Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has commuted the death sentence of Rajith, a man convicted of killing his partner's four-year-old daughter in 2013, to life imprisonment. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove that the act constituted murder. Instead, the court found it to be an act of causing bodily injury likely to result in death, amounting to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The ruling, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice V.M. Syamkumar, also reduced the sentences of the second and third accused, Rani, the mother of the deceased girl, and Basil K. Vasu, a friend of both Rajith and Rani, from double life imprisonment to single life imprisonment. In addition, the court imposed a fine of Rs 75,000 on each of them. The judgment was delivered in response to an appeal filed by the accused, challenging their conviction and sentences handed down by the trial court.

The crime occurred on October 30, 2013, when the body of the four-year-old child was found in a six-foot-deep pit. The child was from the mother’s previous marriage. Rajith, along with the child's mother and an accomplice, Basil, was found guilty by a trial court in 2018 under various sections 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.

In reviewing the case, the High Court closely examined the circumstantial evidence provided by the prosecution, which relied heavily on the 'last seen' theory and the recovery of evidence based on the accused's statements. The court found insufficient proof to support the prosecution's claim that the child was viewed as an "obstacle" by Rajith and his partner, who allegedly wanted to live together without the child. The court observed that alternative options existed for the mother if she genuinely considered the child a hindrance. For instance, the child’s sibling was already living with the maternal grandparents, and the child could have been sent there as well. This undermined the prosecution's argument of a premeditated murder. “It is trite that the absence of motive does not disprove a murder charge. We have already found as bald and perfunctory the alleged motive put forth by the prosecution that the appellants had deceived to get rid of X [child] who was allegedly perceived as an obstacle to the easy and wayward life led by them. We have already found that the said motive is illogical, imaginary, and disproved. The same cannot be termed as an intention and the latter has to be proved separately and independently,” the court noted.

The court further determined that although the injuries sustained by the child were fatal, the prosecution could not establish that Rajith caused those injuries with the knowledge that they were sufficient to cause death. The court referred to landmark cases such as Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab to explain the legal distinctions between culpable homicide and murder. It reiterated that to prove a case under Section 300 IPC, the prosecution must establish four key facts, particularly that the injury was intentionally inflicted and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

As a result, the court did not uphold the conviction under Section 302 IPC. However, it concluded that Rajith's actions constituted culpable homicide under the second part of Section 299 IPC, punishable under Section 304 IPC, since the injuries were likely to cause death, even though there was no intent to murder.

The court found that the appellants had been proven guilty of conspiring to commit culpable homicide, with the intent to cause bodily injury likely to result in the death of the victim. Additionally, the appellants had also conspired to hide evidence by concealing the victim's body. As a result, the court convicted them under Section 304, Part I, read with Section 120B of the IPC. The original conviction and sentence passed by the District and Sessions Court in Ernakulam was set aside.

 

Cause Title: State of Kerala v Rajith and other connected matters [Crl.A.Nos.90/18, 492/18 & 748/18 & 1 DSR No.3/18]