Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79891
MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. Seshasayee, J
State by the Inspector of Police Shankar Nagar Police Station St. Thomas Mount Chennai v. M. Dhamodaran alias Prakash
Referred trial No.2 of 2020 | Crl.A.No.40 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Parthiban
For the Respondents: Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah
The court confirmed conviction for parricide and modified the death penalty to life imprisonment, emphasizing mental stability and legal culpability irrespective of financial distress.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 (4 counts) and 309 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 366 - Confirmation of death sentence - Appellant convicted of parricide where he killed his wife, mother, and two children due to financial distress - Clinical assessment found him mentally fit and coherent during confession - Judicial confession upheld despite claims of coercion - Conviction confirmed; however, death sentence modified to life imprisonment without statutory remission for 25 years. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Evidence - Sections 106 and 14 of the Evidence Act - Appellant's failure to provide an explanation for deaths in his presence - Burden of proof shifts to the appellant pursuant to his exclusive knowledge of the facts. (Paras 7-15)
(C) Dying declarations - Confessions (extrajudicial and judicial) were pivotal in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with mental state a critical factor in assessing intent and culpability. (Paras 8-12, 14.1-14.2)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, under financial duress from a failing textile business exacerbated by demonetization, killed his family and attempted suicide. Following a complaint, an extensive investigation ensued leading to multiple witness testimonies and confessional evidence.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution's presentation of evidence and confessions confirmed the appellant's guilt; however, the trial court's death penalty classification was challenged as the case did not fit 'rarest of rare' statutes.
Issues: Determination of motive for the homicides and the legality of the death penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that financial stress did not exempt the appellant from legal culpability; the judicial confession was properly admitted and established intent.
Result: Conviction upheld; death sentence converted to life imprisonment without eligibility for remission within 25 years.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and personal circumstances leading to the homicides. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding culpability and the necessity of capital punishment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 14) |
| 3. court guidance on evidence and judicial reasoning. (Para 7 , 11 , 12 , 15) |
| 4. final observations about evidence relevance and mental state. (Para 10 , 13) |
| 5. final decision regarding conviction and sentence. (Para 16) |
1. Referred trial (R.T.) No.2 of 2020 is a reference made by the Sessions Court (Mahila Court), Chengalpattu (for brevity "the trial Court") under S.366 Cr.P.C., for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the appellant in S. C. No. 92 of 2018 vide judgment and order dated 11.03.2020. Crl.A.No.40 of 2021 is an appeal under S.374(2) Cr.P.C. filed by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence in the aforesaid Sessions Case.
2. This is a sordid case of a parricide, in which, four persons of a family have lost their lives.
2.1. The appellant, viz., Dhamodaran alias Prakash, born to late Murugesan and Saraswathi (D.1), was residing in Door No.5, Flat No.28, A - 3, Ranganathan Flats, Nandanar Street, Pammal, Chennai. He is a graduate in Economics. He married Deepa (D.2) sometime in 2010 and was blessed with two children, viz., Roshan (D.3) and Meenakshi (D.4).
2.2. The appellant's father established a business in the name and style of "Prakash Cloth Stores" in Pammal area in 2006. The appellant was initially reluctant to join his father's business, but, at the instance of his mother, Saraswathi (D.1), he continued the business, after his father's death in 2014.
2.3. On account of sudden demonetization of currency notes by the Central Government in 2016, the appellant's business slumped badly, as he was neither able to repay his debts nor realise them. The appellant had borrowed monies from banks and other merchants and was not able to repay them, because of fall in his business. The appellant wanted to leave the business and take up employment, but, his mother Saraswathi (D.1) was not agreeable to this idea and she exhorted him to continue the business. As the debts started mounting, the appellant fell into a sort of frustration and resolved to commit suicide.
2.4. It is alleged that between 05.00 a.m. and 05.30 a.m. on 12.12.2017, the appellant took a kitchen knife (M.O.1) and bludgeoned his wife Deepa (D.2) in her neck. On hearing the sound, when the appellant's mother Saraswathi (D.1) came, he stabbed her in her neck and thereafter, stabbed his two children (D.3) and (D.4).
2.5. After that, the appellant telephoned his brother - in - law, Kumaravel alias Raja (P.W.2) and merely told him in Tamil "(Vernacular matter omitted...Ed.)" (Raja, please forgive us. As we are not able to live, we are all going to die). So saying, he disconnected the telephone call and when Kumaravel (P.W.2) tried calling him, he did not attend the call. Kumaravel (P.W.2) immediately informed this to his father, Balakrishnan (P.W.1).
2.6. On hearing this, Balakrishnan (P.W.1) and his wife Banumathi (P.W.3), rushed to the appellant's residence and on entering the house, they were shocked to find a ghastly scene, in that, they found their daughter Deepa (D.2), their grandchildren viz., Roshan (D.3) and Meenakshi (D.4) and the appellant's mother Saraswathi (D.1), with bleeding injuries. They also saw the appellant sitting next to the injured, with cut injuries in his neck. They were at their wits' end. They came out of the house and hollored. Soon, a crowd gathered and Kumaravel (P.W.2) also joined them.
2.7. Ambulances were summoned and all the five were rushed to the Government Hospital, Chromepet, where the doctors examined them and declared Saraswathi (D.1), Deepa (D.2), Roshan (D.3) and Meenakshi (D.4) as dead. Dr.Naganandhini (P.W.9) examined the appellant and found a deep cut injury in the front portion of his neck measuring 12 cms. x 3 cms. x 2 cms. She referred the appellant to the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai, for in
