The case summary is written by Adv. Sugandha Sharma, practicing Advocate in the Courts of Delhi and is the Co-founder, LC Associates (Advocates and Legal Consultants)
(A case of Capital punishment based on circumstantial evidence)
“The first woman to be hanged after Independence”, the headlines which are in limelight from the last many days has caught the attention of the entire nation. The brutal and inhumane acts of the accused, namely Shabnam and co-accused, Saleem, which shook the lanes of Amroha, Uttar Pradesh on one fateful night of 15-04-2008 is what led the courts to treat the same as rarest of rare case, thereby awarding capital punishment to the accused. The accused will now be hanged, after their last available remedy of mercy petition, was rejected by the President of India.
The accused Shabnam, in connivance with her lover, Saleem, committed brutal parricide by killing the seven members of her family, i.e. father, mother, younger brother, cousin niece, elder brother and his wife and their infant son. The entire case was based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the incident, so what facts and circumstances led the courts to decide and upheld the same fit for capital punishment as one and the only punishment for the accused?
Initially the FIR was registered by the neighbours of the accused (Shabnam), against unknown men for murdering the family members of the accused (Shabnam), but upon investigation and gathering of evidence such as, murder weapon, tablets, blood stained clothes, etc. from accused, the charge sheet was filed and thereby co-accused Saleem, was charged with section 302 r/w section 34 and, Accused, Shabnam, was charged separately under section 302 of IPC.
The following facts and evidence came into light during trial by the Sessions Judge:
Testimony of Neighbours of accused (Shabnam) (who broke into her house upon hearing her cry on the fateful night),
Testimony of Tea Seller and block head of the village who testified that Saleem, brought and handed over 10 intoxicating tablets to Shabnam, which she administered to her family members in tea. The family members being unconscious, Saleem reached her house with the murder weapon and as Shabnam held the heads of her family members, Saleem kept cutting their necks one-by-one. They also testified to the fact that accused-Shabnam has herself throttled the infant.
Pharmacist and the staff from where the co-accused (Saleem), tried to purchase the intoxicating tablets;
Other witnesses who confirmed the illicit relation between the accused.
Recoveries of the murder weapon axe from the pond and a bloodstained shirt were made at the instance of accused (Saleem). Mobile Phone, one empty wrapper of 10 biopose tablets, bloodstained clothes and mobile sim of Saleem were recovered from accused Shabnam's possession. Call records between the accused were also obtained.
The post-mortem reports indicated the cause of death of the deceased father, mother, younger brother, cousin and elder brother and his wife as shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries, namely, multiple incised wounds caused by a sharp-edged weapon and a cut on the front of neck. Further, inner-linings of the stomach of the deceased persons were recorded as red and swollen, concluding that intoxicating substances were ingested before death. The cause of death for the deceased infant was recorded by means of throttling and strangulation with hand.
The trial court concluded that the stand of the deceased persons was that they were only against the marriage of their educated daughter accused-Shabnam with the uneducated unemployed co-accused-Saleem. The link in chain of events established, supported by the evidence, post-mortem report and testimony of witnesses, confirms the guilt of accused for the brutal murder of seven persons and thereby, convicted them for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced the accused to death.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD
The same view was upheld by the High Court of judicature of Allahabad and confirmed the judgment of conviction of the accused.
“… we find that in the present case, the aggravating circumstances would include the diabolical and calculated nature of the crime which was committed after methodical planning. ............The subsequent conduct of accused Shabnam in removing all signs of the crime, by changing her clothes, removing any signs, and fingerprints, etc. and then raising an alarm for help and thereafter pretending to be unconscious for creating an impression that some outsiders had committed this crime, all indicate the cold-blooded planning before, during and after the commission of the crime.”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The question only limited to the sentence was challenged in the Supreme Court-
The Supreme Court, applied the following principles for treating the case as “rarest of rare case” for imposing death penalty as adequate punishment:
(1) In the opinion of the court, imposition of any other punishment i.e. life imprisonment would be completely inadequate and would not meet the ends of justice.
(2) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception.
(3) The option to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be cautiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all relevant circumstances.
(4) The method (planned or otherwise) and the manner (extent of brutality and inhumanity, etc.) in which the crime was committed and the circumstances leading to commission of such heinous crime.”
After the in-depth scrutiny of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the Supreme Court found no error in the orders passed by the courts below, and upheld the decision of Capital Punishment for the accused.
The ground of Appellant-accused, of being pregnant at the time of commission of the offence and the couple now having a dependent minor child was also rejected as relevant compassionate ground in considering commutation of death sentence. The Supreme Court held:
6. ……Further, it has also been pointed out before us that appellant-accused Shabnam was pregnant at the time of commission of the offence and the couple now has a dependent minor child. While the said circumstances stand as such, it is pertinent to note that this Court has consistently held that such compassionate grounds are present in most cases and are not relevant in considering commutation of death sentence. 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, was further affirmed by this Court in Mofil Khan case [(2015) 1 SCC 67 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 556] . It is however shocking that at the pink of their youth, the couple indulged in such a debased act of multiple murders driven by infatuation and exhibited no remorse.
 - Supreme Court of India (Heinous crime in the name of love)){kind=link}
0 Comments