LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Gauri Shankar v. The State of Punjab

Criminal Appeal · 2021 INSC 91Decided 16 Feb 2021
Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2021
Justice Indu Malhotra · Justice Ajay Rastogi

Background

The appellant was living with a woman (Anju) who had two young children from a previous marriage. He was convicted of murdering both children, aged 4 and 2, by administering a poisonous substance (celphos/aluminium phosphide) to them, reportedly because he resented that they were not his own. He had initially pleaded guilty but later retracted, claiming he had been misled into a false admission; the Trial Court nonetheless convicted him based on witness testimony and medical evidence, sentencing him to life imprisonment meaning the remainder of his natural life, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's procedural objection that he had not been given a chance to cross-examine key witnesses when charges were framed, finding the record showed cross-examination had in fact occurred. On merits, the Court found the evidence of the complainant-mother and corroborating witnesses, together with medical reports confirming death by poisoning, sufficiently established guilt and saw no error in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court under Section 302 IPC. On sentencing, the Court accepted the appellant's legal argument (based on a Constitution Bench ruling) that a Trial Court has no power to impose a sentence of life imprisonment meaning "remainder of natural life", only the High Court or Supreme Court can impose that specific modified punishment. However, given the brutality of the crime against two minor children, the Supreme Court itself exercised that power and confirmed the same sentence, effectively curing the Trial Court's technical sentencing error while upholding the outcome. The appeal was dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of ordinary remission (i.e., for "the remainder of natural life") can only be imposed by a High Court or the Supreme Court, never by a trial court, but higher courts can and will cure such a defect themselves rather than letting a deserving sentence fail on a technicality.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case