New Delhi: In 2003, a heartbreaking murder took place in Bangalore, which put love, rebellion and jurisprudence… all three in the dock. A young woman, along with her boyfriend, killed her fiancé.
New Delhi: In 2003, a heartbreaking murder took place in Bangalore, which put love, rebellion and jurisprudence… all three in the dock. A young woman, along with her boyfriend, killed her fiancé. The reason for the murder was: family pressure and a 'dangerous step' taken in love. Now, 21 years later, the Supreme Court has given a verdict in this case which is extremely rare.
What was the matter?
The main character of the incident, Shubha Shankar, killed her fiancé Girish with the help of her lover Arun, and two other accomplices - Dinakaran and Venkatesh. Girish and Shubha's marriage was fixed, but Shubha was already in love with Arun and was against this marriage.
The two lovers planned the murder and Girish was killed. The Karnataka High Court convicted all four and sentenced them to life imprisonment. But when the case reached the Supreme Court, the story took a new turn.
What did the Supreme Court say?
According to NDTV report, in a rare decision, the Supreme Court has stayed the life sentence and arrest of Shubha and Arun for the time being. However, the court has upheld their conviction. But at the same time, both of them have been given 8 weeks' time to appeal for pardon from the Governor of Karnataka. The court called it a case of 'mistaken rebellion' and 'romantic illusion'.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Arvind Kumar said, "The voice of an ambitious young woman was crushed by a family decision forcibly imposed on her. Mental rebellion and an excessive imagination of love not only took the life of an innocent young man, but also ruined three other lives."
The humanistic approach of the court
The Supreme Court did not just bind this entire case in the sections of law, but also understood the social and emotional background that gave rise to this heinous crime. The court said, 'If the family had been a little sensitive, perhaps this crime would never have happened.' The court admitted that most of the accused were in their teens at that time and this crime was the result of 'passion of the moment' and 'dangerous decision', and not of a pre-planned criminal mindset.
How was your behavior in jail?
The court described the conduct of the four convicts in jail as 'commendable' and said that their behaviour was not objectionable. According to SC, 'They were not born criminals, it was a wrong decision that led to a horrific outcome.'
Can the punishment be pardoned?
While granting the two convicts the right to file a mercy petition to the Governor under Article 161, the Supreme Court said, "We request the Governor to take into consideration the entire social, emotional and temporal circumstances of the case while considering the petition."