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

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."