Madras HC Commutes Death Penalty to Life term for Man Who Pushed Ex-Lover Under Train

The Madras High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for murdering his 20-year-old former lover by pushing her under an oncoming train at St. Thomas Mount railway station after she ended their relationship.

However, the division bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman modified the trial court’s death sentence to life imprisonment, directing that the convict will not be eligible for statutory remission or commutation until he has served 20 years.

The victim and the accused had been in a prior relationship, which had broken down after the victim’s family arranged her marriage to another man. The bench recorded earlier complaints lodged in May 2022 by the victim’s family that the convict was persistently following and troubling the young woman; the convict and his family had earlier given undertakings to the police. The High Court said these prior incidents established the motive for the killing.

According to witness testimony and corroborating material produced at trial, the incident occurred on October 13, 2022, at St. Thomas Mount suburban railway station. P.W.1 (a college mate who accompanied the victim to the station) told the court that the convict, who was seated at the station, feigned a phone call and suddenly pushed the victim on to the tracks as a Tambaram–Beach train approached. The loco pilot and other railway staff testified that the train ran over the victim seconds later. The post-mortem report recorded traumatic decapitation and extensive injuries, also DNA testing and clothing identification confirmed the victim’s identity.

Crucially, the prosecution relied on CCTV footage from the station. The RPF official who downloaded the recordings produced them on DVD and a pendrive with Section 65B, Evidence Act certifications. Forensic experts examined the material and reported no digital manipulation. An anthropological comparison of stills from the footage with the convict’s photographs supported identification.

Moreover, the murder had a devastating impact on the victim’s family. Her father died of a heart attack the same night after learning of the incident, and her mother, who was undergoing treatment for cancer, also passed away thereafter. Court noted that only the younger sisters survived.

The High Court accepted the combined weight of ocular and electronic evidence in concluding the convict had pushed the victim onto an oncoming train.

At trial, the Sessions Court had found the murder gruesome and awarded the death penalty on December 27, 2024. Before the High Court, counsel for the convict conceded presence at the scene but argued that the case did not warrant capital punishment, pointing to the accused’s age, lack of prior criminal record, and alleged momentary loss of self-control.

The High Court carefully analysed sentencing jurisprudence and the “rarest of the rare” framework in determining punishment.

Balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, the bench concluded that conviction for murder was rightly recorded but held that the case did not mandatorily call for death.

"Though the act of the accused certainly comes under section 300 of IPC, we are of the view that the act of the accused committing murder of the deceased does not fall within the category of 'Rarest of Rare' case," the bench said. 

Considering the accused’s age, lack of previous antecedents, reports on behaviour in custody and the possibility of reformation, the court converted the death sentence to life imprisonment but restricted remission/commutation for a period of 20 years.

"The punishment to be awarded to the accused should be reformative in nature and the punishment is not solely retributive. The punishment should also serve as a deterrence as well as reformation. When there is a possibility of reformation, the aspect of reformation must be given primacy unless it is clearly ruled out by producing sufficient materials," the bench said. 

Court also set aside the conviction under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and ordered any fine paid in that regard to be returned. However, the trial court’s direction that the state pay Rs.10 lakh to the victim’s younger sisters remained intact.

Case Title: The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam vs Sathish and connected matter

Judgment Date: November 27, 2025

Bench: Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman