If sent to the gallows, his life will get extinguished in a jiffy, life sentence far more severe: Madras High Court commutes death penalty

In commuting the death penalty awarded to a man convicted for murdering his mother, wife and two children allegedly as part of plans to die by group suicide, the Madras High Court recently observed that life imprisonment would be more severe a punishment in this case than a death sentence (Dhamodaran @ Prakash v. State)..A Bench of Justices PN Prakash and R Pongiappan made the decision also given that they were not convinced that the case fell under the category of “rarest of rare cases” as outlined in the Supreme Court's ruling in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab..The Court reasoned that the convict in this case was not addicted to crime or a menace to society in order to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. .The trial court appeared to have been carried away by the number of injuries found on the helpless victims in the case to award the death sentence, the High Court observed. Pertinently, the Court went on to opine:."If the appellant (convict) is sent to the gallows, his life will get extinguished in a jiffy. Contrarily, if he is permitted to live, the thoughts of his fiendish act of liquidating his mother, wife and two minor children will haunt him till his last breath, which, in our opinion, is a far more severe punishment, than the death sentence.".The Court, therefore, modified the death sentence to one of life imprisonment, with a rider that the appellant/convict would not be entitled to any statutory remission or commutation of his jail sentence until he completes 25 years of actual imprisonment. ."This rider is added because he has to suffer this long at least for the mindless violence he had let loose on the hapless victims, all because, he being a coward, lacked the courage to face the financial crunch he was into," the Court commented in the order. ."A sordid case of parricide".The case concerns the death of four in 2017, a "sordid case of a parricide", as the High Court put it. .The appellant before the High Court is stated to have stabbed his mother, wife and two minor children before attempting to take his own life on account of financial difficulties faced following demonetisation..After having stabbed his family members, the appellant is alleged to have called his brother-in-law and told him what happened. A letter signed off by the appellant was also recovered wherein he declared his intention to die by suicide along with his family members on account of his failing business and financial difficulties. .After the phone call to his brother-in-law, the appellant's parents-in-law rushed to his residence to find their daughter, grandchildren and the appellant's mother dead. The appellant was found with a neck injury and rushed to a hospital. With the hospital's intervention, the appellant survived. .For the deaths of his family members, the appellant was charged with attempt to die by suicide and murder under Sections 309 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..Court's findings.The trial court found him guilty of murder but acquitted him of the suicide attempt charge. The court went on to impose the death penalty. Both conviction and sentence were challenged before the High Court by the appellant. .The case was also sent to the High Court for the confirmation of the appellant's death sentence under Section 366 (sentence of death to be submitted by Court of session for confirmation) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..The High Court declined to interfere with the murder conviction, finding that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that it was the appellant who had caused the four deaths and thereafter, inflicted injuries on himself..In this regard, the High Court cited "as clinching evidence" a statement made by the appellant to the police while he was at the hospital, which was later recorded by a Magistrate as a judicial confession. In the statement, the appellant admitted that he had stabbed his family before attempting to die by suicide on account of mental pressure stemming from financial difficulties. .The said statement was recorded by a Magistrate after the appellant expressed his willingness to make the confession while in prison. ."The statement (Ex.P.23) would have metamorphosed into a dying declaration, had the appellant not survived. However, since the appellant had unequivocally admitted to the commission of four murders in the said statement, it graduated itself into an extra- judicial confession, albeit the fact that it was recorded by a Magistrate," the Court noted. .During cross examination, it was suggested to the Magistrate that the statement was vitiated since the statement was made while in police custody and "not in the jaws of death." .The Magistrate, however, disputed this stance, pointing out that there was none present except a doctor when the statement was first made. The High Court also noted that the appellant had not denied having made the statement.."In our opinion, it is not necessary that a person should be in the jaws of death while giving a dying declaration. Except suggesting that the confession was recorded at the instance of the police, the defence had not made any serious dent in the evidence of this witness," the High Court added. .A suicide letter was also factored in by the High Court. The Court noted that while the letter was not sent for handwriting analysis, the appellant's father-in-law recognised the handwriting in the letter. ."Trite it is that the opinion of a person who is familiar with the handwriting of another is relevant under Section 47 of the Evidence Act and can be proved under Section 67," the Court noted..Apart from witness testimony, the High Court further factored in that there is no other explanation made by the appellant as to how the deaths may have occurred. ."The appellant has not denied his presence with cut injuries in the place of occurrence and also the presence of the other four deceased with injuries ... in the absence of any explanation by the appellant, as to how the four deaths had occurred in his house and in his presence and how he had sustained injuries, we cannot infer that the attack was by some unknown assailants. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden is on the appellant to explain how four of his relatives died and who caused the injuries to him, as they are facts which are to his exclusive knowledge," the Court said. .Trial court's finding that appellant did not attempt suicide "does not cut ice".Before parting with the matter, the Court also made critical observations on the trial court's decision to acquit the appellant of charges for suicide attempt. .The appellant had consistently projected his financial incapability as the reason that triggered the dastardly act, the High Court pointed out. The only motive projected by the prosecution for the act is also to do with the appellant being mentally disturbed due to financial stress, it was observed. The court cannot supplant its own imaginations as proof of a fact, the High Court added. ."The reasoning of the trial Judge that the appellant did not actually attempt to commit suicide, but, only created a make-believe drama by cutting his throat superficially, does not cut ice with us. It is easier for a person to take another's life than his own, because, survival instinct and self preservation which are evolutionary traits, will intervene and pose obstacles when suicide is attempted. That is why, perhaps, the appellant did not show the same ferocity while attempting to cut his neck himself," the judgment stated further..All the same, the Court did not interfere with the trial court's findings on this score since the same was not challenged. ."Though the evidence on record leads us to the inference that the appellant attempted to commit suicide after doing away with his near and dear ones and therefore, he would be punishable under Section 309 IPC, we lay this matter to rest as the State has not preferred any appeal assailing the appellant's acquittal of this charge," the Court said. .Ultimately, the appellant's conviction for four counts of murder was confirmed. The death sentence awarded was modified to one of life imprisonment without a possibility for release until the completion of 25 years of actual imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 for each count of murder..Advocate V Parthiban appeared for the appellant, whereas State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah appeared for the State. .[Read Judgment]