The Kerala High Court has confirmed a life sentence for a man who killed his 3-year-old son, stating that it cannot be said he had a mental impairment since he stayed at the crime scene and did not try to escape.

The Kerala High Court confirmed the life sentence given to a man for murdering his 3-year-old son. The court noted that the man’s choice to stay at the crime scene instead of fleeing does not prove he had a mental disorder. The man appealed the court’s decision, challenging his guilt, conviction, and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC. The judges, Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice Jobin Sebastian, stated that the accused’s behavior at the scene does not indicate mental impairment, especially since the defense did not provide any solid evidence showing he was mentally unfit during the crime.

The incident occurred in 2015 when the man, angry with his wife after a fight, took his children to a neighbor’s house. He killed his son, Rahul, by strangling him and hitting him with a coconut scraper. After a trial, he was found guilty under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life in prison, along with a fine of Rs. 50,000, with an additional three years of rigorous imprisonment if he failed to pay. He later appealed this conviction and sentence in the High Court.

The Bench acknowledged that the prosecution based its case on the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, who were residents of the house where the horrific event supposedly took place. Both witnesses consistently reported seeing the incident illuminated by a kerosene lamp inside their home. The Bench found no reason to doubt their presence in the house late at night and confirmed that there was enough light for them to observe the events. Their accounts clearly described how the accused killed the young boy. They stated that the accused dragged the child, caused a severe head injury with a coconut scraper, and strangled him with a dhoti. The Bench remarked on the incomprehensible terror caused by the incident. It also noted that the witnesses’ failure to mention some minor injuries found during the postmortem could be overlooked. The Bench concluded that when the eyewitnesses provided a convincing account, the need to prove motive was minimal.

The defense argued that the trial court mistakenly assessed that the accused was of unsound mind at the time of the crime, which would exempt him from criminal responsibility under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. After reviewing the evidence, the Bench pointed out that the accused did not provide any proof or circumstances to show he was legally insane, which would mean he could not understand the nature of his actions. The Bench also noted that both witnesses and the accused’s nephew firmly rejected the claim that he had an unsound mind.

One argument made was that the accused’s behavior after the crime, particularly staying at the scene instead of fleeing, showed a lack of rational thinking, implying an unsound mind. The Bench replied that this argument would not hold, as it is unreasonable to expect everyone to react the same way in such situations. There is no strict rule that every person who commits a crime will try to escape. Regarding the failure of PW1 and PW2 to help the child, the Bench noted it would be unfair to expect these women to confront an armed and dangerous attacker. The Bench stated, “The actions attributed to the accused, the weapon used, and how the injuries were inflicted on critical body parts clearly show that the intent was to cause death. There is no evidence that any of the five exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC apply here. Instead, the evidence clearly indicates that the accused’s actions fall under Section 300 of the IPC, making him liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC.” The Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the guilt, conviction, and sentence given by the Sessions Judge.

Cause Title: Raju M.A. @ Undachi Raju v. State of Kerala [Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:83122]
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Ramesh P, Fathima Nargis K.A. & Sangeerthana M.
Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Alex M Mathew