Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Of Woman For Fiance's Murder; Allows Her & Aides To Seek Governor's Pardon

In an extraordinary instance, the Supreme Court on July 14, while upholding the life sentence of a female convict guilty of murdering her fiancé, granted her an opportunity to seek pardon before the Karnataka State Governor. The Court also held that the powers of the Governor under Article 161 to grant pardon reflect the wider "constitutional ethos, goal and culture" towards reformation. The Court stressed that the convict, who was being forced to marry the deceased against her will, adopted "the wrong course of action in order to address her problem."The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar was hearing an appeal against the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the conviction of the appellants under S. 302 IPC read with S.120 B IPC and a life sentence imposed upon them. The case pertains to the murder committed by a young college-going woman, Shubha, of her fiancé (deceased) with the help of her close friend Arun Verma, along with two others, Venkatesh and Dinesh @ Dinakaran.The deceased was attacked on the night of December 3, 2003, when he was out for dinner with Shubha, when 3 other accused came and inflicted fatal injuries on the head of the deceased with the help of a steel rod and fled from the spot.Notably, the Court observed that Shubha's motive for conspiring to kill the deceased was because she was being forced into marriage by her parents against her will and confided this in her close friend ArunWhile the Apex Court upheld the conviction, it took a sympathetic stand towards the appellants and granted them an opportunity to seek a pardon from the Governor of Karnataka. Notably, Article 161 elaborates on the power of the Governor to grant a pardon or commute sentences for any offence. It reads: “The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.”Article 161 Embodies State's Larger Vision Of Administering Punishments With Equity & Humanity :The Court interpreted that the purpose of Article 161 is, from a reformatory standpoint, there the criminal has the scope of improving and can be integrated back into society. It observed that such a power is sovereign and constitutional courts only have a limited scope to interfere in it : "Article 161 of the Constitution has an in-built laudable objective. This Article emphasizes the role of the State to facilitate an offender to be reintegrated into society, after realizing his mistake. This power is sovereign, and is to be exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Thus, it grants the Constitutional Court only a limited power of judicial review."The Court went a step ahead to analyse that while there are other statutory remedies which are similar to the powers under Article 161, like Sections 473 and 474 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C'), they cannot be equated to Article 161. Drawing a contrast between the statutory powers to commute a sentence and constitutional powers under Article 161, the Court held that the latter has a wider scope. The distinction was based on (1) Statutory powers would apply, definingly as per the words of the provisions, only to a certain class of convicts, while Article 161 is based on the discretion of the Governor; (2) Statutory powers derive their authority from the legislation, while the powers under Article 161 are based upon the Constitutional ethos itself and (3) thus the former deals with legislation-oriented purposes, while the latter is aimed at ensuring equity and humanity are considered while reviewing the issue of punishment. "While statutory provisions govern classes of convicts collectively, the prerogative of pardon is generally exercised discretely in specific instances. Therefore, the scope of this power is much broader and is to be applied on a case-to-case basis." "A constitutional power is fundamentally different and distinct from a statutory one. While statutory powers are derived from laws enacted by legislatures and remain subject to amendment or repeal, constitutional powers originate from the Constitution itself. Therefore, the power to pardon, reprieve, respite, remit etc. forms part of the constitutional ethos, goal and culture. Unlike statutory provisions, which are tailored to address specific scenarios or population demographics, constitutional powers embody the State's commitment to a broader ethical vision – one that prioritizes humanity and equity, even in the administration of punishment."Powers Under Article 161 Can Be Exercised Irrespective Of Procedural Law Limitations The Court also placed reliance on two previous decisions, namely Maru Ram v. Union of India and Ors., and Shatrughan Chauhan...

Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Of Woman For Fiance's Murder; Allows Her & Aides To Seek Governor's Pardon

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags