On 15th May, 2015, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of the Chief Justice H.L. Dattu, Justice S.A. Bobde and Justice Arun Mishra, upheld the sentence of death penalty to a woman and her lover for killing seven members of her own family (including a 10-month old child) in a cold-blooded manner. The seven persons murdered were her own parents, brother, sister-in law and ten-month old nephew. This decision was pronounced in the cases of Shabnam v. State of UP and Saleem v. State of UP (Criminal Appeal Nos. 802-803 of 2015).
The brief facts are as under. The accused persons Shabnam and Saleem were involved in a love affair and an illicit physical relationship. While Shabnam is the educated daughter of the deceased family, working as a teacher, Saleem is an unemployed youth residing in the same village. Shabnam was pregnant at the time of commission of the said gruesome murders. The motive for commission of the murders was to eliminate Shabnam’s family who were vehemently opposed to their relationship and secure the entire property of the family creating financial security for themselves.
The accused put an end to the lives of seven members of the family while they lay asleep in their own house, absolutely unaware of the gory scheme of their own daughter and her paramour. The accused driven by the opposition to their alliance from the deceased family and alive to the conception of their illegitimate child, had hatched the depraved plan to first administer them sedatives mixed in tea prepared by accused Shabnam, who the family would not raise suspicion at, and thereafter, bleeding them to death by slitting the vital blood vessels in their throats. The accused couple did not even spare the ten-month old infant, who could not have protested to their liaison, and ruthlessly throttled him to death so as to leave no survivors for claiming share in the family’s property in the future. As soon as the family members were rendered dead, while accused Saleem fled from the spot disposing of the murder weapon and other evidence of crime, the accused Shabnam feigned unconsciousness and laid by the side of deceased father’s mutilated body, to callously insinuate that the crime had been committed by an outsider while she was asleep on the roof-top.
The trial court found both the accused guilty of murder and sentenced them to death penalty. The High Court confirmed the death penalty. In the Supreme Court, the amicus curiae who represented the accused, argued only on the question of sentence, deciding not to question the merits of the case. The Supreme Court, in this decision, upheld the sentence of death penalty awarded to both accused persons.
The Supreme Court held that the principles laid down in the cases of (1) Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20, (2) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and (3) Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470, indicate that the most significant aspect of sentencing policy in Indian criminal jurisprudence regarding award of death penalty is that life sentence is a rule and death sentence is an exception only to be awarded in “rarest of rare cases.” Death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.
The Supreme Court further observed that the aggravating circumstances in the present case indicate the extreme brutal, calculated and diabolical nature of the crime, which suggests that there is little likelihood of reform of these accused and of their abstaining from future crime. All these features stench of the apathetic attitude of the accused daughter towards her family and mirrors the extent of her depravity in schemingly committing the cold blooded murder of her own parents, brother, sister-in law and ten-month old nephew. This itself triggers intense indignation in the community. It is the combined concoction of all aggravating circumstances, that is, victims of the crime, motive for commission of murder, manner of execution, magnitude of crime and remorseless attitude of the accused that stands before it in this case, observed the court.
The Supreme Court noted that the mitigating circumstances regarding young age of the accused at the time of commission of crime do not bear any significance in terms of outweighing the aggravating circumstances of their wanton act. Further, accused Shabnam was pregnant at the time of commission of offence and the couple now has a dependent minor child. The Court observed that it has consistently held that such compassionate grounds are present in most cases and are not relevant in considering commutation of death sentence. The court reiterated the principle that when the offence is gruesome and was committed in a calculated and diabolical manner, the age of the accused may not be a relevant factor. It noted that it was shocking that at the pink of their youth, the couple indulged in such debased act of multiple murders driven by infatuation and exhibited no remorse.
Confirming the award of death penalty to both the accused persons, the Supreme Court observed as under:
“The appellant-accused persons’ preparedness, active involvement, scheming execution and subsequent conduct reeks of calculated and motivated murders. The act of slaughtering a ten month old child by strangulation in no chance reflects immature action but evidence for the lack of remorse, kindness and humanity. The crime is committed in the most cruel and inhuman manner which is extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical and revolting. Therefore, as the instant case requires us to award a punishment that is graduated and proportioned to the crime, we have reached the inescapable conclusion that the extreme culpability of both the appellants-accused makes them the most deserving for death penalty.”
It may, however, be noted that the death penalty awarded to these two accused persons may not be executed immediately since most of such convicts prefer review petitions and then curative petitions before the Supreme Court, followed by mercy petitions before the President. Thereafter, another round of writ petitions may begin such as on the ground of delay in deciding the mercy petition, etc. This whole process may take years.
