Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Double Murder of Minors: Gauri Shankar vs. State of Punjab (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 16 February 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 76
Judges: Indu Malhotra, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a trial court sentence a convict to life imprisonment that extends to the remainder of their natural life? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent criminal appeal, examining the extent of sentencing powers of trial courts. The case involved a man convicted of the brutal murder of two minor children. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and clarified the sentencing powers of trial courts, specifically regarding life imprisonment. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Ajay Rastogi, with Justice Rastogi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The complainant, Anju, was married to Ajay Kumar and had two children, Vijay Kumar (aged 4) and Muskan (aged 2). After Ajay Kumar’s death due to alcohol addiction, Anju became acquainted with the accused, Gauri Shankar, who was her neighbor. Gauri Shankar enticed Anju and her children to move to Punjab. There, Gauri Shankar frequently quarreled with Anju, often beating the children and expressing his dislike for them, stating they were not his own and that he would kill them. About a month and a half before the incident, he had fractured Vijay’s arm.

On March 18, 2013, at approximately 7:30 a.m., Anju went to a temple, leaving her children sleeping at home with Gauri Shankar. Upon returning, she found her children struggling for life on their cot. Gauri Shankar informed her that he had poisoned them and fled. Anju, with the help of her landlord Jagdev Singh and his nephew Kamaldeep Singh, rushed the children to the hospital, where they were declared dead. Following this, Anju filed a police complaint, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and the start of investigations.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, Gauri Shankar pleaded guilty to administering poison to the children. However, after the examination of the complainant Anju (PW-1) and the landlord Jagdev Singh (PW-2), he retracted his guilty plea, claiming he had been misled by the government counsel. The Trial Court, after examining several witnesses and considering the evidence, convicted Gauri Shankar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment, specifying it to mean the remainder of his natural life, along with a fine of Rs. 5,000.

Gauri Shankar appealed the conviction to the High Court, which upheld the Trial Court’s decision. Subsequently, he appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the punishment for murder.

Section 302 of the IPC states:

“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The Court also considered Section 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which mandates that the accused be given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.

Section 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states:

“Evidence for prosecution. – (1) On the date so fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution: Provided that the Judge may permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination. (2) The Judge may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the trial court did not provide a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) as mandated under Section 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, at the time of framing of charges.
• The appellant contended that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by sentencing him to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. He argued that only the High Court or the Supreme Court has the power to impose such a sentence, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan and Others [2016(7) SCC 1].

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent countered that the appellant was indeed given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, and the cross-examination was done by the counsel for the accused.
• The respondent argued that the trial court was within its rights to impose a life sentence and that the Supreme Court could uphold the sentence, given the heinous nature of the crime.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses as mandated under Section 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Whether the trial court had the power to impose a sentence of life imprisonment to mean the remainder of the natural life of the convict.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Referred:

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with punishment for murder.
• Section 230, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Mandates reasonable opportunity for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Union of India vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan and Others [2016(7) SCC 1]* to reiterate that the power to impose a modified punishment of life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life rests only with the High Court and Supreme Court.
• The Court cited Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767* to support the concept of a special category of sentence, where life imprisonment can extend beyond 14 years without remission.
• The Court overruled Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 452*, which had held that the deprivation of remission power by awarding sentences of 20 or 25 years is not permissible.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the heinous nature of the crime and the fact that the appellant had brutally murdered two innocent minor children. The Court also considered the fact that the appellant was in a relationship with the complainant, who had two children from her previous marriage, and that the appellant had taken the lives of these children in a brutal manner. The Court acknowledged the legal principle that the trial court could not impose a sentence of life imprisonment to mean the remainder of natural life, but decided to confirm the sentence, considering the gravity of the crime.

Fact:Law Ratio: The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the brutal nature of the crime and the vulnerability of the victims. While the legal principles regarding sentencing were considered, the factual circumstances played a more significant role in the final decision.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Whether the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses?

Issue 2: Whether the trial court had the power to impose a sentence of life imprisonment to mean the remainder of the natural life of the convict?

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that while the trial court did not have the power to impose a sentence of life imprisonment to mean the remainder of natural life, it upheld the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. The Court noted that the appellant had committed a heinous crime by brutally murdering two minor children.

The Court stated, “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 the remainder of natural life while upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC.”

The Court further observed, “after the accused has been held guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for life could indeed be imposed by the learned trial Judge under its judgment dated 1st July, 2013.”

The Court also mentioned, “On the legal principles, the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be correct, but we have taken note of the prosecution case in totality with motive of the crime that he was living in a relationship with the complainant Anju who had two children from the previous marriage, and had taken away the life of two minor innocent children at the very threshold of their life and murdered in a brutal manner by administering celphos to them has been established.”

The Court clarified that although the trial court had erred in specifying that the life imprisonment would mean the remainder of the convict’s natural life, the sentence itself was within the bounds of law, and the Supreme Court, in exercise of its powers, confirmed the sentence.

Key Takeaways

• Trial courts cannot specify that a life sentence means the remainder of a convict’s natural life. This power is reserved for the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court can uphold a life sentence imposed by a trial court, even if the trial court incorrectly specified that it meant the remainder of natural life, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that while legal procedures must be followed, the gravity of the crime and the facts of the case are critical factors in sentencing decisions.
• The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the sentence underscores its commitment to ensuring that those who commit heinous crimes receive appropriate punishment.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while trial courts cannot specify that a life sentence means the remainder of a convict’s natural life, the Supreme Court can uphold such a sentence if it deems it appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the crime is heinous. This clarifies the sentencing powers of trial courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such matters. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the sentencing powers of the Trial Court.

Conclusion

In the case of Gauri Shankar vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the murder of two minor children. While acknowledging that the trial court had erred in specifying that the life sentence meant the remainder of the appellant’s natural life, the Supreme Court confirmed the sentence, emphasizing the heinous nature of the crime. This judgment clarifies the sentencing powers of trial courts and reinforces the principle that the gravity of the crime is a crucial factor in determining the appropriate punishment.