IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ.
State of Kerala – Petitioner
Versus
Thomas Chacko @ Shibu S/o James – Respondent
D.S.R. No. 2 of 2019, Crl. Appeal No. 218 of 2021
Decided On : 23-07-2024
JUDGMENT :
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
1. The Criminal Appeal and Death Sentence Reference (DSR) arise from the judgment dated 15.02.2019 of the Additional Sessions Judge I (Special Court), Pathanamthitta in S.C.No. 182 of 2014, by which the appellant/accused was found guilty of the offences under Sections 449, 323, 324, 436 and 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fine for various terms for the offences under Sections 449, 323, 324 and 436 IPC and sentenced to death and fine for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The prosecution case:
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused is the elder son of M.T. Chacko [PW6] @ James. Bindhu [PW10] is the wife of Shybu, the younger brother of the accused. Shybu was employed abroad. Bindhu and her minor children namely, Melbin, aged 7, and Mebin, aged 3, were residing in the ground floor of their residential building namely 'Madathethu Veedu' and Chacko [PW6] and his wife Marykutty Chacko [PW7] were residing in the upper floor of the same building. The said residential building stood transferred by PW6 Chacko in the name of the appellant/accused. In connection with the division of the properties, there had been dispute between the appellant/accused and his father Chacko, and consequently, the accused turned envious to his father. In addition, Bindhu and the wife of the appellant/accused also had become at loggerheads. Because of these family issues, the appellant/accused left his parental home and resided in a rented residence, but the dispute and enmity continued. Out of this enmity, the appellant/accused, with his intention to do away with Melbin and Mebin, came to his parental home on 27-10-2013 at about 7.30 a.m. and committed the murder of Melbin and Mebin by slitting their throat using a knife. When Bindhu tried to dissuade the accused, he had assaulted her and sprinkled chilly powder on her face. After committing the murder of the two children, the accused has set the house ablaze and also had attempted to commit suicide by poisoning.
Proceedings before the trial court:
3. The final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Ranni, and on the appearance of the accused, committal proceedings were initiated as C.P.No. 24 of 2014 since the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. On committal of the case, the case was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Court I (Special Court), Pathanamthitta, for trial and disposal. As the accused was in custody, a legal aid counsel was appointed for him. As there was no ground to discharge the accused under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., charges were framed against him under Sections 449, 323, 324, 436 and 302 of the IPC. When the charges were read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty. Thereupon, the matter proceeded for trial.
4. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW35 and marked Exts.P1 to P7, P7(a), P8 to P38, P38(a) and P39 to P42. MO1 to MO15 series were identified. On behalf of the defence, Ext.D1 was marked through PW1. No other witnesses were examined or documents marked. After the close of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, and he denied all the circumstances. Finding that there was no ground for acquittal under Section 232 of the Cr.PC., the accused was called upon to enter into defence and adduce evidence, if any. The accused, however, chose not to adduce any evidence. Thereafter, the trial court proceeded to hear the prosecution and the defence and found the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 449, 323, 324, 436 and 302 IPC. The accused was accordingly convicted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 323 of IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of three y
Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra
Rajesh Kumar v. State through Government of NCT of Delhi
Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh
Santhosh Kumar Bariyar vs. State of Maharashtra
Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra
Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra
Shiva Kumar @ Shiva v. State of Karnataka
State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar
Sushil Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)
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 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 upheld that the death penalty is an exception, emphasizing rehabilitation and reformation when sentencing for serious crimes, mandating consideration of the offender's background and potent....
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.
The court ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
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....
In terms of Section 354(3) of Cr.P.C., it is clear that normally imprisonment for life is to be awarded and only in any exceptional circumstances death sentence is required to be awarded.
(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 emphasized the necessity of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation before imposing the death penalty.
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....
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.