The court upheld the conviction for murder and sexual assault, emphasizing the brutality and premeditation of the crime, while commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment based on mitigating factors.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. This case is the second one of its nature that has become ripe for judgment in a short while wherein a husband and father has allegedly forgotten all propriety, morality and responsibility toward his family members. The prosecution contends that Reji Kumar – appellant herein had, over a period of few days killed his wife Lissy and four children, namely, 1st daughter (12 years old), son (10 years old), 2nd daughter (9 years old) and 3rd daughter (3 years old). We are left to wonder as to how someone who is supposed to feel the utmost love, care and affection for the young lives could have come to committing such a crime - where the lights of these lives have been extinguished in the most brutal of manners.

2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 12th November, 2014 in Death Reference No.1/2010 and Criminal Appeal No.1663 of 2010 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The former travelled up to the High Court by way of statutory requirement and the latter was preferred by the appellant against the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Sessions Court, Palakkad in S.C.No.114 of 2009, under Sections 302, 376, 297 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860¹[Hereinafter ‘IPC’].

Brief Facts

3. The facts, as set out by the Courts below giving rise to the present appeals, are :

3.1 The appellant-convict was employed in the fields of one Aboobacker Sidique (PW-1) as an agricultural worker at a monthly salary of Rs.7,000/- and used to live in rented accommodation, in the ownership of Rasheed PW-6. In the course of such employment, he developed intimate relations with Baby alias Usha PW-24. Lissy went missing on 9th July, 2008. On 11th July 2008 he took his son and 3rd daughter saying that he would return with his wife and children. Thereafter, the neighbours made repeated inquiries but were always met with evasive answers.

3.2 On 20th July 2008, he informed PW-1 that he was headed to Kottayam and would return on the same day with his family. On 21st and 22nd July 2008, Safina PW-2, wife of PW-1 noted that the house was locked from the outside, but the next day she found it locked from inside. When, on knocking she got no answer, she informed her husband and they together investigated the house. Finally, three people secured entry - PW-1, his brother Biju PW-4 and PW-6 and found 1st daughter and 2nd daughter lying prone, dead. The police were informed, and accordingly, FIR No.456/08 dated 23rd July, 2008 came to be registered at PS Pattambi, District Palakkad.

3.3 Also on 25th July 2008, the bodies of Lissy, the son and 3rd daughter were discovered in the septic tank and the nearby fields respectively, after people were alerted by a foul smell emanating from the former location. The requisite documentation regarding recovery of all the deceased persons was prepared.

3.4 The appellant convict was taken into custody on 27th July, 2008.

3.5 The final report was submitted under Section 302, 376, 297 and 201 IPC before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Pattambi on 23rd October, 2008, from where it was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellant convict was defended by legal aid counsel.

Trial Court

4. The convict appellant pleaded not guilty. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 44 witnesses marked 72 exhibits and identified 36 material objects. The Court framed six issues for consideration :

“1. Whether the accused has caused the death of Lissy, 1st daughter, 2nd daughter, son and 3rd daughter?

2. Whether the accused committed rape or his daughter 1st daughter?

3. Whether the accused has caused disappearance of evidence bas alleged by the prosecution?

4. Whether the accused has shown disrespect to the dead body so as to attract an offence under Section 297 IPC?

5. What are the offences if any committed by the accused?

6. What is the sentence to be imposed?”

5. In paragraph 22, the Court takes notice of the circumstances sought to be proven by the prosecution agains