Kerala High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of Beedi Tycoon Mohammed Nisham For Mowing Down Security Guard Chandrabose

The Kerala High Court, on Friday, dismissed the appeal filed by beedi tycoon Mohammed Nisham against conviction and life sentence in the Chandrabose murder case. 

Division Bench consisting of Justice K Vinod Chandran and C Jayachandran has upheld the life imprisonment awarded to the accused. 

...it is clear that the conscious act of running down a man to cause injuries, which injuries in the ordinary course would lead to death, makes the accused liable for murder. Ramming a man, deliberately with a vehicle, is also an act, imminently dangerous as to cause death, in all probability. Looking at the commission of the act, which cannot be termed to be an accident, it is murder, most foul and vicious, snuffing out the life of a poor soul.

The accused was booked under Sections 302, 323, 324,326, 427, 449 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of a security guard in a fit of rage by ramming his luxury Hummer at a posh residential township in Thrissur, where the accused owns an apartment.

He was sentenced to imprisonment of life under S.302 IPC and fine of Rs.70 lakhs; out of which Rs.50 lakhs was to be paid as compensation, to the family of the victim, under S.357(1)(b) of CrPC. Various terms of sentences were also imposed under the other provisions, with a fine totalling Rs.1,30,000/- under S 326, 427 & 449 IPC, and suitable default sentences were also provided.

The prosecution case is that the accused was incensed with the staff at the entrance of the residential complex, having delayed raising the electronic barrier for his entry into the complex, when on a rampage he assaulted the deceased and intentionally hit the victim with his luxury Hummer resulting in his death eighteen days later due to the grievous injuries sustained by him.

Three appeals were considered by the Court, one, of the accused, against the conviction and sentence, the other of the owner of the vehicle against the order refusing to release the vehicle, and another by the State seeking capital punishment for the reason of the accused having unleashed a merciless attack on a defenceless person, especially the act of having used a car to mow him down and thus murder him. 

Referring to the Apex Court decision in the case of Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala, where the Supreme Court had elaborated on the four mental attitudes, the special mens rea, which distinguishes the offence of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The first is a clear intention to cause death, and the second, is the intention of causing such bodily injury, which the offender knows is likely to cause the death of the person who sustains that injury; thirdly, acts done with the intention to cause bodily injury, which injury in the ordinary course of nature would cause death, sans even the subjective knowledge and fourthly, the commission of imminently dangerous acts which the accused knows, would in all probability cause death.

The Court observed that from the conscious act of running down a man to cause injuries, which injuries in the ordinary course would lead to death, makes the accused liable for murder.

We have meticulously gone through the evidence and have elaborately discussed it, to find the accused guilty of the offence of murder, the gravest of the offences and in this case committed in a most foul & dastardly manner, shocking the public consciousness and challenging the basic values of human societies. Such acts of depravity is an indelible mar on civil society and the economic disparity between the accused and the deceased, accentuates the gravity of the offence.

The Court found the ocular testimony to be credible and fully corroborating each other. The Court observed that in the incident, the aggressor was the accused, and he not only created damage to the property but also perpetrated violence on those manning the gates of the complex. Further, from the testimony of the witness, the Court pointed out that it is very clear that the deceased was just a sprint away from the accused when the accused mounted the driving seat of the car, reversed it and moved it after the running deceased. Afterwards, the accused bundled the injured man into the back seat and took him inside the apartment complex, the testimony of one of the witnesses narrates the ghastly act committed by the accused on the injured man inside the parking area, and the Court pointed out that this further projects the intention of the accused to kill the injured. 

The Court, after examining the medical evidence and the testimonies of the witness, concluded that the death was caused by the injuries sustained in the deliberate head-on collision and the complications arising from it and the scientific evidence fully supports the testimonies of the witness. 

Therefore, Court observed that no reason can be found in interfering with the conviction as found in the impugned judgment. 

On the question of enhancing the punishment awarded, the Court observed that it does not lie on the State to seek exercise of the alternative measure provided in Swany Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka as a sentence of imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict subject only to remission as provided under the Constitution and under the Cr.PC. As far as remission under the Constitution is concerned, it has been categorically held that there can be no restriction placed on such powers, judicially.

"Coming to the CrPC, the power of remission is on the State Government; if the State is of the opinion that the instant crime is one which should not be considered for remission, then the State could restrict itself; the power of remission being within its exclusive domain. The State requires no nudge or prodding from the Courts on the judicial side, and it is for the State to take a decision on remission; considering the gravity of the offence, the shock it generated in society as also the conduct of the convict in prison and any other relevant factors. If the State stays in its hands and restricts itself and the power of remission is not invoked, the convict spends his life in prison."

There, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Mohammed Nisam A.A. v. State of Kerala 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 487

Click Here To Read/Download The Order