Supreme Court Confirms Life Imprisonment For Remainder Of Natural Life Awarded To Man Accused Of Murdering Two Kids

first_imgNews UpdatesSupreme Court Confirms Life Imprisonment For Remainder Of Natural Life Awarded To Man Accused Of Murdering Two Kids LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK16 Feb 2021 4:25 AMShare This – xThe Supreme Court confirmed punishment of life imprisonment for remainder of natural life awarded to a man accused of murdering two kids by administering celphos to them.Gauri Shankar was found guilty for murder of two minor children aged 4 years and 2 years in brutal manner by administering celphos to them. The Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and punished …Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court confirmed punishment of life imprisonment for remainder of natural life awarded to a man accused of murdering two kids by administering celphos to them.Gauri Shankar was found guilty for murder of two minor children aged 4 years and 2 years in brutal manner by administering celphos to them. The Trial Court convicted him 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 1st July, 2013. The High Court dismissed his appeal.Before the Apex Court, the accused contended that he has been sentenced with imprisonment for life which would mean a remainder of natural life which was not in the domain of the trial Court, and this could have been exercised only by the High Court or by the Supreme Court. He relied on the observations made in Union of India Vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan and Others 2016(7) SCC 1.In V. Sriharan, it was held that 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 courtDismissing his appeal, the bench comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi observed:5. On the legal principles, the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be correct, but we have taken note of the prosecution 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.CASE: GAURI SHANKAR vs. STATE OF PUNJAB   [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 135 OF 2021]CORAM: Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay RastogiCITATION: LL 2021 SC 88Click here to Read/Download JudgmentRead JudgmentNext Storylast_img read more