Madras HC Examines Impact Of Capital Sentence On Children Of Convicts And Victim [Read Judgment]

The court must also ensure that these three children of the convicts, when they grow up and enter into the society, do not have any anger or any reason to wreak vengeance in any manner whatsoever...

All they (children of convict) would know is that the Government or the judiciary, through the Government, was responsible for the death of their fathers. Leaving out to society, these three children would be more hazardous

She (Child of Victim) would realise, we hope, that life is very valuable and further death would not solve the problem.

While commuting the death sentence imposed on two men in a triple murder case, the Madras High Court has endevaoured to examine the impact that would cause to family and children of the convicts and victims if the capital sentence is confirmed.

Kamaraj and Elangovan, was convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court for the murder of three ladies. The Bench of Justice P.N. Prakash and Justice C.V. Karthikeyan confirmed their guilt, but observed that that the court must also ensure that these three children of the convicts, when they grow up and enter into the society, do not have any anger or any reason to wreak vengeance in any manner whatsoever.

“If Kamaraj and Elangovan are given capital punishment, then, the three children of theirs would have to necessarily and possibly lead an uncertain future. They have to live with the idea that an establishment called “judiciary” had thought it fit to impose capital punishment on their fathers. To young minds, words of robbery, murder and death sentence are meaningless. All they would know is that the Government or the judiciary, through the Government, was responsible for the death of their fathers. Leaving out to society, these three children would be more hazardous …….”, the Bench said.

The Court further said: “When they (Convicts) realise that the Court has held that since their children have to live a future, they have been given life sentence and not imposed with death sentence, it would certainly be a very important factor in the minds of Kamaraj (A2) and Elangovan (A3). They may be convicted, but, they are still citizens of this country.”

With regard to Abhinandhini, six-year-old child, whose mother had been murdered, whose grandmother had been murdered and whose great grandmother had been murdered, the Court asked itself: “How is that young child going to view life when she grows up, is another question which this Court has to ponder and reflect. Would that anger in her, boil over against a system which had not imposed death penalty against the persons who have been convicted of the offence?”

Then the bench remarked: “She comes from a family of doctors and medical practitioners and with their influence, she can, realise that saving life is actually one of the ideals and for which her mother, also a doctor, lived and when her mother judges Abhinandhini, she would also appreciate if Abhinandhini were to uphold the value of life rather than expecting revenge by imposition of death sentence.”

The Court commuted death sentence of the duo and held that they should be restrained for a period of thirty years in prison, without any remission by the State Government on any account.  The Court took into consideration the age of the child of the deceased victim to determine the sentence. It observed thus: “It has to be at least for a period of thirty years till Abhinandhini becomes a woman of 36 years. By that time, hopefully, with the grace of the Almighty and the blessings of her elders, she would have settled down in life and the anger owing to the loss of her mother, grandmother and great grandmother would diminish to a large extent. She might even have a family. This would give her confidence in life and by that time, if Kamaraj (A2) and Elangovan (A3) are released, she would be at peace with herself and would have a future to look forward to with her own independent family. Keeping that in mind, we hold that Kamaraj (A2) and Elangovan (A3).”

Read the Judgment Here