In a rare decision, the Supreme Court gave a “new lease of life” to a woman convicted of killing her fiancé, pausing her sentence and granting 8 weeks to seek pardon, saying, “They were not born as criminals.”
In a rare ruling, the Supreme Court put a hold on both the arrest and life sentence of a young woman and her boyfriend, while affirming their conviction in the murder case of her fiancé.
The court has granted them an eight-week period to seek a pardon from the Karnataka Governor, characterizing the situation as a case of “misjudged rebellion” and “romantic delusion.”
Shubha Shankar was found guilty of murdering her fiancé, Girish, in 2003, with the assistance of her boyfriend, Arun, and two others, Dinakaran and Venkatesh.
The apex court said ,
“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.“
Taking a compassionate stance, the court noted that most of the accused were teenagers at the time of the crime. It suggested that had the family not pressured the woman into marriage, the life of an innocent young man could have been spared. These observations were made while dismissing their appeals against the Karnataka High Court’s ruling.
The Supreme Court said,
“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,”
The court expressed its intention to view the matter from a different angle to provide “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 highlighted the emotional and social breakdown that led to the crime, describing it as a case of misjudged rebellion and romantic delusion.
The court granted them eight weeks to approach Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot for a pardon, urging him to consider the circumstances surrounding the case.
The court stated,
“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 bench, consisting of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, made several significant remarks.
The judgment read,
“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 bench noted,
“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 Supreme 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.”
Additionally, the Supreme Court remarked on the convicts’ behavior in prison, which it described as “not adverse.”
The bench observed,
“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 court also upheld Ms. Shankar’s separate conviction for the destruction of evidence under Section 201.
Case Title: Kum. Shubha @ Shubhashankar vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Read Attachment