SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 85

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDU MALHOTRA, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
GAURI SHANKAR - APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.135 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).1836 of 2020)
Decided on : 16-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Adv. Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Murder of two children – Life sentence lasting till remainder of natural life of accused can be awarded.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder of two children – Life sentence – Apart from other prosecution witnesses duly supported by Histopathology reports, cause of death in case of both the children was found to be Aluminium Phosphide insecticide ingestion – Statement of accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where he denied having committed crime, but did not lead any evidence in defence – No error in finding of guilt being recorded by trial Court and confirmed by High Court in impugned judgment – Motive of crime was that appellant was living in a relationship with complainant who had two children from her previous marriage and he had taken away life of two minor innocent children at the very threshold of their life and murdered in a brutal manner – Conviction upheld – Life sentence lasting till remainder of natural life of appellant awarded. (Paras 6, 10, 15 and 16)

Facts of the case:

Sole accused appellant faced trial for committing murder of two minor children aged 4 years and 2 years in brutal manner by administering Celphos to them. After being convicted by trial Judge for offence under Section 302 IPC and confirmed by the High Court on appeal preferred at his instance being dismissed by judgment impugned dated 13th December, 2018, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

Findings of Court:

It is true that the punishment of remainder of natural life could not have been imposed by the learned trial Judge but after looking into the entire case, we consider it appropriate to confirm the sentence of imprisonment for life to mean remainder of natural life while upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Result : Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Rastogi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The sole accused appellant faced trial for committing the murder of two minor children aged 4 years and 2 years in brutal manner by administering celphos to them. After being convicted by learned trial Judge for offence under Section 302 IPC by judgment dated 1st July, 2013 and confirmed by the High Court on appeal preferred at his instance being dismissed by judgment impugned dated 13th December, 2018, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. The case of the prosecution was that complainant Anju was married with Ajay Kumar, S/o Sajjan Singh and from this wedlock, she had two children, namely, Vijay Kumar @ Bittu aged 4 years and Muskan aged 2 years. Ajay Kumar was addicted to liquor and because of intoxicants, he died. The accused appellant was residing on rent in the neighbourhood of complainant Anju. Accused appellant allegedly enticed Anju and brought her with her two children to Punjab where the fateful incident took place. The appellant used to quarrel with Anju and frequently beat the children and used to proclaim that he did not like the children as they were not his own and that some day he would kill both of them. About a month and half before the incident, he had fractured the arm of Vijay @ Bittu, deceased son of Anju. On the fateful day of 18th March, 2013, at about 7.30 a.m., Anju went to the temple for prayers. At that time, the children were sleeping in the house and the accused appellant was present. When Anju returned from the temple, she saw both her children lying on the cot struggling for life. The accused appellant went away telling the complainant Anju that he had given poison to both the children. The complainant Anju raised alarm and with the assistance of Jagdev Singh, PW2, the landlord and his nephew Kamaldeep Singh, PW3, both the children were taken to Civil Hospital, Mandi, Gobindgarh, where they were declared dead. On intimation to the police, statement of the complainant Anju was recorded and FIR was registered. The bodies were sent for postmortem examination. The viscera was sent for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.

4. Initially, the appellant pleaded guilty and did not claim trial. He admitted that he administered poison to the children as a result of which the children died within 1520 minutes. However, after the examination of the complainant Anju (PW1) and the landlord Jagdev Singh (PW2), he moved an application dated 14th May, 2013 stating that he had no concern with the crime and that he had been misled by Government counsel to make a wrong statement admitting his guilt.

5. The prosecution examined number of witnesses including Anju PW1, the complainant, whose both children were murdered by the accused appellant. The statement of PW1 Anju was duly supported by PW2 Jagdev Singh and PW3 Kamaldeep Singh who are the landlord and his nephew where the complainant Anju along with the accused appellant were residing at the time of the incident.

6. Apart from other prosecution witnesses duly supported by the Histopathology reports Exhibits P8 and P9, the cause of death in case of both the children was found to be Aluminium Phosphide insecticide ingestion. The statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC where he denied having committed the crime, but did not lead any evidence in defence.

7. Learned trial Judge finally held the appellant guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC and punished him with imprisonment for life which would mean remainder of natural life and fine of Rs.5000/ by judgment dated 1st July, 2013.

8. On the appeal being preferred by the appellant, the High Court revisited the record in totality and confirmed the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Judge by judgment dated 13th December, 2018 which is impugned before us in the instant appeal.

9. At the motion stage when the matter came up before this Court on 20th February, 2020, the plea which was


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top