2021 INSC 0077
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 135 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s).1836 of 2020)
GAURI SHANKAR                ...APPELLANT
         VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB                                            ...RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The   sole   accused   appellant   faced   trial   for   committing   the
murder   of   two   minor   children   aged   4   years   and   2   years   in   brutal
manner by administering celphos to them.  After being convicted by
learned trial Judge for  offence under  Section 302 IPC  by judgment
dated   1 st
  July,   2013   and   confirmed   by   the   High   Court   on   appeal
1

preferred   at   his   instance   being   dismissed   by   judgment   impugned
dated 13 th
 December, 2018, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The   case   of   the   prosecution   was   that   complainant   Anju   was
married with Ajay Kumar, S/o Sajjan Singh and from this wedlock,
she   had   two   children,   namely,   Vijay   Kumar   @   Bittu   aged   4   years
and Muskan aged 2 years.   Ajay Kumar was addicted to liquor and
because   of   intoxicants,   he   died.     The   accused   appellant   was
residing   on   rent   in   the   neighbourhood   of   complainant   Anju.
Accused appellant allegedly enticed Anju and brought her with her
two   children   to   Punjab   where   the   fateful   incident   took   place.     The
appellant   used   to   quarrel   with   Anju   and   frequently   beat   the
children   and   used   to   proclaim   that   he   did   not   like   the   children   as
they   were   not   his   own   and   that   some   day   he   would   kill   both   of
them.     About   a   month   and   half   before   the   incident,   he   had
fractured   the   arm   of   Vijay   @   Bittu,   deceased   son   of   Anju.     On   the
fateful   day   of   18 th
  March,   2013,   at   about   7.30   a.m.,   Anju   went   to
the temple for  prayers.   At that time, the children were sleeping in
the   house   and   the   accused   appellant   was   present.     When   Anju
returned   from   the   temple,   she   saw   both   her   children   lying   on   the
2

cot struggling for life.   The accused appellant went away telling the
complainant   Anju   that   he   had   given   poison   to   both   the   children.
The   complainant   Anju   raised   alarm   and   with   the   assistance   of
Jagdev   Singh,   PW­2,   the   landlord   and   his   nephew   Kamaldeep
Singh, PW­3, both the children were taken to Civil Hospital, Mandi,
Gobindgarh,   where   they   were   declared   dead.   On   intimation   to   the
police,   statement   of   the   complainant   Anju   was   recorded   and   FIR
was registered.  The bodies were sent for post­ mortem examination.
The viscera was sent for chemical examination.  After completion of
investigation, challan was presented in the Court.
4. Initially,   the   appellant   pleaded   guilty   and   did   not   claim   trial.
He admitted that he administered poison to the children as a result
of   which   the   children   died   within   15­20   minutes.     However,   after
the   examination   of   the   complainant   Anju   (PW­1)   and   the   landlord
Jagdev Singh (PW­2), he moved an application dated 14 th
 May, 2013
stating that he had no concern with the crime and that he had been
misled   by   Government   counsel   to   make   a   wrong   statement
admitting his guilt.
3

5. The   prosecution   examined   number   of   witnesses   including
Anju   PW­1,   the   complainant,   whose   both   children   were   murdered
by   the   accused   appellant.     The   statement   of   PW­1   Anju   was   duly
supported by  PW­2 Jagdev Singh  and  PW­3 Kamaldeep  Singh  who
are the landlord and his nephew where the complainant Anju along
with the accused appellant were residing at the time of the incident.
6. Apart from other prosecution witnesses duly supported by the
Histopathology  reports Exhibits P­8 and P­9, the cause of death in
case   of   both   the   children   was   found   to   be   Aluminium   Phosphide
insecticide   ingestion.     The   statement   of   the   accused   appellant   was
recorded   under   Section   313   CrPC   where   he   denied   having
committed the crime, but did not lead any evidence in defence.
7. Learned   trial   Judge   finally   held   the   appellant   guilty   of   an
offence   under   Section   302   IPC   and   punished   him   with
imprisonment   for   life   which   would   mean   remainder   of   natural   life
and fine of  Rs.5000/­ by judgment dated 1 st
 July, 2013.
8. On the appeal being preferred by the appellant, the High Court
revisited   the   record   in   totality   and   confirmed   the   finding   of   guilt
4

recorded   by   the   learned   trial   Judge   by   judgment   dated
13 th
  December,   2018   which   is   impugned   before   us   in   the   instant
appeal.
9. At   the   motion   stage   when   the   matter   came   up   before   this
Court on 20 th
 February, 2020, the plea which was raised by learned
counsel   for   the   appellant   was   that   on   the   date   of   framing   of
charges, i.e., 29 th
 April, 2013, the statement of material prosecution
witnesses   PW­1   and   PW­2   was   recorded   without   affording
reasonable   opportunity   to   the   accused   appellant   to   cross   examine
the prosecution witnesses as mandated under Section 230 of Code
of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973.   After  the   notice  was   served,   counter
affidavit has been filed by the respondent and the fact noticed by us
in   our   Order   dated   20 th
  February,   2020   has   been   explained   in
paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit that after framing of charges,
the   appellant   pleaded   guilty,   however   following   the   rule   of
prudence, the trial Court decided to examine four  witnesses before
recording   the   conviction,   and   accordingly   PW­1   and   PW­2   were
examined   first   and   perusal   of   their   statements,   i.e.   Annexure   P­2
and Annexure      P­3 would show that the opportunity was granted
5

to   the   accused   appellant   to   cross­examine   the   witnesses   on   29 th
April, 2013 and in fact cross­examination was done by counsel for
the   accused  appellant.     However,  after   cross­  examination  of  these
two   witnesses,   the   appellant   pleaded   to   claim   trial   on   14 th
  May,
2013   and   thereafter   the   evidence   of   other   prosecution   witnesses
was recorded.  At no stage, the appellant moved any application for
recalling   the  witnesses  and  to  be  more  specific,  of  PW­1  and  PW­2
and this issue has been raised for the first time before this Court.
10. After   taking   note   of   the   statement   of   fact   which   has   been
stated by the respondent in the counter affidavit and paragraph 13
in   particular,   of   which   the   reference   has   been   made   and   with
assistance   of   the   learned   counsel,   we   have   gone   through   the
material available on record and find no error in the finding of guilt
being recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court
in the impugned judgment which calls for our interference.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant at this stage submitted that
while   convicting   the   accused   appellant   for   offence   under   Section
302   IPC,   he   has   been   sentenced   with   imprisonment   for   life   which
would   mean   a   remainder   of   natural   life   which   was   not   in   the
6

domain  of the trial Court, and  this could have been  exercised only
by the High Court or by this Court.   In support of his submission,
learned   counsel   has   placed   reliance   on   para   105   and   106   of   the
Constitution   Bench   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Union   of   India   Vs.
V.   Sriharan   @   Murugan   and   Others   2016(7)   SCC   1,   which   is
extracted hereunder:­     
“105.   We, therefore, reiterate that the power derived from the
Penal   Code   for   any   modified   punishment   within   the
punishment provided for in the Penal Code for such specified
offences   can   only   be   exercised   by   the   High   Court   and   in   the
event of further appeal only by the Supreme Court and not by
any other court in this country. To put it differently, the power
to   impose   a   modified   punishment   providing   for   any   specific
term  of incarceration or  till  the end  of the convict's life as an
alternate  to death  penalty, can  be  exercised  only   by  the  High
Court   and   the   Supreme   Court   and   not   by   any   other   inferior
court.
106.   Viewed in that respect, we state that the ratio laid down
in   Swamy   Shraddananda   (2)   v.   State   of   Karnataka ,   (2008)   13
SCC 767 that a special category of sentence; instead of death;
for   a   term   exceeding   14   years   and   put   that   category   beyond
application   of   remission   is   well   founded   and   we   answer   the
said   question   in   the   affirmative.   We   are,   therefore,   not   in
agreement   with   the   opinion   expressed   by   this   Court
in   Sangeet   v.   State   of   Haryana   (2013)   2   SCC   452   that   the
deprival of remission power of the appropriate Government by
awarding   sentences   of   20   or   25   years   or   without   any
remission   as   not   permissible   is   not   in   consonance   with   the
law and we specifically overrule the same.”
12. Taking   assistance   thereof,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant
submits   that   at   least   judgment   of   the   trial   Court   in   imposing
7

punishment   of   life   imprisonment   to   the   remainder   of   natural   life
needs to be interfered by this Court.
13. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   submits   that
imprisonment   for  life  could   indeed  be  imposed   by   the  learned  trial
Judge   and   since   this   question   was   not   raised   by   the   appellant
before the High Court and has been raised for the first time before
this   Court,   it   can   be   considered   as   to   whether   for   such   a   heinous
crime   which   the   appellant   has   committed,   at   least   this   Court   may
exercise   its   power   and   approve   the   sentence   which   has   been
imposed taking note of what has been observed by this Court in the
judgment referred to supra.
14. We find substance in what being urged by learned counsel for
the   respondent,   and   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 1 st
 July, 2013.
15. On   the   legal   principles,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant
appears   to   be   correct,   but   we   have   taken   note   of   the   prosecution
8

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.   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. 
16. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
……………..…………………………J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
……………………………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 16, 2021
9

10