The Supreme Court on July 14 (Monday) upheld the life sentence awarded to a woman convicted of murdering her fiancé, however, it allowed her a chance to seek pardon before the Karnataka State Governor, according to LiveLaw.
The court observed that the woman was being forced to marry the deceased man against her will and adopted "the wrong course of action in order to address her problem."
The court said that her crime cannot be condoned but also observed that 22 years have lapsed since the incident occurred in 2003 and the woman was not allowed to make a decision for herself.
“Ultimately, A-4 [Shubha] 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 A-4 was made to commit this offence by adopting the wrong course of action in order to address her problem. Years have rolled on since the occurrence of the crime, which was in 2003,” it observed.
It further said, “In light of the same, 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 highlighted that the powers of the Governor under Article 161 to grant pardon reflect the wider "constitutional ethos, goal and culture" towards reformation.
Article 161 of the Constitution empowers the Governor to grant a pardon or commute sentences for any offence.
It says: “The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.”
A division bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar heard the appeal against the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which had upheld the conviction of the appellants (woman and her aides) under Section 302 of erstwhile IPC along with Section 120 B, and awarded a life sentence upon them.
In the case, a young college-going woman, Shubha, killed the man to whom she was engaged, with the help of her close friend Arun Verma, along with two others, Venkatesh and Dinesh alias Dinakaran, it reported.
The man was allegedly attacked on the night of December 3, 2003, when he was out for dinner with her. The three other accused came and reportedly inflicted fatal injuries on his head with the help of a steel rod and fled from the spot.
The court observed that Shubha's motive for conspiring to kill her fiance was because she was being forced into marriage by her parents against her will. She reportedly confided this in her close friend Arun.
SC upheld her conviction but took a sympathetic stand towards the appellants (including her aides) and granted them an opportunity to seek a pardon from the Governor of Karnataka., the report said.
The court said that the purpose of Article 161 is from a reformatory standpoint. It provides the criminal the scope of improving self to be integrated back into society.
The SC has been observed to say that such a power is sovereign and constitutional courts only have a limited scope to interfere in it :
"Article 161 of the Constitution has an in-built laudable objective. This Article emphasizes the role of the State to facilitate an offender to be reintegrated into society, after realizing his mistake. This power is sovereign, and is to be exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Thus, it grants the Constitutional Court only a limited power of judicial review."
The bench, thus, granted an opportunity to the appellants to seek a pardon from the Karnataka Governor, considering that the crime was committed by Shubha out of frustration of being forced to marry against her will.
The court has given them eight weeks' time from the date of the judgment to file appropriate petitions seeking to invoke the power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution. Until their pardon petitions are considered, their sentences have been suspended by the Supreme Court.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
