Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently set aside the death penalty imposed on a man from Uttar Pradesh, who was convicted in a triple murder case, and sentenced him to life imprisonment instead [State of Kerala v Narendra Kumar].
Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Syam Kumar V.M. found that case would not fall under the category of the “rarest of the rare,” which typically warrants the death penalty.
“While the facts and circumstances proved against the appellant before us clearly point to his involvement in a large triple murder, we would not go so far as to categorize it as the ‘rarest of the rare’ so as to impose the death sentence on him. “This is especially so because this is a case where we have sustained the conviction of the accused for the various offenses with which he was charged solely based on circumstantial evidence,” the Court said.
The Court passed the ruling on an appeal by the convict, Narendra Kumar (appellant), who hailed from Uttar Pradesh.
Kumar was earlier convicted by a trial court for the offense of murder under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the brutal killing of his employer and the employer’s parents.
According to the prosecution, Kumar had used a knife and ax to inflict fatal injuries on the victims and had also engaged in the robbery of valuables and electronic devices. He had been acquitted after the crime was committed but was eventually arrested.
The trial court, after analyzing the evidence and considering the brutality of the crime, found Kumar guilty of the alleged offenses and sentenced him to death.
Apart from the offense of murder, Kumar was also separately convicted under Sections 397 (robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous harm), 457 (lurking house-trespass or house-breaking at night), 380 (theft in dwelling house) and Section 461 (dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property) of the IPC.
Kumar challenged the trial court verdict before the High Court, while the trial court forwarded the case records to the High Court so that the death sentence could be confirmed.
In a common judgment passed on April 25, the Kerala High Court found that the prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence.
Such evidence included reliance on the last seen theory (that the accused was last seen with the victims before their death), the act of Kumar fleeing after the crime, medical evidence and the recovery of stolen items. Witnesses had also identified the accused in the trial court.
The High Court proceeded to uphold Kumar’s conviction.
However, it set aside the death sentence imposed on Kumar while reasoning that the death penalty should only be reserved for those cases that qualify as “rarest of the rare” cases.
The Court also acknowledged a study by Project 39A of the National University of Delhi, which highlighted Kumar’s difficult upbringing and his efforts towards self-improvement, indicating a potential for his rehabilitation.
It referred to the case of Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019), where it was held that the probability that a convict can be reformed and rehabilitated in society must be seriously and earnestly considered by the courts before awarding the death sentence.
It, therefore changed the punishment imposed on Kumar for the crime from a death sentence to one of life imprisonment.
“Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant during the hearing on sentence, the reports obtained in relation to the appellant, and the probability of his reformation, we feel that the imposition of stricter terms of life imprisonment would strike the right balance between the conflicting interests of the appellant and the public at large and go a long way towards sustaining public confidence in our legal system,” the High Court added.
The Court clarified that Kumar would have to serve at least twenty years in prison before he could be eligible for remission (government-approved early release from prison).
The High Court partly allowed the criminal appeal filed by Kumar on these terms and declined to confirm the trial court’s death sentence in the matter.
Kumar (appellant) was represented by advocates MP Madhavankutty, Mathew Devassi, Ananthakrishnan A Kartha, and Remya M Menon.
Public Prosecutor Alex M Thombra appeared for the State.
State of Kerala v Narendra Kumar and connected case.pdf
Preview
