|
बेटियों के बारे में सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की राय-शबनम (और
सलीम ) बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश-१५ मई २०१५. पैरा २९-
29.
Familial relations play a vital role in describing and highlighting the qualities
of our society. The Indian legal system today does not differentiate between
a son and a daughter-they have equal rights and duties. Indian culture has
been witness to for centuries, that daughters dutifully bear the burden of
being the caregivers for her parents, even more than a son. Our experience
has reflected that an adult daughter places greater emphasis on their
relationships with their parents, and when those relationships go awry, it
takes a worse toll on the adult daughters than the adult sons. The modern
era, led by the dawn of education, no longer recognizes the stereotype that a
parent would want a son so that they have someone to look after them and
support them in their old age. Now, in an educated and civilized society, a
daughter plays a multifaceted and indispensible role in the family,
especially towards her parents. She is a caregiver and a supporter, a gentle
hand and responsible voice, an embodiment of the cherished values of our
society and in whom a parent places blind faith and trust.
इस मामले में शबनम ने अपने प्रेमी के साथ मिलकर अपने पूरे परिवार (७ सदयस्य)को मार डाला था क्योंकि परिवार विवाह के विरुद्ध था. एक दूधमुंहे शिशु का भी गला घोंट दिया ताकि संपत्ति का कोई और वारिश ना बचे. इसमें उच्चतम न्यायालय ने मृत्यु दंड दिया.
SCC OnLine SC 492
|
J3
|
CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
(Before
H.L Dattu, C.J and S.A Bobde and Arun Mishra, JJ.)
Criminal Appeal Nos. 802-803 of 2015
(@ S.L.P (Crl.) Nos. 6520-6521 of 2013)
Shabnam .…. Appellant(s)
v.
State of U.P
.…. Respondent(s)
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 804-805 of 2015
(@ S.L.P (Crl.) Nos. 6528-6529 of 2013)
Saleem .…. Appellant(s)
v.
State of U.P
.…. Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal Nos. 802-803 of 2015 (@ S.L.P (Crl.) Nos. 6520-6521 of 2013) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 804-805 of 2015 (@ S.L.P (Crl.) Nos. 6528-6529 of 2013)
Decided
on May 15, 2015
A. Criminal Law — Penal Code, 1860 —
Ss. 299-304 — Culpable Homicide and Murder — Trial, Sentencing and other issues
— Sentence — Death Sentence — General Principle for imposition of death Sentence — Multiple successive murders of seven persons, including her own parents
brother, sister-in law and ten-month old nephew by the accused daughter with
the aid of her
lover, the other accused — Motive for the crime is the opposition of their alliance from the deceased family and
to grab the entire property of the
family — Affirming the death sentence — Held, where maximum punishment that
could be awarded under a provision is death penalty, the Courts are required to
independently consider facts of each
case and determine a sentence which is the most appropriate and proportional to
the culpability of the
accused — The Court has to apply the test to determine, if it was the ‘rarest of rare’ case for imposition of a death sentence — The option to impose
sentence of imprisonment
for life cannot be cautiously exercised having regard to the nature and
circumstances of the
crime and all relevant circumstances
(Paras 23 and 24)
B. Criminal Law — Penal Code, 1860 —
Ss. 299-304 — Culpable Homicide and Murder — Trial, Sentencing and other issues
— Sentence — Death Sentence — Brutality of murder
and victims — Number, Age, Helplessness of persons
killed — Murder of seven
persons of the
family — Extreme brutal, calculated and diabolical nature of the crime — Little likelihood of reform of the
accused and of their
abstaining from future crime — Appellant-accused persons' preparedness, active
involvement, scheming execution and subsequent conduct reeks of calculated and motivated murders — Death
sentence affirmed
HEADNOTES from -
