Shabnam v, State of Uttar Pradesh - Synopsis
Ahir Mitra 4 Jun 2021

Shabnam v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

(2015) 6 SCC 632 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 309 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 492

On April 14, 2008, seven members of the same family were brutally murdered by unknown perpetrators, with Shabnam being the sole survivor. In an unconscious condition found by the neighbour Lateef Ullah. Shabnam stated that an unknown perpetrator entered the house and killed her family member including her father Shaukat Ali, her mother Hashmi, her two brothers Anees and Rashid, her sister-in-law Anjum, cousin Rabia, and her 10-month-old nephew Arsh. She informed the police that she was sleeping on the terrace and came down as it started raining and discovered the murders.

The statement was questioned by the investigating officer, Amroha SHO R P Gupta, because the bed linens on which the victims lay were crumpled, but not in the way they would have been if the victims had struggled or thrashed about while being attacked. The officer suspected the presence of drugs in the body of the victim since they also discovered an empty strip of 10 Biopose (a drug) tablets at the scene. Except for Arsh's body, all of the victims' bodies had residues of the tranquillizer diazepam (Biopose) in them, according to the post mortem examination. Shabnam's blood-stained garments (she was wearing different clothes when the neighbours called for help) and her phone were also discovered in the residence by the officer. Shabnam's phone record revealed that she called Saleem (her lover) frequently before and after the murder.

Both people in their 20s were accused of murder because Shabnam's family was opposed to their relationship, and the prosecution claimed that Shabnam drugged them so they wouldn't resist, then held them by their hair while Saleem aimed the axe at their necks, killing innocent people. Shabnam was also discovered to be seven weeks pregnant with Saleem's child during the investigation. Shabnam's family was opposed to her connection with Saleem, and there were frequent confrontations in the house about it. That night, Shabnam served her family members sedative-laced tea, following which her lover Saleem arrived at midnight and slit the throats of her family members with an axe, killing all seven innocent lives.

The court's order for capital penalty execution, on the other hand, openly ignored the convicts' entitlement to file a review petition and request mercy from the Governor for a commuting of the sentence. As a result, the National Law University, Delhi's Death Penalty Litigation Clinic and Shabnam filed a writ petition to have the execution order quashed. The supreme court stated that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution also applies to death row inmates. The order issued by the Session Court was rushed through without waiting for the convicts to exhaust their legal options.

The Supreme Court referenced the case of Mohd. Arif v. Supreme Court of India[1], in which the court declared that every review petition submitted by death row inmates for a review of their execution sentencing must be reviewed by a three-judge bench in open court. According to Order VI, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, cases where a death sentence has been upheld by the High Courts and an appeal has been filed in the apex court shall be heard by a bench of at least three judges.

The apex court, after quashing the death warrant issued by the Session Court, issued an order declaring that no criminal can be executed before all legal options open to them have been exhausted within the time limit. After the order, both accused persons filed an review petition. The bench emphasised on the duo's death of a new born as an example of good behaviour. The bench stated that the court's mission is to serve society, and that a felon cannot be forgiven just because of his or her exemplary behaviour with other criminals.

The bench went on to say that while every criminal is supposed to have a good heart, that does not excuse his unlawful behaviour. The crime committed by the perpetrator must also be taken into account. The bench deferred its decision on whether or not to uphold the death penalty, stating that it was a totally premeditated crime with meticulous planning since Shabnam's family was opposed to her connection with Saleem, and the two resolved to get rid of them and acted on it. The bench held that the finality of the death sentence is very important and one can’t go on fighting endlessly for everything.



[1] (2014) 9 SCC 737.

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com