SC stays life sentence of woman, boyfriend, 2 others who killed her fiancé in 2003

Terming it a case of “misjudged rebellion" and “romantic delusion", the Supreme Court has stayed the arrest and life sentence awarded to a woman, her boyfriend and two others even as it upheld their conviction and life sentence for killing her fiancé in 2003.

A Bench of Justice MM Sundaresh and Justice Aravind Kumar gave eight weeks to the convicts to move the Karnataka Governor for pardon.

Shubha Shankar had killed her fiancé BV Girish — a software engineer—barely two days after his engagement with the help of her boyfriend Arun, Dinakaran and Venkatesh on December 3, 2003. Shubha asked Girish to take her out for dinner at a hotel and made him stop his scooter near an airport to view airplanes’ landing.

All the four accused were sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court and the order was upheld by the Karnataka High Court.

“As we are satisfied with the adequacy of the evidence on record, though for different reasons, we are inclined to uphold the conviction and sentence rendered by the high court in the impugned judgment,” the top court said, confirming their conviction and sentence.

However, it said, “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."

Granting eight weeks to the convicts to file appropriate petitions seeking to invoke the Governor’s power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution, the top court said, “Till these petitions are duly considered and decided, the appellants shall not be arrested and their sentence shall remain suspended."

Two of the four accused were teenagers at the time of incident whereas the fiancé of the victim had barely “crossed that phase”, it said. “As a court, we seek to view the matter from a different perspective, only for the purpose of giving a new lease of life to the appellants who have committed a heinous crime…, the Bench said, noting that their conduct in the prison was not adverse.

“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 top court noted.

“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. It is difficult for us to decide at this stage who influenced the other, although there is a clear meeting of minds,” it said.

“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 top court noted.

India