SHANKAR @ GAURL SHANKAR AND OTHERS versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 04-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHANKAR @ GAURl SHANKAR AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
APRIL 4, 1994 
B 
IK. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.I 
Criminal Procedure Code, 197rSection 354 sub-Sec. rDeath sen-
tence-When to be awarded-Rarest of rare crimes-Mitigating and aggravat-
ing circumstances--Brutal murder of six persons in an organised manne~ 
C Dead bodies disposed of in a diabolic manner-Held, death penalty is justified 
-Mitigating circumstances-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302. 
Evidence Act, l872-Sections 133 and 114 illustration (b )-Approver's 
statement-corroboration of-Corroboration of material particular qua each 
accused required-Every 1naterial circumstance need not be co"oborate~ 
D Corroboration should show that the approver is speaking the truth-code of 
Criminal procedure, 197rSection 306. 
Words and Phrases-Accomplice-Meaning of 
E 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 24-Confession-Meaning orExcul· 
pat01y statement not covered-Should be volunta~Judicial confession--
Meaning of-Retracted judicial confession-Extent of corroboration Material 
particulars should be corroborated-Each and every circumstance need not 
be corroborated-Criminal Procedure Code 197rSection 164. 
F 
The appellants were charged of murder of six persons, D-1 to D-6. 
Both the Trial Court as well as the High Court had convicted them for 
murder of D-1 to D-6. According to the case of the prosecution, which was 
accepted by the Trial Court as well as the High Court, A-1 was the gang 
leader whereas A-2 to A-6 were his associates. Initially, A-1 used to drive 
G auto rickshaw. Thereafter, he switched over to the business of arrack which 
he handed over to his brother (Mohan) and started the business of brothel. 
A-1 had married several times and it was alleged that be used to torture 
his wives by burning them with cigarette buts. 
The conviction of A-1 to A-6 was based on the evidence of P.W.l. (who 
H was an accomplice and had turned into an approver), the retracted judicial 
298 
• 
> ' 
.... -..Ji, 
) 
GAU RI SHANKAR v. STATE OFT.N . 
299 
confes~ions of A-1 and A-2 and other corroborating evidence. 
P.W.1 stated in his deposition that D-1 was a prostitute and had 
intimate relationship with A-1 but later on she eloped with D-2 which 
incensed A-1, D-2 was taken to A-l's house; got him drunk and thereafter 
throttled him. A-1, A-2, A-3, P.W.I and Mohan (absconding accused) were 
present there and D-2 was burnt in the room and the unburnt remains of 
his body were thrown away in the river. 
According to P.W.I, D-3 was killed as he was blackmailing A-1 in 
. respect of the death of D-2, D-3 was brought in A-l's godown and after 
intoxicating him with liquor, A-1, A-2, A-3, P.W.1 and Mohan throttled him 
to death and buried the dead body in a pit. D-4 to D-6 were beaten and 
locked up in a store room in A-l's house, D-4 and D-5 died in the room 
whereas D-6 was throttled to death. The dead bodies were buried in the 
basement of a house under construction. 
A 
B 
c 
In the retracted confession, A-1 and A-2 stated that D-1 was beaten D 
by A-1, A-2 and Mohan and thereafter, throttled to death by A-1. Her body 
was buried in the liquor godown. 
The Trial Court found all the appellants as well as A-7 and A-8 to 
be guilty of offence under Section 120-B, r/w 302-201, 147, 304/34 and 404 
of !PC. A-1 to A-3 were sentenced to death whereas A-4 to A-8 were E 
sentenced to life imprisonment. 
The High Court confined the sentence awarded to A-1 to A- 6 but 
acquitted them of offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. A-7 and A-8 were 
acquitted of all charges against them. 
F 
Before this Court, the appellants contended that the evidence of 
P.W.1 was full of contradictions and discrepancies whereas the retracted 
corifessions of A-1 and A-2 were uncorroborated and therefore reliance 
upon them for conviction of the appellants was not correct. It was also 
contended that the present case was not the rarest of rare cases and there G 
were sel·eral mitigating circumstances and therefore, sentencing A-1 to A-3 
to death was unjust. 
This Court confirmed the death sentence awarded to A-1 and A-2 
and the life imprisonment awarded to A-4 to A-6; the sentence of A-3 was 
reduced to life imprisonment from death, and it was 
H 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1.1. The choice as to which one of the two punishments 
B 
provided for murder is the proper one in a given case will depend upon the 
Particular circumstances of that case and the Court has to exercise 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.