SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
Anu Shanthi, D/o. Shantha Kumari – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 639 Of 2016, CRL.A No. 683 Of 2016, DSR No. 2 Of 2016.
Decided On : 24-05-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties : V.K. Biju, Shylaja Varghese, Sampath V. Toms, Smt. Ambika Devi S., Spl. Public Prosecutor, Sruthy K.K., Sri. George Mathew, P. Vijaya Bhanu, Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, Sri. Haris Ali, Sri. K.R. Rajaish, Sri. K.S. Stejo, Sri. V.S. Thoshin, Sruthy K.K., P. Vijaya Bhanu.

The court affirmed multiple convictions for murder and conspiracy, emphasizing the nature of the crimes and the relationship between the accused as central to the ruling.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 302, 307, 380, 511, 449 - Information Technology Act - Sections 67, 67A - Murder of two victims and attempted murder of a third - Convictions under multiple charges confirmed against both accused, with the first accused receiving a death sentence converted to life imprisonment for 25 years without remission due to the heinous nature of the crime, involving a conspiracy driven by an adulterous relationship. (Paras 6, 7, 106)

Facts of the case:
The first accused, motivated by a lustful relationship with the second accused, committed multiple murders on 16.04.2014, including the mother and child of the third victim, with attempted murder of the third victim himself. The crime was executed with premeditation and included theft of the victims’ belongings. (Paras 3-5)

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the trial court's conviction based on substantial circumstantial evidence, including phone records linking the first accused to the crime scene and the adulterous relationship as a motive. The death sentence for the first accused was justified due to the brutal nature of the crime, but was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment based on mitigating factors. (Paras 106-108)

Issues: The primary issues were whether the prosecution established the accused's guilt, the existence of a criminal conspiracy, and whether the circumstances warranted a death sentence. (Paras 12-13)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that circumstantial evidence, including the evidence of a conspiracy between the accused and the accused’s attempt to mislead investigations, justified the convictions. Factors such as the brutality of the acts and prior planning supported the potential for a death sentence, though mitigation was considered. (Paras 97-109)

Result: The appeal by the first accused regarding his death sentence was denied, but his sentence was converted to life imprisonment without remission. (Paras 106-107)

Table of Content
1. background of the case involving a murder. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. details of court proceedings and charges. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. key issues and arguments presented by the parties. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. identification of accused and testimony of pw1. (Para 15 , 19)
5. determination of guilt based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 63 , 68 , 84 , 97)
6. the court reflects on the gravity of the crime, weighing societal norms against legal precedents in sentencing. (Para 69)
7. the judgment illustrates the transition from death penalty to life imprisonment based on the assessment of mitigating circumstances. (Para 104)
8. conclusion regarding sentencing and rationale. (Para 106 , 107 , 108 , 109)

JUDGMENT :

Johnson John, J.

“There is no disease so destructive as lust.”

--Chanakya

Adulterous and lustful relationship between two technocrats betraying their respective spouses, children and parents resulted in the murder of Omana, the mother of PW1, and Swasthika, aged 3 ½ years, the daughter of PW1, and attempted murder of PW1 on 16.04.2014 in their residential house bearing No. 3/173 of Attingal Municipality.

2. PW1, an engineer by profession, working at Moozhiyar, is the husband of the second accused, a technocrat working in Technopark, Kazhakuttom and on the night of 15.04.2014, he reached his house at Attingal, where his wife, the second accused, daughter Swasthika and parents, Omana and Thankappan Chettiyar, are residing and on the next day morning, PW14, the father of PW1, left the house at about 7.45 a.m. to the place where PW1 is constructing a new house and subsequently, the second accused left the house as usual to her place of work at Kazhakuttom and since PW1 was on leave, he left the house at about 11 a.m. to the post office at Alamcode and while he was standing at Alamcode junction, he received a phone call from his mother Omana and he was told that a friend of him is waiting in the house to meet him and on his request, the mother handed over the phone to the said person and the said person told PW1 that he is Nino Mathew (first accused), who is a colleague of the second accused and that he wants to see PW1 to talk to him and accordingly, PW1 returned to his house and at that time, the front door of the house was seen closed from inside and even though he called his daughter, there was no response and since the back door of the house was also seen closed, he came back to the front side and pushed open the front door and immediately when he entered the house, the first accused who was standing behind the front door, attacked him with a chopper aiming his neck and when he evaded the attack, he sustained a cut injury on the left side of his head and the left ear and on sustaining the injury, he ran out of the house and then the first accused chased him for a short distance and at that time, the first accused was holding a chopper and was also in possession of a bag.

3. On hearing the cries of PW1, the neighbours came running and the first accused escaped through the back side of the house and thereafter, when PW1 entered the house along with neighbours, his mother and daughter were seen lying inside the house soaked in blood and even though the mother and daughter of PW1 were shifted to the hospital, they were declared as dead. The first accused also committed theft of the gold chain worn by the deceased Omana and the gold ornaments worn by Swasthika with an intention to mislead that the murder was committed by burglars in the course of theft.

4. It is the prosecution case that the first accused--Nino Mathew, a technocrat and colleague of the second accused, committed the act in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy between accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were in a lustful adulterous relationship to do away with PW1, his daughter, Swasthika, and the mother-in-law, Omana, to continue their sexual relationship and to live together as man and wife in exclusion of their spouses and children and in furtheranc

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top