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
| 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
Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.)
Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of W.B.
Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P.
Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
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.
The court ruled that the death penalty is not warranted in this case, emphasizing the need for a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ultimately commuting the sentence to 30 year....
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.
The court ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
The imposition of the death penalty requires the statutory provision of special reasons, and a balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be conducted.
The court ruled that the death penalty is an exception, emphasizing the need for considering the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused, leading to a modification of the sentenc....
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 court held that death sentence should be imposed only in rarest of rare cases considering the possibility of rehabilitation, thereby modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.
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.