VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA
Reji Kumar Alias Reji – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
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
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Ramesh A. Naika v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc.
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 fa....
The court determined that while the appellant committed brutal murders, the death penalty was not warranted due to mitigating circumstances and potential for reform, leading to a commutation to life ....
The court ruled that death penalty requires unimpeachable circumstantial evidence and consideration of mitigating factors, leading to a commutation to life imprisonment without remission.
Death sentence – Brutality of a crime cannot be only criterion for determining whether a case falls under “rarest of the rare” category.
The court established that circumstantial evidence and motive for honour killing justified the conviction for murder, while mitigating factors led to the commutation of the death penalty to life impr....
Point of law: Convict/appellant is a menace to the society and there is no chance of his rehabilitation or reformation and no leniency in imposing punishment is called for.
The court emphasized the importance of mitigating circumstances, the sufficiency of evidence, and the societal perception in determining the appropriateness of death penalty.
The court upheld the conviction for kidnapping, gang rape, and murder but commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment due to lack of exceptional circumstances.
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 the death penalty should only be imposed in rarest of rare cases and emphasized balancing mitigating circumstances against the nature of the crime.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.