Case title – Navas @ Mulanavas Vs State of Kerala
Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 1215 OF 2011
Decision on – March 18th, 2024
Quoram – Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Facts of the case
The case pertains to the offence of quadruple murder. The appellant was accused of the murder of Ramachandra, his wife Latha, their daughter Chitra and his mother Karthiayani Amma. According to the prosecution case, the appellant also had an illicit relationship with deceased Latha. When she tried to distance herself from the appellant, he felt deceived and trespassed into the house intending to harm her.
The gruesome incident happened on the night of 3rd November, 2005. The accused upon reaching the house tried to create a hole in the eastern wall and gained access into the house. It was also alleged that he carried 2 knives and an iron rod and caused the death of the family members. After committing the heinous crime, the accused attempted to commit suicide.
The domestic help, after arriving to the house on 4th morning observed peculiar things around the house and alarmed the neighbours about it. The neighbour witnessing the commotion outside the house reported the same to the Police. The ASI rushed to the spot with his police party, inspected the surroundings and decided to break into the house for further investigation. As they entered, they found the dead bodies of all the family members and blood droplets across the house. The investigating officer also found the accused lying on the floor with a cut injury on his left wrist.
The ASI registered a suo motu FIR and produced the accused before the Trial Court. The accused gave a statement while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He advanced that, he had arrived to the house to commit suicide with Latha in pursuance of the pact made between them. He then stated that somebody else had gained access into the house and caused the death of all victims and consequently he proceeded to commit suicide.
Both the trial Court and the High Court closely marshalled the circumstantial evidence in the case and concluded that the accused alone was responsible for the death of the four deceased and convicted him under Sections 302 and 449 IPC for the murder and under Section 309 IPC for attempt to commit suicide. The accused aggrieved by the decision of the HC appealed before the Apex Court.
Legal Provisions
Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder
Section 309 IPC – Attempt to commit suicide
Section 449 IPC – House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death
Issue – Whether the quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC was excessive given the facts and circumstances of the case?
Submission of the parties
The Counsel for the appellant mainly asserted that the case made out by the prosecution falls short of the proof needed in a case which is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. He contended that with the available evidence on record the conviction of the appellant would be unsustainable. The Counsel thereby pleaded that the sentence of 30 years without remission is excessive and prayed for appropriate modification in the sentence to meet the ends of justice.
The Counsel for the State vehemently rebutted the arguments of the appellant and contended that the Trial Court and the High Court have correctly arrived at the conclusion of guilt. He contended that the case initially warranted death penalty but, the High Court had modified it to a sentence of imprisonment for 30 years without remission for the offence under Section 302 and thus the same did not deserve any further modification.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Supreme Court considered the submissions of both the parties, perused the material on record and extensively analyzed circumstances presented in evidence. It was thoroughly convinced with the findings of the Trial Court and High Court thus, maintained the conviction.
The Court heavily relied on the principle established in Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka case, to determine the proportionality of the sentence. It emphasized the principle of proportionality in sentencing, balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors.
The Court observed that there are no straitjacket formulae for deciding the period of sentence and is subjective in nature. It needs to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case and but, this discretion should be exercised on reasonable grounds.
The Court reiterated certain factors while deciding convicts period of sentence before remission could be sought – (a)the number of deceased who are victims of that crime and their age and gender; (b) the nature of injuries including sexual assault if any; (c) the motive for which the offence was committed; (d) whether the offence was committed when the convict was on bail in another case; (e) the premeditated nature of the offence; (f) the relationship between the offender and the victim; etc
The Supreme Court noted that the act committed by the accused was pre-planned which involved cold-blooded murder of four persons, including a child and an elderly woman. However, the Court considered mitigating factors such as the appellant’s young age at the time of the offence (28 years), absence of a profit motive, his behavior in jail, and the fact that he did not try to flee from justice to modify his sentence.
The Court upheld the judgement of the High Court which convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 449 and 309 of IPC. It tailored the sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC but refused to make any changes in the sentence imposed under Section 449 & Section 309 IPC.
The Apex Court, however, modified the sentence to 25 years of imprisonment without remission under Section 302 IPC, including the period already served. The Court held that this revised sentence would meet the ends of justice and thereby partly allowed the appeal.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
