By Astha Bhumish Shah 

The Kerala High Court commuted the death penalty imposed upon an accused to 30 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission for murdering his nephews aged 3 and 7 years. The Court also imposed a fine of rupees 5 lakh upon him which shall be paid to the mother of the deceased children. In the present case, the accused had been convicted with death penalty and a fine of Rs. 5 Lakhs by the Additional Sessions Judge I (Special Court), Pathanamthitta under Sections 302, 449 (House trespass), 323 (voluntary causing hurt), 324 (voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons) and 436 (mischief by fire/ explosives with the intention to destroy a house) of the IPC. It was alleged that in 2013, due to family disputes over division of properties, the accused committed the murder of his brother’s children by slitting their throats and throwing chili power on their mother’s face when she tried to intervene. However, it was alleged by the accused that he was not in a fit state of mind and lacked mens rea when he committed the alleged acts that led to his conviction. The Court found that the accused had enmity with his family member because of which he left their residential home and was living separately. Further, it stated that the murder committed by the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt from the statements of the mother of the deceased children who was an eyewitness. 

With respect to death sentence, the Court referred to the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) wherein it was laid down that the death penalty could only be imposed in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases that shocks the collective conscience of the community. It also referred to Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) which held that Courts should consider whether there is a probability of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused before awarding a death sentence. The Court further observed that Constitutional Courts have the power to substitute the death penalty imposed by the Trial Court to imprisonment for a fixed term without remission in appropriate cases. It stated that there is a shift from reformative to rehabilitative responses to crimes, as a criminal is not only a product of his decisions but also a product of the State and society’s failures. Therefore, imposition of a harsher sentence of imprisonment was a viable substitute over imposing death penalty.  

With respect to the facts of the present case, the Court stated that it does not fall under the category of ‘rarest of rare’ for imposition of the death penalty. Upholding the conviction, it modified the sentence of the death penalty to rigorous imprisonment of 30 years without remission. (State of Kerala v Thomas Chacko @Shibu and Connected Matter – D.S.R.NO.2 OF 2019, CRL.A.NO.218 OF 2021) 

Click here to read/ download the Order.