Kerala High Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man For Murdering 3 & 7 Yr-Old Nephews, Imposes 30-Yr Rigorous Imprisonment Sentence

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed that Constitutional Courts have the power to substitute the death penalty imposed by the Trial Court to imprisonment for a fixed term without remission in appropriate cases. The Court said:

“…we cannot lose sight of the heinous crime that was committed by the appellant/accused against two innocent children aged 7 and 3. The brutal manner in which the crime was committed on the children, who were the children of his own brother and in relation to whom he occupied a position of trust, certainly warrants a harsh punishment. Taking cue from the judgments of the Supreme Court which empower a constitutional court to substitute the death sentence imposed by the trial court with a fixed term sentence without remission, we feel that on the facts and circumstances in the instant case, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 30 years without remission would serve the ends of justice...”

The Court was dealing with Chacko's appeal and the Sessions court reference for confirmation of sentence.

Background

Chacko was convicted with the death penalty and a fine of 5 lakh rupees by the Additional Sessions Judge I (Special Court), Pathanamthitta under Section 302 of IPC. He was also convicted for offences punishable under Sections 449 (house trespass to commit offence punishable with death), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) and 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house) of the IPC.

The prosecution allegation was that Chacko committed the murder of his brother's children on October 27, 2013 due to family disputes over division of properties. The It was stated that Chacko committed the murder of his nephews by slitting their throats and he threw chili powder on their mother's face who tried to intervene.

The defense argued that Chacko was not in a fit state of mind and lacked mens rea when he committed the alleged acts that led to his conviction.

The Court found that Chacko had enmity to his family members because of which he left their residential house to reside separately and away from family. It stated that the Trial Court has established the animosity of Chacko towards his family members.

The Court stated that the murder committed by Chacko had been established beyond a reasonable doubt from the statements of the mother of the deceased children who was an eyewitness.

Regarding death sentence reference, the Court referred to the landmark decisions by the Apex Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) wherein it was laid down that the death penalty could only be imposed in the 'rarest of rare' cases that shocks the collective conscience of the community.

The Court also referred to the decision in Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) to state that Courts should consider whether there is a probability of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused before awarding a death sentence.

The Court stated that there is a shift from reformative and rehabilitative responses to crime. It stated that a criminal was not only a product of his decisions but also a product of the State and society's failure.

Relying upon recent decisions of the Apex Court, the Court stated that the imposition of harsher sentences of imprisonment was a viable substitute over imposing death penalty. 

The Mitigation Study Report submitted by Project 39 A of the National University of Delhi indicated that there is a probability of reformation for Chacko. It also took note of the report of the Psychiatrist that he expressed regret over committing the murder.

Considering all the above facts, the Court stated that the present case does not fall under the category of 'rarest of rare' for imposition of the death penalty. It thus modified the sentence of the death penalty to rigorous imprisonment of 30 years without remission and answered the death sentence reference in negative.

While allowing the criminal appeal in part, the Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court under Sections 323, 324, 436, 449 and 302 IPC.

Counsel for Accused: Advocate V A Ajivass

Counsel for State: Special Public Prosecutor Ambika Devi

Counsel for Respondents:

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 463

Case Title: State of Kerala v Thomas Chacko @Shibu and Connected Matter

Case Number: D.S.R.NO.2 OF 2019, CRL.A.NO.218 OF 2021

Click here to read/download Judgment