Upholding the judgment in Shabnam Vs. Union of India & Ors, the Hon’ble Supreme Court saw this fit enough to be bracketed under the category of the ‘rarest of the rare cases’.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of the Chief Justice H.L. Dattu, Justice S.A. Bobde and Justice Arun Mishra, upheld the sentence of death penalty awarded to a woman and her paramour for killing as many as seven members of her own family including a 10-month old child in the most ghastly and gruesome manner. The seven persons killed by the woman were all her relatives, which included her own parents, brother, sister-in law and ten-month old nephew. The Supreme Court relied on the findings of the Session Court and the confirmation of the same by High Court to uphold the judgment considering the current case to be fit enough to bracketed under the category of the “rarest of rare case”

The Court observed that the Trial Court, after meticulous marshalling of facts and thorough scrutiny of available evidence, has observed that the evidence on record including post-mortem reports and witness statements has established a continuous and consistent link in the chain of events and thoroughly supported the prosecution story. The Trial Court has concluded that the Appellants-accused deranged by the opposition to their illicit relationship had hatched a gruesome murder plan which they had executed by first rendering the family unconscious by administering sleeping pills through tea at the hands of Shabnam and thereafter slicing their throats by an axe while they lay in a comatose state. Therefore, the Trial Court has concluded that the link in chain of events having been established and corroborated unquestionably confirms the guilt of Appellants-accused for the brutal murder of seven persons under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, convicted them for offence

In the order of sentence, the Trial Court has observed that the crime committed by Appellants-accused is enormous in proportion. They are convicted of multiple successive murders of seven persons of co accused Shabnam’s family including her innocent ten month old nephew, old helpless mother, old father, one young couple-her brother and sister-in-law, one young boy and a sixteen years old cousin. The Trial Court considered the motive behind ruthless murders, pre-planned execution, manner of commission of crime, the personality of deceased persons who were respectable and loved members of the community, the stand of the deceased persons who were only against the marriage of their educated daughter, Appellant-accused Shabnam with the uneducated unemployed co-accused Saleem and the remorseless conduct of the Appellants-accused after the murder as aggravating circumstances and in conclusion, has recorded that the instant case falls in the category of “rarest of the rare” requiring a punishment not less than death penalty for the offence committed by the Appellants-accused. Therefore, the Trial Court has sentenced the two Appellants to death.

The brief facts of the case are as under. The co accused Shabnam and Saleem were involved in a love affair and an illicit physical relationship. While Shabnam is the educated daughter of the deceased family, working as a teacher, Saleem is an unemployed youth residing in the same village. Shabnam was pregnant at the time of commission of the said gruesome murders. The motive for commission of the murders was to eliminate Shabnam’s family who were vehemently opposed to their relationship and secure the entire property of the family creating financial security for themselves.

The co-accused puts an end to the lives of seven members of the family while they lay asleep in their own house, absolutely unaware of the gory scheme of their own daughter and her paramour. The accused driven by the opposition to their alliance from the deceased family and aware to the conception of their illegitimate child, had hatched the conspiracy to first administer them sedatives mixed in tea prepared by the accused Shabnam, who the family would not raise suspicion at, and thereafter, bleeding them to death by slitting the vital blood vessels in their throats. The accused couple did not even spare the ten-month old infant, who could not have protested to their liaison, and ruthlessly throttled him to death so as to leave no survivors for claiming share in the family’s property in the future. As soon as the family members were rendered dead, while accused Saleem fled from the spot disposing of the murder weapon and other evidence of crime, the accused Shabnam feigned unconsciousness and laid by the side of deceased father’s mutilated body, to callously insinuate that the crime had been committed by an outsider while she was asleep on the rooftop.

The trial court found both the accused guilty of murder and sentenced them to death penalty. The High Court confirmed the death penalty. In the Supreme Court, the amicus curiae who represented the accused, argued only on the question of sentence, deciding not to question the merits of the case. The Supreme Court, in this decision, upheld the sentence of death penalty awarded to both accused persons. The Supreme Court further observed that the aggravating circumstances in the present case indicate the extreme brutal, calculated and diabolical nature of the crime, which suggests that there is little likelihood of reform of these accused and of their abstaining from future crime. All these features stench of the apathetic attitude of the accused daughter towards her family and mirrors the extent of her depravity in schemingly committing the cold blooded murder of her own parents, brother, sister-in law and ten-month old nephew. This itself triggers intense indignation in the community. It is the combined concoction of all aggravating circumstances, that is, victims of the crime, motive for commission of murder, manner of execution, magnitude of crime and remorseless attitude of the accused that stands before it in this case, observed the court.

Noting the mitigating circumstances regarding young age of the accused at the time of commission of crime, Supreme Court held it does not bear any significance in terms of outweighing the aggravating circumstances of their wanton act. Further, accused Shabnam was pregnant at the time of commission of offence and the couple now has a dependent minor child. The Court observed that it has consistently held that such compassionate grounds are present in most cases and are not relevant in considering commutation of death sentence. The court reiterated 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. It noted that it was shocking that at the pink of their youth, the couple indulged in such debased act of multiple murders driven by infatuation and exhibited no remorse.

The Supreme Court held that the principles laid down in the cases of (1) Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 20, (2) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and (3) Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470, indicate that the most significant aspect of sentencing policy in Indian criminal jurisprudence regarding award of death penalty is that life sentence is a rule and death sentence is an exception only to be awarded in “rarest of rare cases.” Death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and all the relevant circumstances.