Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Navas @ Mulanavas - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1215 Of 2011
Decided On : 18-03-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 449 and 309 – Murder of four members of a family after committing house-trespass and attempt to commit suicide – Life sentence – When an offence like multiple murders is committed inside a house in secrecy, initial burden has to be discharged by prosecution – Once prosecution successfully discharged burden cast upon it, burden did shift upon appellant being the only other person inside four corners of house to offer a cogent and plausible explanation as to how offences came to be committed – Appellant has miserably failed on that score – This can be considered as a very important circumstance, constituting a vital link in chain – Circumstances are by themselves consistent with sole hypothesis that accused and accused alone is perpetrator of these murders which were most foul – Circumstances presented in evidence in this case more than meets ingredients that are required to be established – No reason to interfere with concurrent conviction recorded by trial Court and High Court – Conviction maintained. (Paras 12, 13, 14 and 15)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 449 and 309 – Murder of four members of a family after committing house-trespass and attempt to commit suicide – Quantum of sentence – Fixing of quantum at 30 years without remission – Four lives were snuffed out and entire family was wiped out including a child and an aged woman – Deceased were unarmed and defenceless and no provocation or resistance was offered by them – Court may find that while death penalty may not be warranted keeping in mind overall circumstances, proportionate penalty would be to fix period between 14 years and for imprisonment till rest of life without remission – There can be no straitjacket formulae – A delicate balance has to be struck – While undue leniency, which will affect public confidence and efficacy of legal system, should not be shown, at the same time, since a good part of convict’s life with freedom is being sliced away (except in cases where Court decides to impose imprisonment till rest of full life), in view of his incarceration, care should be taken that period fixed is also not harsh and excessive – Fundamental underpinning is principle of proportionality – Aggravating and mitigating circumstances which Court considers while deciding commutation of penalty from death to life imprisonment, have a large bearing in deciding number of years of compulsory imprisonment without remission, too – Sentence modified to that of a period of 25 years imprisonment without remission, including period already undergone. (Paras 19, 24, 27, 57, 59 and 60)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal arises out of Judgment of a Division Bench of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in D.S.R. No. 4 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No. 1620 of 2007 dated 09.02.2010. Death Sentence Reference and Criminal Appeal arose out of Judgment of the Court of the III Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court No. 1, Thrissur in Sessions Case No. 491 of 2006. Trial Court found appellant (sole accused) guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 449 IPC for having committed the murder of Latha (aged 39 years), Ramachandran (aged 45 years), Chitra (aged 11 years) and Karthiayani Amma (aged 80 years) after committing house-trespass. High Court, while confirming conviction, modified sentence. Sentence of death was modified and reduced to imprisonment for life with a further direction that accused shall not be released from prison for a period of 30 (thirty) years including period already undergone with set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. alone. Aggrieved, appellant is before this Court in the present appeal by way of special leave.
Findings of Court:
Court inclined to modify sentence under Section 302 imposed by High Court from a period of 30 years imprisonment without remission to that of a period of 25 years imprisonment without remission, including period already undergone. In our view, this would serve the ends of justice.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(K.V. Viswanathan, J.)
1. The present Appeal arises out of the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in D.S.R. No. 4 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No. 1620 of 2007 dated 09.02.2010. The Death Sentence Reference and the Criminal Appeal arose out of the judgment of the Court of the III Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court No. 1, Thrissur in Sessions Case No. 491 of 2006.
2. The trial Court found the appellant (the sole accused) guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 449 IPC for having committed the murder of Latha (aged 39 years), Ramachandran (aged 45 years), Chitra (aged 11 years) and Karthiayani Amma (aged 80 years) after committing house-trespass. After committing the above said act, the accused attempted to commit suicide for which he was also found guilty under Section 309 IPC. The trial Court sentenced the accused to death for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. For the offence under Section 449 IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The accused was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 309 IPC, and in default of the payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
3. When the matter went for confirmation before the High Court, the High Court, while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence. The sentence of death was modified and reduced to imprisonment for life with a further direction that the accused shall not be released from prison for a period of 30 (thirty) years including the period already undergone with set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. alone. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us in the present appeal by way of special leave.
Brief Facts:
4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that in the household of the deceased Ramachandran, there were four people residing. Apart from Ramachandran, there was his wife Latha, their daughter Chitra and Ramachandran’s mother Karthiayani Amma. The appellant, according to the prosecution, had, at an earlier point in time, illicit intimacy with Latha so much so that Latha even became pregnant, later leading to termination of pregnancy. It is the prosecution case that after Latha tried to distance herself, the appellant was seriously aggrieved, and they advert to an occurrence of 03.02.2005 when the appellant is supposed to have trespassed into the house where Latha lived and even tried to harm her. They rely on Ext. P-9 to Ext.P-11 complaints.
5. The macabre incident, out of which the present case arose, happened on the night intervening 03.11.2005 and 04.11.2005. It is alleged that the accused reached the house of the deceased late at night on 03.11.2005. Having reached the house, he made a hole in the eastern side wall of the house and gained access into the house. It is the prosecution case that, having gained access and being armed with 2 (two) knives and an iron rod, he caused the death of Ramachandran and Chitra with the iron rod in the upper floor room in the northern side of the house; that he caused serious injuries to Karthiayani Amma in the northern room on the ground floor (resulting in her death subsequently) and caused the death of Latha with multiple stab injuries in the hall near the stairs on the ground floor.
6. The prosecution case is that PW-1 Thankamani, the domestic help, who had seen the family hale and hearty the previous evening i.e., 03.11.2005, had come to sweep the house on the morning of 04.11.2005 at around 07:00 a.m. While sweeping the courtyard, she found that, unlike on normal days when the family would come out of the house in the morning, no one came out that day. While sweeping, she found that a hole had been dug on the eastern side wall of the house and to her horror also found that blood was dripping from a pipe adjoining the west
Quantum of sentence – There can be no straitjacket formulae – A delicate balance has to be struck – Fundamental underpinning is principle of proportionality.
The court ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
The court modified the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years, emphasizing the need for proportionality in sentencing while acknowledging the heinous nature of the crime.
The court ruled that death penalty requires unimpeachable circumstantial evidence and consideration of mitigating factors, leading to a commutation to life imprisonment without remission.
Offence of Murder – Death Sentence Confirmed - Imposition of death sentence in ‘rarest of rare’ cases - Instant case falls in category of 'rarest of rare case', warranting capital punishment. Hence d....
(1) Constitutional guarantees of equality before law, protection of life and personal liberty, protection in respect of conviction, and protection against arrest and detention, do not expand into a c....
The main legal point established is the applicability of life imprisonment for the remainder of life in cases of heinous crimes, as upheld by the court in this judgment.
The court ruled that the death penalty is not warranted as the case does not fall under the 'rarest of rare' category, emphasizing the need for special reasons for such a sentence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
