'Not Rarest Of Rare': Kerala High Court Refuses To Impose Death Sentence On UP Native Narendra Kumar For Triple Murder

He was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to the death for the brutal murder of his employer Praveenlal and his parents Lalasan and Prasannakumari.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was dealing with Kumar's appeal and the Sessions court reference for confirmation of sentence. It held,

“While the facts and circumstances proved against the appellant before us clearly point to his involvement in a gruesome triple murder, we would not go so far as to categorise it as the “rarest of the rare” so as to impose the death sentence on him. This is especially so because this is a case where we have sustained the conviction of the accused for the various offences with which he was charged solely based on circumstantial evidence."

As per the prosecution, the accused used a knife and axe to inflict injuries on heads and necks of the deceased persons. He also committed robbery of ornaments and electronic gadgets. He was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 397 (robbery, dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) 457 (lurking house trespass or house breaking), 380 (theft in dwelling house) and 461 (dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property) of the IPC.

The Court observed that brutal and heinous murder was committed by the accused on his employer and family.

The Court also took note of all the circumstantial evidence against the accused that link him to the murder such as absconding after the crime, last seen theory, conduct, medical evidence, recovery of articles and stolen property. It also noted that all witnesses identified the accused in Court.

Based on the circumstantial evidence before the Court, it stated that the chain of events was established and that the accused was guilty of murder. It said, “If all the circumstances mentioned above are taken together, they lead to only one inference namely, that in all human probability the murder of the deceased was committed by the appellant alone and none else. When all the links are established, they together exclude any reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant.”

Death Sentence Reference

Regarding the death sentence reference, the Court referred to the landmark decision in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), where the Apex Court held that the death penalty could only be imposed in the 'rarest of rare' cases.

The Court also referred to the decision in Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) to find whether the accused could be reformed and rehabilitated before awarding death sentence.

Based on the orders of the Court, Project 39 A of the National University of Delhi conducted a mitigation study to consider the probability of reformation of the accused. Their report indicated that the accused had a childhood full of adversities ranging from poverty, neglect, abuse as well as discrimination. The report further stated that he got married very young and had a marital life full of conflicts. It also stated that he had attempted to commit suicide and lacked the support and love from any closed ones.

The report also stated that the accused shows resilience and was making conscious efforts such as developing new skills for reintegration into the society. The report stated that the accused has the motivation to become a better person and to lead a better life. The report concluded thus, “Thus, a second chance at life will enable Narendra to have a valuable, meaningful life and be a productive member of his family and society.”

Relying upon Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur and Another v. State of Maharashtra (2010), the Court stated that primacy has to be given to life imprisonment over death penalty when case was based on circumstantial evidence alone. In the facts of the case, the Court stated that the entire prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence only.

Thus, the Court refused the death sentence imposed upon the accused under Section 302 of the IPC and modified his punishment thus, “we deem it appropriate to modify the sentence to one of life imprisonment with the further condition that he shall undergo mandatory imprisonment without remission for a period of twenty years. Save for the aforesaid modification of the sentence in respect of the offence under Section 302, we uphold the impugned judgment of the trial court.”

While allowing the criminal appeal in part, the Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court under Sections 397, 457, 380 and 461 of the IPC.

Counsel for Accused: Advocates M.P Madhavankutty, Mathew Devassi, Ananthakrishnan A Kartha, Remya M Menon

Counsel for State: Public Prosecutor Alex M Thombra

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 266

Case Title: State of Kerala v Narendra Kumar & Another

Case Number: D.S.R.NO.1 OF 2018, CRL.A.NO.319 OF 2017

Click here to read/download Judgment