Why Kerala High Court commutes death sentence of man convicted for homicide of lover's 4-year-old child ?

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man convicted for the homicide of his partner's 4-year-old daughter to life imprisonment. The judgment was delivered on September 13, 2024, by a Division Bench comprising Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar VM in the case State of Kerala v Rajith & Ors. The man, identified as Rajith, was initially sentenced to death by the trial court for causing the death of the child in 2013.

The Case Background

The incident occurred on October 30, 2013, when the 4-year-old daughter's body was discovered in a six-feet-deep pit. The child was from the partner's previous marriage. Rajith, along with two others—his partner (the child's mother) and an accomplice named Basil—was found guilty by a trial court in 2018 under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

The trial court imposed the death penalty on Rajith, while the child's mother and Basil were sentenced to life imprisonment. All three convicts subsequently appealed the verdict in the Kerala High Court.

High Court's Ruling

In a detailed examination of the case, the High Court scrutinized the evidence presented by the prosecution, which largely relied on circumstantial evidence, including the 'last seen' theory and recoveries based on the accused's disclosure statements. The Court ultimately found that there was insufficient evidence to support the motive claimed by the prosecution.

The prosecution had argued that the child was seen as an "obstacle" by Rajith and his partner, who wanted to live together without interference. However, the Court noted that there were logical alternatives available to the mother if she truly considered the child to be a hindrance. The Court highlighted that the child's sibling was already living with the maternal grandparents, and the child in question could have been sent there as well, thus eliminating the need for any criminal intent.

The Division Bench concluded that the prosecution's failure to establish a clear motive undermined the argument of premeditated murder. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302 (murder) of the IPC to Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

"We note that the evidence put forth by the prosecution places the act of A1 [Rajith] within the second part of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC, an act done with the intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death. The same qualifies as an offense punishable under Section 304 Part I," the Court observed.

Commutation of Sentences

The High Court commuted Rajith’s death sentence to rigorous life imprisonment, while also altering the convictions of the child's mother and Basil from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The life sentences imposed on the two were upheld.

Although the Court found that the accused had indeed conspired to cause bodily harm to the child, it determined that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had the intention or knowledge necessary to qualify the act as murder under Section 302. However, the Court confirmed that the appellants had conspired to cause bodily injury that was likely to result in death.

"We conclude that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had conspired and committed offenses 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 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 judgment read.

In light of these findings, Rajith's death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment. However, the Court acquitted Rajith and the child's mother of charges under the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act due to a lack of conclusive evidence.

Representation in Court

The convicts were represented by advocates Babu S Nair, C Anil Kumar, and KV Sabu, while Public Prosecutor Ambika Devi S appeared on behalf of the State.

This case highlights the complexity of convictions based on circumstantial evidence and underscores the role of higher courts in ensuring that sentences align with the established facts and legal standards. The Kerala High Court's decision to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment reflects its careful analysis of motive, intent, and the extent of culpability in this tragic case.