Murder Conviction Upheld: Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Family Dispute Case

The case of Smt. Shamim vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) revolves around a tragic incident of a family dispute leading to double murder. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the High Court was justified in overturning the appellant’s acquittal and sentencing her to life imprisonment while denying her remission for 25 years.

Background of the Case

On March 27, 2006, Pappu and Anisha (the deceased) were shot dead at night inside their house. Another victim, Heena (PW-2), suffered multiple injuries on her neck caused by a razor. The deceased and PW-2 were the brother, mother, and sister of Ishrat Ali (PW-1). The prosecution alleged that the murders were orchestrated due to the appellant’s strong opposition to her daughter’s (PW-4) marriage with PW-1.

Trial Court’s Verdict

• The Trial Court convicted four out of the seven accused under Sections 449, 302, 307, and 34 IPC.
• The appellant (Smt. Shamim) was acquitted due to lack of direct evidence linking her to the crime.
• The court found no conclusive proof of conspiracy or bloodstains on the appellant’s clothes at the time of the incident.

High Court’s Judgment

• The High Court re-evaluated the evidence and convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC with common intention.
• The court found that the appellant had a strong motive, given her opposition to her daughter’s marriage.
• The High Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and denied her remission for 25 years.

The appellant subsequently filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Smt. Shamim)

• The appellant argued that none of the witnesses explicitly testified to seeing her with bloodstained clothes.
• She contended that merely being seen near the house did not prove her participation in the crime.
• PW-2’s testimony was unreliable due to multiple contradictions and late recording.
• The trial court had correctly acquitted her, and the High Court should not have overturned that finding based on the same evidence.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of GNCT of Delhi)

• The prosecution asserted that PW-4, the appellant’s own daughter, testified against her, proving her involvement.
• PW-2, an injured eyewitness, provided a credible statement identifying the appellant at the scene.
• Blood-stained locks, keys, and a ‘chunni’ were recovered from the appellant’s possession, strengthening the case against her.
• The trial court’s reasoning was flawed, and the High Court correctly convicted her based on strong circumstantial evidence.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully analyzed the case, considering both the evidence and the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Key observations included:

• Family members’ testimony is credible: The Court ruled that the evidence of close family members should be given weight, as they would not falsely implicate someone unless there was strong reason.
• Extra-judicial confession: The Court found PW-4’s statement, where the appellant admitted to the crime and threatened her husband, to be corroborative evidence.
• PW-2’s reliability: The Court considered PW-2’s injuries and emotional distress but maintained that her testimony held substantial weight.
• Physical evidence: The recovery of blood-stained items from the appellant’s house further indicated her involvement.
• Overturning acquittal was justified: The Court found that the trial court had erred in giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant when the evidence against her was strong.

Key Judgment Excerpts

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, stating:

“In a criminal trial, normally the evidence of the wife, husband, son, or daughter of the deceased is given great weightage on the principle that there is no reason for them not to speak the truth and shield the real culprit.”

On PW-4’s testimony against her mother, the Court remarked:

“According to normal human behavior, a witness would tend to shield and protect a closely related accused. It would require great courage of conviction and moral strength for a daughter to depose against her own mother.”

Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Smt. Shamim under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.
• The Court, however, set aside the High Court’s directive denying remission for 25 years, ruling that the sentence should be in line with standard remission rules.
• The appeal was allowed only to the extent of modifying the sentence.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the importance of properly evaluating family members’ testimonies in criminal trials. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that justice is served while maintaining fairness in sentencing. The case sets a precedent on the application of common intention in murder cases and clarifies the limits of judicial discretion in denying remission.

Petitioner Name: Smt. Shamim.
Respondent Name: State (GNCT of Delhi).
Judgment By: Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Navin Sinha, Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 19-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Smt. Shamim vs State (GNCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 19-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Ranjan Gogoi
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category