, or suspend a sentence. The Supreme Court's order does not mandate such relief but merely permits the convicts to make the request. The final decision lies with the governor of Karnataka, who must weigh the circumstances, including the gravity of the offence and the passage of time, before granting any clemency. Until then, the sentence imposed on the convicts remains suspended, and they won't be taken into custody. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
As Assam CM defends eviction drives, Opposition sniffs ploy to clear space for corporate houses
Jiten Gohain is the head of one of 218 families evicted during a drive the authorities in Assam's Lakhimpur district carried out on July 3 to reclaim 78 acres of Village Grazing Reserve (VGR) land across four locations. On July 8, the district's Sub-Divisional Land Advisory Committee approved the allotment of 1.5 kathas (4,320 sq. ft) of land each to 21 families evicted, in one of the fastest such exercises. Among them were 12 belonging to the Ahom community, which is seeking Scheduled Tribe status, to which Mr. Gohain belongs. District Commissioner Pronab Jit Kakoty said the eviction drive was conducted following 'due process'. He said the affected families, which failed to produce land ownership documents, were served notices on June 29. 'I had a larger plot from where we were evicted, but the government has at least provided some space,' Mr. Gohain said. Abul Hasan Sheikh, one of some 200-odd Bengali-speaking Muslim families evicted from Lakhimpur, is not sure if the government would be equally 'generous' to provide him an alternative plot. He is originally a resident of western Assam's South Salmara-Mankachar district along the border with Bangladesh. Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma named him and at least a dozen others from faraway districts – most of them Muslim-majority – to underline the alleged 'agenda of demographic invasion by strategically occupying lands in areas dominated by indigenous communities'. 'An analysis has revealed that the families evicted from Lakhimpur included 76 from Barpeta, 63 from Nagaon, seven from Goalpara, and two from South Salmara-Mankachar. Why should someone from South Salmara go to Lakhimpur instead of going to West Bengal, about 50 km away?' Mr. Sarma told reporters on Tuesday. 'Voter list deletions' The Chief Minister said more than 50,000 people have been evicted from 'protected areas, wetlands, VGR and PGR (Professional Grazing Land), government khas (land owned by the government that has not been settled) and wasteland, and those belonging to satras (Vaishnav monasteries) and namghars (prayer halls)' over the past few weeks. According to the State's Revenue and Disaster Management Department, the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation of 1986, the Land Policy of 1989, and a 2011 Supreme Court judgment mandate protection of government and village common lands. It also cites the violation of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act of 2010 as a punishable offence. After the BJP came to power in Assam in May 2016, the first eviction drive was carried out in three fringe villages of Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve. Two persons, including a minor girl, were killed during the eviction based on a Gauhati High Court order in September 2016. 'Most of those evicted are listed as voters in places from where they came. We have asked the authorities from where they were evicted to delete their names from the electoral rolls to eliminate duplicate names,' Mr. Sarma said. Citing the case of the 12 Ahom families, the All Assam Minority Students' Union has demanded rehabilitation for the evicted Muslim families. It claimed many people had lands they were evicted from before these were declared as reserve forests. The Opposition parties have criticised the eviction drive for disproportionately targeting the minority communities. 'The Supreme Court and the National Human Rights Commission should take note of the eviction during the court holidays in Assam to target poor Muslims. The government must first provide adequate rehabilitation and only then undertake eviction,' All India United Democratic Front MLA Rafiqul Islam said. 'The BJP government has been projecting the evicted people as Bangladeshi. The government provided a compensation package of ₹14.72 crore to 332 families evicted from Kaziranga. People evicted [in 2021] for the Gorukhuti project [Darrang district] were compensated and given land in the Dalgaon area. Why is the government doing so if these people are Bangladeshi?' Congress leader and advocate Aman Wadud said. Others pointed out that the Dhubri district administration has asked 1,400 families displaced from Chapar town, reportedly to make space for a thermal power plant by the Adani Group, to relocate to a sandbar in the middle of the Brahmaputra river. 'Politics of polarisation' 'The eviction is being carried out for two reasons. Firstly, they want to clear land for corporate houses. Secondly, evicting minorities paves the way for the politics of polarisation... so that the Hindu voters back the BJP, especially in eastern Assam, where it is facing challenges,' Raijor Dal MLA Akhil Gogoi said. Lurinjyoti Gogoi, the chief of Assam Jatiya Parishad (AJP), said eviction drives are a form of the tried-and-tested ploy of weaponising the 'Bangladeshi issue' before the poll. The Assembly poll in Assam is due by May 2026. 'The Chief Minister claims he is doing everything for the indigenous people. In reality, more tribal families have been evicted than the Muslims. In Karbi Anglong, 20,000 Adivasi, Karbi, and Naga families have been evicted to hand over 18,000 bighas of land to the Reliance Group,' the AJP leader claimed. In Assam, one bigha is equivalent to 14,400 sq. ft. He also cited 9,000 bighas of land 'to be handed over to the Adani Group' in Dima Hasao district, 45 bighas 'taken away' from the Adivasis for a hotel project near Kaziranga, and 75 bighas for a Patanjali project in the Golaghat district. 'It is evident why the government is on a land acquisition spree. Of the 49,000 bighas cleared, only 6,000 bighas were under the occupation of the religious minorities,' the AJP leader said.
