The Kerala High Court on Friday commuted the death sentence of a murder convict to life imprisonment [State of Kerala v Rajith & ors and connected cases]..The man was sentenced to death by the trial court for causing the death of the 4-year-old daughter of his partner in 2013.A Division Bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar VM of the High Court found that there was no intention to murder the child and thus altered the conviction from Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)."We note that the evidence put forth by the prosecution will, however, place the act of A1 as one that falls within the 2nd part of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC, ie., an act done with the intention to cause bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The same qualifies as an offence punishable under the first part of Section 304 IPC," the Court said.The Court also altered the conviction of the two other convicts from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder..As per the case, the main accused Rajith and the child's mother were living together. The deceased was the daughter of the woman from her marriage to another man. The 4-year-old daughter's body was discovered in a six-feet-deep pit on October 30, 2013.According to the prosecution, Rajith along with the child's mother and another accused Basil conspired to kill the child. The motive, as per the police, was that the child was proving to be an "obstacle" to Rajith and the child's mother who wanted to live as a couple.In 2018, the trial court found all three accused guilty under various provisions of IPC, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.While Rajith was sentenced to death, the two other persons received life sentences. They moved the High Court against the trial court verdict. The appeals and death sentence reference was decided by the High Court on September 13 by way of a common judgment..Since the prosecution case hinged on circumstantial evidence which in turn was based on the ‘last seen’ theory as well as on the recovery made on the basis of the disclosure statements of the accused, the Court examined the law pertaining to the same in detail. It then examined the evidence and concluded that the motive put forth by the prosecution was not solid enough as the child's mother could have sent her to her grandparents with whom her other child was already living. "If A2 (victim's mother) had perceived X as an obstacle to their frolic as alleged by the prosecution, all that she needed to do was to hand over X too to her parents, thus obviating the need for A2 to take care of X by diligently pursuing her education and welfare as she is revealed to have been doing all along even while shifting from one resident to other. This simple logical explanation which strikes the root of the purported motive put forth by the prosecution was lost to the trial court," said the Court..Though the Court also noticed various other omissions in the case, after looking at the medical evidence, it confirmed that a homicidal death of the child had taken place. The Court then analysed whether the accused had a motive to murder the child. It found that the prosecution had not proved the existence of the intention or even the knowledge to attribute murder to the main accused Rajith.However, the Court confirmed that the accused had conspired to cause bodily injury to the child."We conclude that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had conspired and committed offences amounting to culpable homicide with the intention to cause bodily injury as is likely to cause the death of X. They have also conspired and caused the disappearance of evidence of offence by hiding the dead body of X. Appellants are hence liable to be convicted under Section 304, Part I read with Section 120B IPC," the Court held..Thus, the Court commuted Rajith’s death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life and confirmed the life sentences of the child's mother and third convict Basil. However, it acquitted Rajith and the child's mother of charges under POSCO Act and JJ Act. .The convicts were represented by advocates Babu S Nair, C Anil Kumar, and KV Sabu.Public Prosecutor Ambika Devi S appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]
The Kerala High Court on Friday commuted the death sentence of a murder convict to life imprisonment [State of Kerala v Rajith & ors and connected cases]..The man was sentenced to death by the trial court for causing the death of the 4-year-old daughter of his partner in 2013.A Division Bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar VM of the High Court found that there was no intention to murder the child and thus altered the conviction from Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)."We note that the evidence put forth by the prosecution will, however, place the act of A1 as one that falls within the 2nd part of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC, ie., an act done with the intention to cause bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The same qualifies as an offence punishable under the first part of Section 304 IPC," the Court said.The Court also altered the conviction of the two other convicts from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder..As per the case, the main accused Rajith and the child's mother were living together. The deceased was the daughter of the woman from her marriage to another man. The 4-year-old daughter's body was discovered in a six-feet-deep pit on October 30, 2013.According to the prosecution, Rajith along with the child's mother and another accused Basil conspired to kill the child. The motive, as per the police, was that the child was proving to be an "obstacle" to Rajith and the child's mother who wanted to live as a couple.In 2018, the trial court found all three accused guilty under various provisions of IPC, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.While Rajith was sentenced to death, the two other persons received life sentences. They moved the High Court against the trial court verdict. The appeals and death sentence reference was decided by the High Court on September 13 by way of a common judgment..Since the prosecution case hinged on circumstantial evidence which in turn was based on the ‘last seen’ theory as well as on the recovery made on the basis of the disclosure statements of the accused, the Court examined the law pertaining to the same in detail. It then examined the evidence and concluded that the motive put forth by the prosecution was not solid enough as the child's mother could have sent her to her grandparents with whom her other child was already living. "If A2 (victim's mother) had perceived X as an obstacle to their frolic as alleged by the prosecution, all that she needed to do was to hand over X too to her parents, thus obviating the need for A2 to take care of X by diligently pursuing her education and welfare as she is revealed to have been doing all along even while shifting from one resident to other. This simple logical explanation which strikes the root of the purported motive put forth by the prosecution was lost to the trial court," said the Court..Though the Court also noticed various other omissions in the case, after looking at the medical evidence, it confirmed that a homicidal death of the child had taken place. The Court then analysed whether the accused had a motive to murder the child. It found that the prosecution had not proved the existence of the intention or even the knowledge to attribute murder to the main accused Rajith.However, the Court confirmed that the accused had conspired to cause bodily injury to the child."We conclude that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had conspired and committed offences amounting to culpable homicide with the intention to cause bodily injury as is likely to cause the death of X. They have also conspired and caused the disappearance of evidence of offence by hiding the dead body of X. Appellants are hence liable to be convicted under Section 304, Part I read with Section 120B IPC," the Court held..Thus, the Court commuted Rajith’s death sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life and confirmed the life sentences of the child's mother and third convict Basil. However, it acquitted Rajith and the child's mother of charges under POSCO Act and JJ Act. .The convicts were represented by advocates Babu S Nair, C Anil Kumar, and KV Sabu.Public Prosecutor Ambika Devi S appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]
