September 18, 2026 10:47 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Congress' Nandigram candidate arrested after Mamata's support amid TMC symbol row; Bengal bypoll gets chaotic | Gurugram murder shocker: Groom-to-be leaves sisters at Delhi restaurant to meet ex-colleague, found dead days later | Delhi horror: Teen allegedly gangraped, stabbed to death and dumped in field; dogs eat parts of body | TMC name, symbol frozen: EC tells rival factions to pick new identities ahead of Bengal bypolls | Married just 17 days ago: Hyderabad engineer mysteriously found dead at US home | ‘We will promote cash’: New UPI charge triggers trader backlash, Opposition protests | Gurugram biker crash: Main accused Kalyan Bainsla sent to police custody for 2 days | ‘Just tax collection’: Ashneer Grover slams new UPI charges above Rs 2,000 | India condemns Houthi attack on Saudi Arabia, warns of threat to Red Sea shipping | Gurugram biker hit by car: Two including main accused arrested after viral road rage video, attempt to murder case filed
Supreme Court. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

In rare order, Supreme Court stays a life sentence giving 'new lease of life' to woman who killed her fiance

| @indiablooms | Jul 14, 2025, at 11:58 pm

In a rare instance, the Supreme Court on Monday stayed the arrest and life sentence of a girl and her boyfriend while upholding their conviction in her fiancé's murder case.

The apex court has also granted them 8 weeks to approach the Karnataka Governor for a pardon, calling it a case of "misjudged rebellion" and "romantic delusion".

The accused, Shubha Shankar, had murdered her fiancé Girish in 2003 with the help of her boyfriend, Arun, and two others (Dinakaran and Venkatesh).

The top court observed that most of the accused were teenagers at that time and wouldn't have committed the crime had the family not pressured the woman into marriage.

The court made these observations while dismissing their appeals against the Karnataka High Court judgment.

"Voice of a young, ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind. This, backed by an unholy alliance of a mental rebellion and wild romanticism, led to the tragic murder of an innocent young man, while simultaneously destroying the lives of three others," said the Supreme Court.

The top court said that it wants to view the matter from a different perspective to give "a new lease of life to the appellants who have committed a heinous crime, notwithstanding the availability of other alternative avenues to resolve the problems faced by A-4 (the woman)".

"We would like to facilitate the appellants' right to seek pardon by permitting them to file appropriate petitions before His Excellency the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka. We would only request the constitutional authority to consider the same, which we hope and trust would be done by taking note of the relevant circumstances governing the case," the court said.

"Accordingly, we grant eight weeks' time from the date of this judgment for the appellants to file appropriate petitions seeking to invoke the power of pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution. Till these petitions are duly considered and decided, the appellants shall not be arrested and their sentence shall remain suspended," it said.

"We do not wish to end our judgment by merely rendering a conviction. We do believe that this Court has a little more role to play. Considering that we started our discussion keeping in mind that this unfortunate event would not have occurred, had the family been more sympathetic in understanding the mental predilection and disposition of the convicted girl ... It is important for us to make some observations." The judgment read.

The bench observed: "Ultimately, the girl was unable to make a decision for herself, despite being an individual who had attained majority. Having said so, we cannot condone her action as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life of a young man. We would only state at this juncture that she was made to commit this offence by adopting the wrong course of action in order to address her problem."

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.