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) 655

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ambika Devi S.
For the Respondent: V.A. Ajivass.

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 323, 324, 436, and 449 - Death penalty for murder of two minor children - Conviction upheld based on eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence - The court emphasized the heinous nature of the crime and the need for a harsh penalty, modifying the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years. (Paras 1, 14, 32)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 366(1) - Confirmation of death sentence - The court discussed the principles governing the imposition of death penalty, emphasizing the need for proportionality and consideration of mitigating circumstances. (Paras 15, 16, 32)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, motivated by family disputes, murdered his two minor nephews, Melbin and Mebin, by slitting their throats and subsequently attempted suicide. The trial court found him guilty of multiple charges, including murder. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the conviction for all charges and modified the death sentence to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission, citing the brutal nature of the crime. (Paras 32)

Issues: The main issues included the appropriateness of the death penalty and the consideration of mitigating circumstances in sentencing. (Paras 14, 32)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the heinous nature of the crime warranted a severe penalty, but the specific circumstances did not classify it as the 'rarest of rare' case for death penalty. (Paras 32)

Result: The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed; the death sentence is modified to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission.

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

      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