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

2003 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 10

MADRAS HIGH COURT
, J
Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. V v. Chandrasekar
Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2001



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Advocate XYZ
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor ABC

The Court determined that while the accused was guilty of murder, the imposition of death penalty was not justified under the 'rarest of rare' doctrine, leading to a sentence of life imprisonment.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 307 - Conviction for murder and attempt to murder - The accused was convicted for the murder of his son and attempted murder of his wife and mother-in-law - Evidence was corroborated by post-mortem findings establishing decapitation as the cause of death - The Court discussed the nature of punishment and noted that death penalty is an exception rather than the rule - Relying on the precedent laid out in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court concluded that the circumstances did not warrant death penalty - Instead, life imprisonment was imposed. (Paras 10-14)

(B) Sentence - To impose death penalty, it must be shown that the case falls under the 'rarest of rare' doctrine - The court outlined questions to determine the appropriateness of such a sentence - Key factors include whether the crime is brutal and whether life imprisonment is inadequate as a punishment. (Paras 12-14)

Facts of the case:
The accused, after a history of family strife, killed his son with a hacksaw blade, inflicting deadly injuries on two other family members in the process. The incident followed previous quarrels that indicated familial discord and emotional instability.

Findings of Court:
The evidence against the accused was found to be overwhelming, establishing the act of murder with clarity through eyewitness accounts and medical evidence. However, the Court ruled that the particulars of the crime did not justify the death penalty, imposing instead a life sentence.

Issues: Whether the evidentiary value of familial witnesses is enough to uphold conviction, and the adequacy of the death penalty as a punishment for the crime.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized that while the evidence of relatives can be accepted, the severity of sentencing must take into account the broader legal doctrines established by higher courts, especially in capital cases. The Court indicated strong preference for life sentences over death penalties unless specific severe criteria are met.

Result: The conviction was upheld, the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.

1 As the Reference and the appeal arise out of a common sessions case, we dispose them of by the following common judgment.

2 The appellant, challenging his conviction and sentence of death imposed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, for an offence of murder, has preferred the above appeal and the learned Sessions Judge has made the reference for the confirmation of death sentence imposed upon him. The appellant, who, in this judgment, will be referred to as 'the accused', was tried on a charge of murder with an allegation that at 2.00 a.m. on 3.9.2001, he caused the death of his son, Shanmugasundaram @ Shanmugam, by cutting his neck and severing it and that during the course of the same transaction, he attempted to murder P.Ws.1 and 2. The learned Sessions Judge, as stated earlier, finding the accused guilty under S.302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to death, imposed a sentence of seven years R.I. under S.307 I.P.C. framed under Charge No. 2 for attempting to murder P.Ws.1 and 2.

3 The case of the prosecution is as follows: -
P.W.1 is the wife of the accused and she is also the mother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the mother inlaw of the accused. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the sons of the accused and P.W.5 is the daughter of the accused. P.W.6 was a tenant in the house, where the accused, the deceased and their family members were living. During the relevant period, they were at Vyasarpadi and prior to that, P.W.1 along with her husband, who is the accused, was living at Pune, where the accused was working as a goldsmith. He suffered loss in the business and therefore, migrated to Kasi, where also he did not have better times. He returned to Chennai along with his wife about five months prior to the date of incident and after his return, he and his wife, P.W.1, were staying in the house of P.W.2. Later, they shifted to the house, where the occurrence had taken place. The deceased, during the relevant period, was working in the passport office. Three days prior to the date of incident, a quarrel ensued between the accused and the deceased as the accused was blamed by the deceased for not taking care of the family and was living a life of a vagabond. The accused abused his son and P.W.1 intervened and pacified them. At about 11.00 a.m. on 2.9.2001, the accused found fault with the family for not serving him proper food and the deceased took his father to task by telling him that he has already asked him to go out of the house and P.W.1 had to intervene to pacify her husband and son. This is said to be the immediate provocation for the accused to attack his son, the deceased in the case. On the night of 2.9.2001, all the family members took their bed and at about 2.00 a.m., P.W.1 woke up, on hearing the cries of her son. P.W.1, on waking up, found her son lying face downwards and saw the accused cutting him with M.O.1, hacksaw blade, on the neck. On hearing the alarm of P.W.1, P.W.2 woke up and when P.Ws.1 and 2 intervened, they were also cut by the accused. The accused was having a knife on one hand and the head of his son on the other hand. P.W.1 cried aloud and the accused, proclaiming that he has dispatched his son to the other world, left the house, after throwing the head in the kitchen and while leaving, he took the hacksaw blade along with him. P.W.1 became unconscious on seeing this ghastly act. P.W.3 took P.Ws.1 and 2 to Government Stanley Hospital, where they were examined by the Casualty Medical Officer, P.W.13. P.W.13, on examining P.W.2, found the following injuries: -
1. Laceration right ring finger 5 cm. x 1 x 1/2 cm.
2. Lacerated right forearm 10 cm. x 1/4 x 1/4 cm.
3. Laceration left hand (2) in Nos. each 4 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm.
4. Laceration right back 4 x 1/4 x 1/4 cm.
5. Laceration right arm 6 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm.
Ex.P.14 is the copy of the accident register issued by the doctor in respect of the injuries found on her person. He also examined P.W.1 and on her person, found the two following injuries, for which, he issued Ex.P





























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