Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
A. K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, SYAM KUMAR V. M.
State of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Thomas Chacko @ Shibu S/o James – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
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 transferr
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 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.
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.
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....
Quantum of sentence – There can be no straitjacket formulae – A delicate balance has to be struck – Fundamental underpinning is principle of proportionality.
Capital punishment can only be imposed in 'rarest of rare' cases, and mitigating factors such as the age of the offender can influence commutation of death sentences.
The court redefined the appropriateness of the death penalty in light of mitigating factors, emphasizing the need to consider a defendant's mental state and family circumstances.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article