Emotion Should Not Become An Influencing Factor To Impose Death Penalty: Karnataka High Court Reduces Sentence For Beheading Mother's Head
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the death penalty imposed on an accused for murdering his mother by beheading her, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and S Rachaiah partly allowed the appeal filed by accused Thimmappa challenging the conviction and death sentence imposed on him by the trial court under section 302 of the India...
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the death penalty imposed on an accused for murdering his mother by beheading her, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
A division bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and S Rachaiah partly allowed the appeal filed by accused Thimmappa challenging the conviction and death sentence imposed on him by the trial court under section 302 of the India Penal Code.
The bench said “If we take an analysis of the entire situation, we find that this is not a rarest of rare case though it is a fact that the incident was cruel and brutal. Emotion should not become an influencing factor to impose a death penalty. Degree of criminality matters much while imposing the death penalty.”
As per the prosecution case the accused inflicted a severe blow on the neck of his mother with a machete that resulted in instantaneous death due to decapitation. The motive was apparently accused's belief that his mother was responsible for his wife deserting him.
The prosecution seeking confirmation of the death penalty argued that the Trial Judge had imposed the death sentence in the background of the fact that the accused resorted to killing his mother in a very cruel manner. The incident was witnessed by four witnesses whose evidence was not discredited in cross-examination. The weapon used for committing the offence was also recovered at the instance of the accused.
The counsel for the accused contended that the accused was not properly defended in the trial court. It was claimed that even though the cross-examination is ineffective, from the material on record it can be demonstrated that the testimonies of the witnesses can be disbelieved. In regards to the seizure of the machete, it was submitted that evidence is inconsistent in the sense that PW.3 has stated that the accused went inside the house after committing crime; recovery of weapon was not from inside the house.
The bench on going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses said “The testimonies of these four witnesses are believable, it can be said that the trial court is justified in recording conviction against the accused.”
Rejecting the contention that cross-examination of the prominent witnesses is not so effective due to the accused not being defended properly, the court said, “That cannot be a reason for discarding the entire evidence of PWs.4, 5, 7 and 9. Nothing prevented the counsel who appeared on behalf of the accused from effectively cross-examining the witnesses. We do not think this itself can be grounds for remanding the case to the trial court.”
Court said rhe entire incident can be clearly brought within the scope of Section 300 of IPC. "The accused had a grouse that his mother was responsible for his wife to desert him. It appears that the wife left the company of the accused about four or five years before the incident occurred. It cannot be said that the said reason cannot be accepted as motive for the incident because the reason thus stated by the witnesses has not been controverted in any way.”
It added, “PWs.3 and 6 being the brother and sister of the accused respectively also speak consistently that in the background of the desertion by the wife, there used to take place quarrel between the deceased and the accused. This being the actual position, the motive also stands proved.”
Further it held there is no evidence to hold that the accused was suddenly provoked by the deceased which resulted in the accused resorting to killing her.
However, coming to the sentence of death penalty imposed the bench said “If we read the order of the trial court on sentence, we do not find reasons which prompted the trial court to arrive at a conclusion that the life imprisonment is inadequate.”
Noting that it is a settled principle now that the Court should first record that a rarest of rare case has been made out and then it must take a balance sheet of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing the death penalty, it held “The trial court has not made this effort at all.”
Further it said “In this case, the prosecution has not brought on record that the accused is a hardcore criminal. In this view, we do not find that a rarest of rare case has been made out for imposing the death penalty on the accused. Only if the Court finds that a rarest of rare case has been made out, it should proceed further to take balance sheet of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, in the light of the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of BACHAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB and MACHHI SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB2 . As we do not find this case has reached that stage, we are not inclined to confirm the death sentence.”
Accordingly it set aside the death penalty and imposed life sentence on the accused along with fine of Rs.25,000.
Appearance: SPP II Vijaykumar Majage, for Appellant.
Advocate N.Tejas for Respondent.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
Case Title: THIMMAPPA AND THE STATE BY HOLALKERE POLICE
Case No: CRIMINAL REFERRED CASE NO.6 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1301 OF 2018