CITATION | AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 1064, AIRONLINE 2021 SC 62 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT | 16, FEBRUARY, 2021 |
COURT | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |
APPELLANT | GAURI SHANKAR |
RESPONDENT | STATE OF PUNJAB |
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS | SECTION 302 IPC |
BENCH | AJAY RASTOGI, INDU MALHOTRA |
INTRODUCTION
This case is about appellant Gauri Shankar who filed appeal in Supreme Court against his conviction order under section 302 IPC for brutal murder of two innocent minor children. Case also highlights about importance of following proper procedure in dealing with criminal cases.
FACTS
- In this case the appellant was convicted for murder of two minor children aged 4 years and 2 years by giving them celphos.
- The appellant was found guilty under section 302 of IPC. Conviction of the appellant by trial court was upheld by High Court therefore an appeal an appeal was filed by appellant in apex court.
- The complainant Anju – mother of deceased children was in relationship with the appellant.
- The complainant Anju was married to Ajay Kumar and had two children Vijay Kumar @Bittu age 4 years and Muskan aged 2 years. Ajay died because of intoxicants as he was liquor addict.
- After her husband’s death the accused brought Anju and her children to Punjab, however after some time the appellant started abusing Anju and beating children, he even fractured arm of Vijay deceased son of Anju. The appellant did not like children and he wanted to get rid of them.
- On 18th march, 2013 when Anju was in temple the appellant gave poison to both the children. When complainant returned back, she found her children struggling for life and accused told her about the poison given by him.
- When both the children were taken to civil Hospital, where they were declared dead.
- Initially the accused pleaded guilty but later he retracted and claimed that he was misled by government council. The trial court convicted him under section 302 IPC, after this an appeal was filed in High Court which was rejected and his conviction was upheld. The appellant challenged his conviction in Supreme Court.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether the Trial Court had the authority to sentence the appellant to life imprisonment.
- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution conclusively proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
CONTENTIONS
APPELLANT
- The counsel for appellant contended that though accused was found guilty under section 302 IPC and he was sentenced to life imprisonment by Trial court but the Trial court did not had jurisdiction to give such punishment this could be done by High Court.
- The counsel for appellant further contended that this court at least should infer with the punishment given by Trial court.
- The counsel also stated that when charges were framed after recording the statement of prosecution witness the accused was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard.
RESPONDENT
- The counsel for respondent contended that considering the heinousness of crime committed by appellant the life imprisonment given by trial court should be approved by this court.
- The counsel further stated that appellants guilt was well – established by evidence.
JUDGMENT
In its decision the apex court dismissed the application of appellant, however the court acknowledged the procedural error that Trial Court cannot impose life imprisonment it should by imposed by higher courts. The court upheld the conviction of accused under section 302 IPC and affirmed the sentence of life imprisonment i.e. remainder of natural life. The court emphasized the gravity of crime considering it heinous as the accused killed two innocent minor children at very threshold of their lives.
ANALYSIS
This case emphasizes how crucial it is for criminal cases to follow procedures and how carefully judges should use their discretion when imposing sentences, striking a balance between the requirements of the law and the particulars of each case.
The case highlights the procedural rigor in criminal trials, especially regarding the opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses. The Supreme Court emphasized adherence to procedural fairness.
The Supreme Court clarified the authority of trial courts in imposing life sentences and underscored that in certain cases, such as heinous crimes, the severity of the offense may justify the imposition of life imprisonment
The Supreme Court used its discretion to uphold the sentence despite acknowledging the technical error in the sentencing authority and taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the cruelty involved.
CONCLUSION
The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court and the conviction of accused under section302 IPC was also upheld by the court despite acknowledging the procedural lapse in imposing such sentence. This case also throws light on role of Supreme Court in ensuring Justice by correcting errors of subordinate courts based on facts and circumstances of the case as in this case the court upheld the conviction and adjusted its sentence in its authority. The major fact which court considered in this was brutal murder of two minor children which is a heinous act committed by the accused. In this case the guild of accused is also well- established by all the evidence presented.
REFRENCES
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161731139/
- https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/5964/5964_2019_13_1501_43748_Judgement_21-Apr-2023.pdf
This Article is written by Palak Mehta, Student at G.H.G Institute of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments