{"id":195049,"date":"2010-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010"},"modified":"2014-03-31T17:05:00","modified_gmt":"2014-03-31T11:35:00","slug":"navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Navas @ Mulanavas vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Navas @ Mulanavas vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1620 of 2007()\n\n\n1. NAVAS @ MULANAVAS, S\/O.IBRAHIM,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :09\/02\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                                                             C.R.\n\n              R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.\n              ----------------------------------------------\n                      D.S.R.No.4 OF 2007\n                                   &\n               CRL.APPEAL No.1620 OF 2007\n            -----------------------------------------------------\n          DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Basant, J.\n<\/p>\n
    (i)   Has the guilt of the accused been established<\/p>\n
          beyond doubt by the circumstances proved by<\/p>\n
          the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)  Is the instant case one that belongs to the<\/p>\n
          category of rarest of rare cases, where the<\/p>\n
          alternative     options      of    punishment         are<\/p>\n
          unquestionably foreclosed and a sentence of<\/p>\n
          death has to be imposed as laid down in<\/p>\n
          Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)2<\/p>\n
          SCC 684.?\n<\/p>\n
    (iii) Does the decision in Swamy Shraddananda<\/p>\n
          (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008(13) SCC<\/p>\n
          767) raise the bar further in the attempt to<\/p>\n
          identify the rarest of rare cases where a<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
             sentence of death can be imposed and is liable<\/p>\n
             to be confirmed?\n<\/p>\n
      These questions arise for consideration in this Death<\/p>\n
Sentence Reference and the Criminal Appeal, which we dispose<\/p>\n
of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Navas @ Mulanavas, a person aged about 28 years<\/p>\n
has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced in a prosecution<\/p>\n
for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 309<\/p>\n
IPC.   He faces a sentence of death for the offence under Section<\/p>\n
302 IPC, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five<\/p>\n
years and fine of Rs.1,000\/- under Section 449 IPC and simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for a period of two months and a fine of Rs.500\/-<\/p>\n
for the offence under Section 309 IPC. Default sentences have<\/p>\n
also been imposed.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The prosecution alleged that the appellant had gained<\/p>\n
access into the house of the deceased persons – four in number,<\/p>\n
by making a hole on the eastern wall of the house on the night of<\/p>\n
3\/4.11.2005. He allegedly caused the death of Latha, a woman<\/p>\n
aged about 39 years, her husband Ramachandran aged about 45<\/p>\n
years, their daughter Chithra aged about 11 years and her<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
mother- in-law, Karthiayani Amma aged about 80 years. The<\/p>\n
accused thereafter allegedly attempted to commit suicide by<\/p>\n
cutting the vein of his left wrist. Investigation commenced with<\/p>\n
suo motu FIR, Exhibit P23 registered by PW30, the local A.S.I.<\/p>\n
and culminated with the final report submitted by PW32, who<\/p>\n
completed the investigation.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    The accused denied the offences alleged against him<\/p>\n
and thereupon the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 32 and proved<\/p>\n
Exhibits P1 to P45 series. M.Os.1 to 122 were also marked by<\/p>\n
the prosecution.    The accused did not examine any defence<\/p>\n
witnesses; but proved Exhibits D1 to D5.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    An appellate judgment must be read in continuation of<\/p>\n
the judgment of the trial court. We have been taken through the<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs 1 to 32, Exhibits P1 to P45 series and Exhibits<\/p>\n
D1 to D5. The relevant material objects have also been perused<\/p>\n
by us. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is<\/p>\n
unnecessary to attempt a re-narration of the evidence of the<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses as well as the prosecution and the defence<\/p>\n
exhibits.\n<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
      6.    The prosecution version which      they attempted to<\/p>\n
substantiate by the evidence referred above can be summarised<\/p>\n
as follows.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    Deceased Ramachandran and Latha were residing in<\/p>\n
the house which is the scene of occurrence. They have a child<\/p>\n
aged 11 years, by name Chithra. The mother of Ramachandran,<\/p>\n
Karthiayani Amma was also residing along with them.         It is<\/p>\n
suggested that Ramachandran had some psychiatric ailments<\/p>\n
and was on medicines. It is further suggested that Latha had<\/p>\n
dissatisfactions in the marital life and that she was involved in<\/p>\n
extra marital relationships.   The accused was known to the<\/p>\n
family. He had initially helped the family to get out of certain<\/p>\n
involvements which Latha had with certain others.        He had<\/p>\n
gained     the    confidence of    Latha   and    Ramachandran.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the relationship between Latha and the accused<\/p>\n
had drifted and it had entered prohibited zones\/domains. She<\/p>\n
allegedly shared intimacy including physical intimacy with the<\/p>\n
accused. It is even suggested that Latha had become pregnant<\/p>\n
in the relationship between her and the accused.        But that<\/p>\n
pregnancy had to be aborted. At some point of time, the accused<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07                -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
allegedly came to learn from Latha that Chithra, the child born<\/p>\n
was not really begotten in her relationship with Ramachandran;<\/p>\n
but Chithra was brought up as the child of the couple. When it<\/p>\n
came to the alleged pregnancy through the accused, Latha was<\/p>\n
allegedly not willing to continue the pregnancy and she had got<\/p>\n
it aborted.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    At some point of time, according to the prosecution,<\/p>\n
the relationship had soured. It appeared as though the accused<\/p>\n
perceived that Latha was not willing to continue the relationship.<\/p>\n
She, he apprehended, was attempting to avoid him. Exhibits P9<\/p>\n
to P11 suggest that on the complaint of Latha, the local police<\/p>\n
had registered a crime and had filed the final report alleging<\/p>\n
commission of offences by the accused against Latha.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the relationship turned from bad to worse and the<\/p>\n
accused allegedly was not getting opportunities to meet and<\/p>\n
interact with Latha as he allegedly used to do earlier.<\/p>\n
      9.    We come to the date of occurrence, i.e., 3.11.2005.<\/p>\n
On that night, till 7 p.m., all the four deceased were found in the<\/p>\n
house hale and hearty by the local neighbours including PW1.<\/p>\n
On that morning i.e. at 7.30 am. on 4.11.2005 when PW1 went to<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07           -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
sweep the courtyard of that house and was so sweeping, she<\/p>\n
found that nobody came out of that house to open the door and<\/p>\n
that blood was flowing out through the outlet on the southern<\/p>\n
room on the ground floor. A commotion followed. People of the<\/p>\n
locality came. They informed the police. The local police also<\/p>\n
came. As there was no response from inside, the house was<\/p>\n
broken open and access was made into the house. They had also<\/p>\n
seen that a hole had been drilled on the eastern wall of the<\/p>\n
house, suggesting that someone had gained illegal access into<\/p>\n
the house. Persons who entered the house found that deceased<\/p>\n
Latha was lying dead on the ground floor with multiple injuries<\/p>\n
including stab injuries. Ramachandran and Chithra were lying<\/p>\n
dead on the northern room on the first floor with serious<\/p>\n
injuries.   MO33 iron rod which was allegedly used to inflict<\/p>\n
injuries on Ramachandran and Chithra was also available in that<\/p>\n
room.       Karthiayani Amma, the 80 year old mother of<\/p>\n
Ramachandran was found with injuries on the northern room on<\/p>\n
the ground floor. She was immediately shifted to the hospital for<\/p>\n
emergent medical attention. Later, seeing the trail of blood from<\/p>\n
the middle room to the southern room on the ground floor, the<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
police opened the southern room on the ground floor and there<\/p>\n
they found the accused with bleeding injuries on his left hand<\/p>\n
lying unconscious.       He was also shifted to the hospital.<\/p>\n
Karthiayani Amma succumbed to the injuries. The accused was<\/p>\n
nursed and he ultimately recovered.\n<\/p>\n
      10. The prosecution alleged that it was the accused who<\/p>\n
caused injuries on all the four deceased persons. It is the case of<\/p>\n
the prosecution that on the night of 3.11.2005, PW3, an auto<\/p>\n
rickshaw driver had dropped the accused some where near the<\/p>\n
scene of the crime after 10.30 p.m. According to the prosecution<\/p>\n
the accused had, to gain access into the house, created a hole on<\/p>\n
the eastern wall and had crept into the house with his belongings<\/p>\n
including MO34 bag. He had gone to the southern room on the<\/p>\n
ground floor and had indulged in making writings on the wall<\/p>\n
and other surfaces in that room. According to the prosecution,<\/p>\n
these writings suggest that he was disappointed in love and had<\/p>\n
decided to commit suicide. According to the prosecution, he<\/p>\n
wanted to murder Latha and commit suicide. He wanted both of<\/p>\n
them to die together.     Karthiayani Amma was occupying the<\/p>\n
northern room on the ground floor, whereas the couple along<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
with their child were occupying the northern room on the first<\/p>\n
floor. It is the case of the prosecution, though there is no eye<\/p>\n
witnesses for the occurrence, that the accused who reached the<\/p>\n
room by 12 mid night continued to remain in the southern room<\/p>\n
on the ground floor till 6.30 a.m. in the morning. He consumed<\/p>\n
alcohol there and smoked. He made all the writings seen in that<\/p>\n
room. When deceased Latha came down in the morning from the<\/p>\n
bed room on the first floor, the accused allegedly, attacked Latha<\/p>\n
and caused injuries to her. It is the inference of the prosecution<\/p>\n
that Ramachandran and Chithra came to know of the attack on<\/p>\n
Latha and they made a hue and cry. The accused then went up<\/p>\n
with MO33 iron rod and allegedly inflicted fatal injuries on<\/p>\n
Ramachandran and Chithra. He came down thereafter and went<\/p>\n
on inflicting multiple stab injuries on Latha with one of the two<\/p>\n
knives, which according to the prosecution, he had carried with<\/p>\n
him to the house (marked as MOs.29 and 30). Thereafter the<\/p>\n
mother-in-law of Latha, according to the prosecution, had also<\/p>\n
tried to come to the scene and she was deterred by him by<\/p>\n
kicking her forcibly. She fell, hit some surface and suffered the<\/p>\n
fatal injuries.\n<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
      11. Thereafter, the accused allegedly in an attempt to<\/p>\n
commit suicide cut the vein of his left wrist. There was bleeding<\/p>\n
from that self-inflicted injury.  He went to the southern room<\/p>\n
where he had already entered and made all the writings. He<\/p>\n
closed the room from inside. He fell unconscious there. It is the<\/p>\n
case of the prosecution that prior to that, the accused in that<\/p>\n
southern room had consumed alcohol, had smoked cigarette and<\/p>\n
had consumed Bombay gudka. It is the case of the prosecution<\/p>\n
that the totality of circumstances relied on by the prosecution<\/p>\n
unerringly points to the commission of the offence punishable<\/p>\n
under sections 449, 309 and 302 IPC by the accused.<\/p>\n
      12.     The accused in the course of cross-examination of<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses does not appear to have taken any specific<\/p>\n
stand. He was not able to engage a counsel of his own at the<\/p>\n
stage of trial, though he had earlier engaged a counsel. The<\/p>\n
services of a counsel of standing Shri P.P.Haris was made<\/p>\n
available to the accused as a State Brief counsel.<\/p>\n
      13. At the stage of 313 examination, after answering all<\/p>\n
the questions, the accused advanced a version by filing a<\/p>\n
statement. In that statement, the accused took an interesting<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
stand, attempting to explain all circumstances which were<\/p>\n
available in evidence at the close of the trial. The accused took<\/p>\n
up the stand that there was a pact between him and Latha to<\/p>\n
commit suicide. He had come to the house of Latha on that night<\/p>\n
with the intention that both of them shall commit suicide. He<\/p>\n
had brought with him MO25 audio cassette in which he had<\/p>\n
made a record in his own voice of all the circumstances and the<\/p>\n
relationship between him and Latha. Latha had kept the door<\/p>\n
open as usual and he gained entry into the house through such<\/p>\n
door which was kept open. After he entered the house, he found<\/p>\n
that Latha and others had all suffered death. On account of the<\/p>\n
grief, without much forethought, he had cut his left wrist for the<\/p>\n
purpose of committing suicide. It was thus that he was found<\/p>\n
available in the house in an unconscious state.      His obvious<\/p>\n
suggestion is that someone else had gained access into the house<\/p>\n
by making a hole on the eastern wall and such miscreant must<\/p>\n
have caused the death of all the four deceased persons and as he<\/p>\n
found that they had died, he had proceeded to attempt to commit<\/p>\n
suicide.\n<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
      14. The court below on an anxious consideration of all the<\/p>\n
relevant circumstances, came to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
prosecution has succeeded in establishing that all the four<\/p>\n
deceased persons suffered death at the hands of the accused,<\/p>\n
who had gained access into the house by creating that hole on<\/p>\n
the eastern wall of the house. The court further came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the accused had thereafter attempted to commit<\/p>\n
suicide.\n<\/p>\n
      15. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant Shri<\/p>\n
Vijayabhanu, Shri Gracious Kuriakose, the Special Prosecutor<\/p>\n
appointed     in    the    Death   Sentence   Reference     and<\/p>\n
Shri K.J.Mohammed Anzar, the learned Public Prosecutor have<\/p>\n
advanced their arguments.\n<\/p>\n
      16. The learned counsel for the appellant\/accused<\/p>\n
vehemently contends that the circumstances have not been<\/p>\n
established    satisfactorily by   the  prosecution  and    the<\/p>\n
circumstances even if accepted in toto cannot lead to an<\/p>\n
unerring conclusion about the complicity of the accused. The<\/p>\n
circumstances cannot rule out his innocence also, it is<\/p>\n
contended.     At any rate, the learned counsel argues that a<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
sentence of death is not warranted at all.\n<\/p>\n
      17. The learned Special Prosecutor who appeared in<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/2007 and the learned Prosecutor who appears for the<\/p>\n
State in Crl.Appeal No.1620\/2007 on the contrary contends that<\/p>\n
sufficient   circumstances   have    been  established by    the<\/p>\n
prosecution pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused and<\/p>\n
excluding the innocence of the accused. The nature of the facts<\/p>\n
and circumstances of this case, according to the prosecution,<\/p>\n
clearly shows that this is an eminently fit case where the<\/p>\n
sentence of death is warranted, as the case belongs to the<\/p>\n
category of rarest of rare cases.\n<\/p>\n
      18. The learned Prosecutors submit that in the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of this case, the explanation coming forth from<\/p>\n
the accused is of crucial and vital significance. The learned<\/p>\n
Prosecutors contend that if the explanation coming forth from<\/p>\n
the accused is not acceptable, sufficient and clinching<\/p>\n
circumstances are available to safely and unerringly come to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that all the four persons who had suffered injuries<\/p>\n
and who were inside the closed house, must have suffered<\/p>\n
injuries at the hands of the accused, who was the only other<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07               -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
person found inside the house, lying with suicidal injuries. The<\/p>\n
learned Prosecutors in this context places reliance on the<\/p>\n
decision in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra<\/a><\/p>\n
(2006(4) KLT 638). It is not as though an accused person has<\/p>\n
no burden at all in a criminal trial. Where an accused person is<\/p>\n
found lying with suicidal injuries along with three other<\/p>\n
deceased persons and the 4th deceased with serious injuries<\/p>\n
inside a closed house, the accused has the burden to explain how<\/p>\n
and under what circumstances these injuries were suffered by<\/p>\n
himself and the others. That burden cannot be avoided by the<\/p>\n
accused by falling back on his purported right to silence, it is<\/p>\n
contended. We find merit in that contention.<\/p>\n
      19. It is in this context that the version of the accused<\/p>\n
assumes importance.        According to him, he had entered the<\/p>\n
house on that night through a door which was kept open which<\/p>\n
he assumed must have been kept open by Latha with whom he<\/p>\n
was in love. It is his case that she used to keep the door open on<\/p>\n
many earlier occasions. When he entered the house, he found<\/p>\n
that death of Latha and others had taken place and then he went<\/p>\n
on to attempt to commit suicide. If this version is found to be<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
false, that will be one more circumstance against the accused<\/p>\n
adding to the chain of circumstances which the prosecution has<\/p>\n
chosen to rely on.\n<\/p>\n
      20. The accused and the deceased were known to each<\/p>\n
other and the accused and the deceased Latha had illicit intimate<\/p>\n
relationship.     That is the case of the prosecution and that<\/p>\n
version is accepted by the accused.        There has been some<\/p>\n
souring of that relationship and that is also indicated clearly by<\/p>\n
Exts.P9 to P11 as also Exhibit P3 which is a transcript of the<\/p>\n
audio tape, MO.24 which the accused carried with him to the<\/p>\n
house admittedly. All the four deceased persons were hale and<\/p>\n
hearty till the night of 3\/11\/2005 but on 4\/11\/2005 morning they<\/p>\n
were found        with fatal injuries inside the closed house.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, the accused had come to the house later in the<\/p>\n
night. All the four deceased persons suffered homicidal injuries<\/p>\n
also. Till his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., nay till he<\/p>\n
chose to file a statement at the end of the questioning under<\/p>\n
Section 313 Cr.P.C., the present version was not advanced by the<\/p>\n
accused. Serious doubts are aroused about the genuineness and<\/p>\n
acceptability of the version of the accused. If that were a true<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -15-<\/span><\/p>\n
version, it is unlikely that he would not have advanced such a<\/p>\n
version earlier before the police, before the trial court    or<\/p>\n
subsequently till the statement was filed after his examination<\/p>\n
under Section 313 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
      21. The prosecution relies on various circumstances to<\/p>\n
drive home the charge against the accused and to disprove this<\/p>\n
very ingenious explanation which has        been offered in the<\/p>\n
written statement filed at the end of 313 examination.<\/p>\n
      22. The learned Prosecutors have painstakingly narrated<\/p>\n
before us various circumstances that are available which would<\/p>\n
convincingly show that this version of the accused is an after-<\/p>\n
thought and cannot be swallowed by a prudent mind.<\/p>\n
      23. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is<\/p>\n
the fact that while drilling the hole on the eastern wall,<\/p>\n
soil\/powder was available at the site of that hole. MO.34 bag<\/p>\n
carried by the accused seized as per Exhibit P12 scene mahazar<\/p>\n
had identical soil\/powder on it. MO.71 shirt belonging to the<\/p>\n
accused, which is also seized under Exhibit P12 has identical<\/p>\n
soil\/powder on it. This is evident from the report of FSL. The<\/p>\n
prosecution further relies on an unexplained injury which the<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07               -16-<\/span><\/p>\n
accused had on his person when he was examined by the Doctor<\/p>\n
on 4\/11\/2005. PW18, the Doctor to whom Karthiayani Amma<\/p>\n
and the accused were rushed from the scene of the crime on<\/p>\n
that morning had examined the accused and had issued Exhibit<\/p>\n
P14 wound certificate. In that wound certificate in addition to<\/p>\n
the self inflicted injury on the left wrist, there was an abrasion 2<\/p>\n
millimetre on the right hand (dorsal side) of the accused. It is<\/p>\n
the case of the prosecution that this injury must have been<\/p>\n
suffered by the accused when he attempted to break open the<\/p>\n
house and that part of the body came into contact with the<\/p>\n
surface. The opinion of PW18, Doctor on this aspect has not<\/p>\n
been specifically elicited by the prosecution in the course of<\/p>\n
examination in chief. But the fact remains that the oral evidence<\/p>\n
of PW18 and Exhibit P14 clearly indicate that the accused had<\/p>\n
on his person one more injury which cannot be explained by the<\/p>\n
accused as an incidental self inflicted injury in the course of his<\/p>\n
attempt to commit suicide. But, perhaps, what is crucial on this<\/p>\n
aspect is that the nail clippings of the accused which were taken<\/p>\n
by PW31 on 14-11-2005 revealed that identical soil\/powder were<\/p>\n
available in such nail clippings of the accused. The same was<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -17-<\/span><\/p>\n
sent to the expert and Exhibit P41(b) shows that the nail<\/p>\n
clippings had such soil\/powder. The prosecution relies on this<\/p>\n
also as a crucial input in support of their case that it was the<\/p>\n
accused who gained access to the house through that hole.<\/p>\n
      24. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the<\/p>\n
accused was taken from the scene of the crime on 4\/11\/2005<\/p>\n
and the nail clippings were taken only on 14\/11\/2005. The gap<\/p>\n
of time between 4th and 14th November 2005 was relied on by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel to argue that crucial significance cannot be<\/p>\n
attached to the nail clippings and the report of the scientific<\/p>\n
expert issued after examination of those nail clippings. It is<\/p>\n
significant to note that the accused does not have a case at all<\/p>\n
that soil\/powder similar to the one which was detected from the<\/p>\n
scene (of the hole) were planted on his nail clippings at any time<\/p>\n
by the investigating officer. We reckon this as a formidable<\/p>\n
circumstance to choose between the rival versions.<\/p>\n
      25. The prosecution relies    on another very important<\/p>\n
circumstance. Writings on the wall and surfaces in the southern<\/p>\n
room on the ground floor have been identified to be that of the<\/p>\n
accused by the handwriting expert by Exhibit P42 report. This<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07               -18-<\/span><\/p>\n
aspect of the testimony of PW32 is not seriously challenged at<\/p>\n
all. In the nature of the materials available before the court, we<\/p>\n
have no reason whatsoever to doubt the prosecution version that<\/p>\n
these writings were made by the accused himself.          On that<\/p>\n
aspect, we entertain not a semblance of doubt and in fact we<\/p>\n
note that there is no serious dispute on that aspect also.<\/p>\n
      26. The writings in the room offer crucial assistance to the<\/p>\n
court to choose between the rival versions. It is written that the<\/p>\n
accused was available in the house on that day at 12 midnight.<\/p>\n
Further, it is written that between 6 and 7 in the morning he is<\/p>\n
‘finishing’. This clearly shows that on his own version, available<\/p>\n
convincingly from the writings, he had spent about seven hours<\/p>\n
in that room. This is definitely inconsistent with his version that<\/p>\n
he saw Latha and others dead and proceeded to inflict suicidal<\/p>\n
injuries on him in grief. His presence for about seven hours in<\/p>\n
the room spending time to make the writings is inconsistent,<\/p>\n
totally with his version that Latha and others were found dead<\/p>\n
when he entered the room and he without                forethought<\/p>\n
proceeded to inflict injuries on himself.\n<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -19-<\/span><\/p>\n
      27. It is true that in MO.24 and its transcript,Exhibit P3 he<\/p>\n
describes that he loves Latha. There are many writings in the<\/p>\n
southern room on the ground floor which also indicates that he<\/p>\n
was in love with Latha. The question is not whether he was in<\/p>\n
love with Latha or not. The other writings available in the room<\/p>\n
clearly indicate that he had a grievance\/grouse against Latha<\/p>\n
and it was he who decided that both should die . “In love we are<\/p>\n
one, in death also both must be together. This is certain” is one<\/p>\n
of the writings. It is also written that “Latha is responsible for<\/p>\n
my death. I, therefore, decided that Latha and me must die<\/p>\n
together. This is certain”. The writings that he is in love with<\/p>\n
Latha is not at all inconsistent with a decision on his part to<\/p>\n
cause the death of Latha and commit suicide. It is true that in<\/p>\n
Exhibit P3 there is a reference that a joint decision has been<\/p>\n
taken by Latha and himself to end their lives together. This is<\/p>\n
only an assertion on the part of the accused and there is<\/p>\n
absolutely nothing otherwise available to show that on that date,<\/p>\n
i.e. on the night of 3\/11\/2005 Latha had agreed to commit<\/p>\n
suicide and had wanted him to go to her house to enable both of<\/p>\n
them to commit suicide together. A careful reading of Exhibit<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07            -20-<\/span><\/p>\n
P3\/MO.24 must lead to the inference that the same was not<\/p>\n
prepared immediately     prior to 3\/11\/2005.     The indications<\/p>\n
therein about Latha wanting to commit suicide, definitely refer<\/p>\n
to an anterior point of time. There is nothing to indicate a<\/p>\n
decision taken immediately prior to 3\/11\/2005 by Latha and the<\/p>\n
accused to commit suicide.\n<\/p>\n
      28. Clinching indications are also available to show that<\/p>\n
Chithra could not have been dead when the accused entered the<\/p>\n
house. In fact, one of the crucial writings found in the room is<\/p>\n
that “Chithra knows all the truth”. That convincingly indicates<\/p>\n
that Chithra had not died at the time when the writings were<\/p>\n
made by the accused after he entered the house. That he did<\/p>\n
not even know that Chithra was dead, when those writings<\/p>\n
were made is very evident. The theory of the accused that he<\/p>\n
found Latha and others dead when he entered the house is, in<\/p>\n
these circumstances, found to be not acceptable at all.<\/p>\n
      29. The learned Prosecutors rely on the evidence of Doctors<\/p>\n
(PWs.10,19 and 25) who conducted postmortem examination on<\/p>\n
the body of the       deceased to contend        that death    of<\/p>\n
Ramachandran, Chithra and Latha must have taken place only<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -21-<\/span><\/p>\n
after 12 midnight. Their unanimous opinion that death must<\/p>\n
have taken place 6 to 18 hours prior to 6.25 p.m. on 4\/11\/2005.<\/p>\n
Of course, the statement of the Doctors cannot be reckoned as<\/p>\n
precise and authentic as they can and have given only a time<\/p>\n
range. But the fact remains that the range of time given by them<\/p>\n
clearly shows that death could not have taken place prior to 12<\/p>\n
midnight when the accused was admittedly available in the<\/p>\n
house as per the writings made by him available in the southern<\/p>\n
room of the ground floor.\n<\/p>\n
      30. The learned Prosecutors further pointed out that there<\/p>\n
are indications that death must have taken place only after 12<\/p>\n
midnight going by the evidence of the postmortem doctors in<\/p>\n
respect of Latha, Ramachandran and Chithra who were found<\/p>\n
dead. Their stomachs were empty. Even though we do not have<\/p>\n
precise evidence about the time when they consumed their last<\/p>\n
meal, the Prosecutors argue that the indications suggest that<\/p>\n
death must have taken place 4 to 6 hours after the last meal as<\/p>\n
judged from the fact that the stomach was empty in respect of all<\/p>\n
the three deceased. The learned Public Prosecutors further rely<\/p>\n
on the fact that urinary bladders of all of them were found empty<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -22-<\/span><\/p>\n
and from this it is argued that all the three must have emptied<\/p>\n
the urinary bladder after getting up on that morning. This is also<\/p>\n
pressed into service as a circumstance broadly suggesting that<\/p>\n
death must have taken place only after the admitted arrival of<\/p>\n
the accused at the scene of the occurrence at about 12 midnight.<\/p>\n
      31. Perhaps the last and the crucial indication    on this<\/p>\n
aspect, as we perceive the same, is available from what is not<\/p>\n
written in the room.     Obviously the writings on the walls and<\/p>\n
other surfaces of the southern room on the ground floor are in<\/p>\n
the nature of parting messages of the accused, who had decided<\/p>\n
to commit suicide. If, as a matter of fact, the accused had seen<\/p>\n
Latha and others dead when he entered the house as contended<\/p>\n
by him, it is unlikely, nay impossible that he would not have<\/p>\n
mentioned in      at least one of those writings that he is not<\/p>\n
responsible for the death of the deceased persons and that he<\/p>\n
had found them dead when he entered the house. What is not<\/p>\n
written is more eloquent and helps this court to rule out the<\/p>\n
version of the accused as unworthy and impossible.<\/p>\n
      32. The learned Public Prosecutors further submit that it is<\/p>\n
definitely possible to come to a conclusion that the accused was<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -23-<\/span><\/p>\n
responsible for the fatal injuries of Chithra, the child. Exhibit P3<\/p>\n
clearly reveals that the accused had affection and love for the<\/p>\n
child. From the scene on the body of the child\/Chithra, the<\/p>\n
investigators had obtained strands of hair which on analysis<\/p>\n
was found to be similar and identical to the hair of the accused.<\/p>\n
The hair strands found on the body of Chithra clearly reveal that<\/p>\n
the accused was near Chithra after she suffered injuries.<\/p>\n
      33. It is also important to note that the accused, who was<\/p>\n
very close and near to the family has not been able to suggest<\/p>\n
any circumstance to indicate that any other person was at the<\/p>\n
relevant time entertaining any grouse or grievance against the<\/p>\n
family. That also is one of the circumstances which points to the<\/p>\n
inference of guilt against the accused when taken along with<\/p>\n
other circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
      34. Totality of the circumstances clearly point to the<\/p>\n
complicity of the accused. From Exhibit P3, it appears that the<\/p>\n
accused     did   not  have    any    particular   motive   against<\/p>\n
Ramachandran, Chithra and Karthiayani Amma,               the other<\/p>\n
deceased persons. But even the case of the prosecution is not<\/p>\n
that the accused had any motive or plan to cause the death of<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -24-<\/span><\/p>\n
the other three persons. The obvious intention was to cause the<\/p>\n
death of Latha and to die with her by committing suicide. The<\/p>\n
accused was obviously under great mental strain and stress and<\/p>\n
the injuries\/death caused to Ramachandran, Chithra and<\/p>\n
Karthiayani Amma cannot by any stretch of imagination be held<\/p>\n
to be pre-meditated or with motive. The absence of specific<\/p>\n
motive for the accused to act against Chithra, Ramachandran<\/p>\n
and Karthiayani Amma cannot in the circumstances of the case<\/p>\n
contra indicate or disprove the prosecution case. The totality of<\/p>\n
circumstances persuade us to concur with the conclusion of the<\/p>\n
court below that it was the accused who gained access into the<\/p>\n
house of the deceased which was closed from inside by making a<\/p>\n
hole through the eastern wall. After gaining access, we agree<\/p>\n
with the court below, the accused remained in the southern<\/p>\n
room on the ground floor and made all the writings. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
when deceased Latha came down, he attacked her and caused<\/p>\n
multiple     injuries on her.   He caused injuries to Chithra,<\/p>\n
Ramachandran and Karthiayani Amma also. Subsequently, he<\/p>\n
attempted to commit suicide.\n<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -25-<\/span><\/p>\n
      35. In these circumstances, we uphold the finding that the<\/p>\n
accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 449,<\/p>\n
309 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.     The challenge against<\/p>\n
the verdict of guilt and conviction is, in these circumstances,<\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p>\n
      36. What is the sentence to be imposed? This is the next<\/p>\n
question to be considered. The court below has chosen to impose<\/p>\n
a sentence of death on the accused for the offence under Section<\/p>\n
302 of the Indian Penal Code.       We are satisfied    that the<\/p>\n
sentences imposed for the offences under Sections 449 and 309<\/p>\n
of the Indian Penal Code are absolutely justified and they do not<\/p>\n
warrant any interference.    The question is only whether the<\/p>\n
sentence of death imposed on the accused under Section 302<\/p>\n
I.P.C. deserves to be confirmed or not. We shall now specifically<\/p>\n
advert to this aspect.\n<\/p>\n
      37. We shall now make a balance sheet of the extenuating<\/p>\n
and aggravating circumstances which have been pointed out to<\/p>\n
us in this case. Bachan Singh(supra) obliges the courts to<\/p>\n
make a balance sheet of the aggravating and mitigating<\/p>\n
circumstances before taking a decision on the crucial question.<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -26-<\/span><\/p>\n
      38. The aggravating circumstances are that there obviously<\/p>\n
was prior planning. As many as four lives were snuffed out by<\/p>\n
the accused.       An entire family has been wiped out.      The<\/p>\n
deceased persons include a minor child aged 11 years, an old<\/p>\n
woman aged 80 years and a sick individual – Ramachandran,<\/p>\n
husband of Latha. All the deceased persons were unarmed and<\/p>\n
defenceless. No provocation\/resistance is seen offered by them.<\/p>\n
The offence has been committed after mischievously planning<\/p>\n
the operation and after gaining access to the closed house in<\/p>\n
that night by making a hole on the wall. A dare devil attitude on<\/p>\n
the part of the miscreant is evidently indicated. The nature of<\/p>\n
the weapons used – MOs.29, 30 and 33 can also be entered on<\/p>\n
the aggravating side of the balance sheet.      The nature and<\/p>\n
number of the injuries inflicted on deceased Latha,(43 of which<\/p>\n
38 are stab injuries) is again an entry on the debit side. Prior<\/p>\n
instance of involvement in crimes is also against the accused.<\/p>\n
The learned Public Prosecutors point out that in MO.24\/Exhibit<\/p>\n
P3, there is a veiled     threat to many others.     The initial<\/p>\n
relationship itself was objectionable and contumacious – that is<\/p>\n
the relationship which the deceased struck with Latha, a married<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -27-<\/span><\/p>\n
woman having husband and child. The accused has no passion<\/p>\n
for life as can be seen from his conduct of attempting to put an<\/p>\n
end to his own life. That makes him potentially dangerous. The<\/p>\n
learned Prosecutors contend that these circumstances would<\/p>\n
bring the case within the sweep of the precedents including<\/p>\n
Bachan Singh(supra) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab<\/a><\/p>\n
(1983)3 SCC 470)        and this would be a fit case where<\/p>\n
imposition of death sentence would be justified.<\/p>\n
      39. The learned counsel for the accused, on the other<\/p>\n
hand, has marshalled      circumstances which fall under the<\/p>\n
category of mitigating circumstances. He points out first of all<\/p>\n
that there is no semblance of any element of gain, profit or<\/p>\n
advantage for the accused. Rightly or wrongly the accused was<\/p>\n
labouring under an impression of deprivation in love. He was<\/p>\n
in an extremely agitated and excited state of mind when he<\/p>\n
committed the capital offences.       Counsel points out that<\/p>\n
MO.24\/Exhibit P3 must suggest that at least at some earlier<\/p>\n
point of time, Latha herself had suggested commission of suicide<\/p>\n
together.    The accused had no motive whatsoever against<\/p>\n
Ramachandran, Chithra and Karthiayani Amma.         In fact, the<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -28-<\/span><\/p>\n
materials suggest that   he had great affection and love at least<\/p>\n
for Chithra.     He refers to Ramachandran in Exhibit P3 in<\/p>\n
endearing terms.      He had not used any weapon against<\/p>\n
Karthiayani Amma, the mother of Ramachandran. He did not<\/p>\n
make any attempt to flee from justice. He imposed on himself<\/p>\n
the capital punishment of death by attempting to commit suicide.<\/p>\n
He is a young man aged about 28 years only, going by the age<\/p>\n
shown in the passport, though the driving licence suggests that<\/p>\n
he is four years elder. He was dragged by circumstances into an<\/p>\n
improper relationship with a woman much elder to himself –<\/p>\n
elder at least by a decade.      There was no element of pre-<\/p>\n
meditation to cause the death of the other three. Pre-meditation<\/p>\n
even if any could only be to die along with the said Latha. There<\/p>\n
is no requirement of any deterrence in a rare incident like the<\/p>\n
instant one. He cannot be termed a menace to society. He is<\/p>\n
still young and is not lost to civilisation and humanity.    His<\/p>\n
liquidation would be totally unnecessary and uncalled for. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the accused, in these circumstances,<\/p>\n
contends     that the court may be pleased not to confirm<\/p>\n
death sentence and may choose to impose the lesser<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -29-<\/span><\/p>\n
punishment of imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
      40. Under Section 302 I.P.C., two alternative sentences<\/p>\n
alone are possible. The graver sentence is the sentence of death<\/p>\n
whereas the lesser option is to impose a sentence of<\/p>\n
imprisonment for life. Constitutional validity of the sentence of<\/p>\n
death has been considered by the Supreme Court. The last<\/p>\n
decision on the point is the decision in Bachan Singh (supra)<\/p>\n
The constitutional validity of the sentence of death has been<\/p>\n
upheld by the Supreme Court. In paragraph 209 of the said<\/p>\n
decision, the law on the point is stated succinctly as follows:<\/p>\n
            “A real and abiding concern for the dignity<\/p>\n
            of human life postulates resistance to<\/p>\n
            taking a life through law’s instrumentality.<\/p>\n
            That ought not to be done save in the rarest<\/p>\n
            of rare cases when the alternative option is<\/p>\n
            unquestionably foreclosed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      41. The Supreme Court        had upheld the constitutional<\/p>\n
validity by insisting that a sentence of death can be imposed<\/p>\n
only in the rarest of rare cases. The true clue to find out the<\/p>\n
rarest of rare cases for imposition of the death sentence is also<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -30-<\/span><\/p>\n
given in the said paragraph 209.        Litmus test is that the<\/p>\n
“alternative option must be unquestionably foreclosed”. That is<\/p>\n
the test to find out the rarest of rare cases in which alone<\/p>\n
imposition of a sentence of death would be justified. Only two<\/p>\n
options were then available – a sentence of death or a sentence<\/p>\n
of imprisonment for life. That lesser alternative option must be<\/p>\n
unquestionably foreclosed, insisted Bachan Singh (supra).<\/p>\n
      42. How is the court to find out such a case. In Machhi<\/p>\n
Singh(supra) and in many other subsequent Supreme Court<\/p>\n
decisions, attempts were made to categorise the circumstances<\/p>\n
which can be pressed into service to identify the rarest of rare<\/p>\n
cases in which alone a sentence of death can be imposed. It is<\/p>\n
unnecessary for us to advert to all those precedents. Suffice it to<\/p>\n
say that in Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal<\/a> (2007)<\/p>\n
12 S.C.C.230, the Supreme Court after adverting to the course<\/p>\n
adopted by the Supreme Court itself in various cases lamented<\/p>\n
that different Benches    had reacted differently in different<\/p>\n
decisions in their attempt to identify the rarest of rare cases.<\/p>\n
That was a decision by a two Judge Bench of the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court. Later, a three Judge Bench in Swamy Shraddananda<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07               -31-<\/span><\/p>\n
(2) v. State of Karnataka (2008)13 S.C.C.767 stated thus<\/p>\n
about the attempts made by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
             “49. In Aloke Nath Ddutta v. State of W.B.<\/p>\n
             (2007)12 SCC 230, Sinha.J. gave some very<\/p>\n
             good illustrations from a number of recent<\/p>\n
             decisions in which on similar facts this Court<\/p>\n
             took contrary views on giving death penalty<\/p>\n
             to the convict (see SCC pp.279-87, paras 151-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             78 : Scale pp.504-10, paras 154-82).       He<\/p>\n
             finally observed (SCC para 158) that “courts<\/p>\n
             in the matter of sentencing act differently<\/p>\n
             although the fact situation may appear to be<\/p>\n
             somewhat similar” and further “it is evident<\/p>\n
             that different Benches had taken different<\/p>\n
             view in the matter” (SCC para 168).”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                       (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
      43. The three Judge Bench of        the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Swamy Shraddananda(supra), proceeded                to observe in<\/p>\n
paragraph 51 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -32-<\/span><\/p>\n
            “51. The truth of the matter is that the question<\/p>\n
            of death penalty is not free from the subjective<\/p>\n
            element and the confirmation of death sentence<\/p>\n
            or its commutation by this court depends a good<\/p>\n
            deal on the personal predilection of the Judges<\/p>\n
            constituting the Bench”.\n<\/p>\n
                                      (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
      44. That appears to us to be a fair assessment of the history<\/p>\n
of application of the Bachan Singh (supra) doctrine by courts<\/p>\n
subsequently, including the Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
      45. We have no hesitation to agree that        the personal<\/p>\n
element has to be eliminated totally and completely while<\/p>\n
considering    the two alternative sentences permissible under<\/p>\n
Section 302 I.P.C. The law on the point is clear to us. In the<\/p>\n
rarest of rare cases alone, such a sentence can be imposed. In<\/p>\n
the attempt to identify such a rarest of rare case the true test is<\/p>\n
whether the lesser alternative is unquestionably foreclosed or<\/p>\n
not. Conscious of the alternatives available;      considering the<\/p>\n
extenuating and mitigating circumstances;            having    the<\/p>\n
objectives which the sentence has to serve in the particular<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -33-<\/span><\/p>\n
case in mind and liberating oneself from personal prejudices and<\/p>\n
predilections a decision has to be taken on the crucial question.<\/p>\n
      46. We would repeat that courts must be satisfied that the<\/p>\n
lesser options available (to the graver option of imposing a death<\/p>\n
sentence) must be unquestionably foreclosed before they choose<\/p>\n
to impose a death sentence. We will remind ourselves that<\/p>\n
Judges dealing with this sublime area of criminal adjudication<\/p>\n
can neither be retentionists nor abolitionists. Subject to the law<\/p>\n
as declared        in Bachan Singh(supra) and subsequent<\/p>\n
decisions, the court will have to consider all available<\/p>\n
circumstances without importing individual and personal<\/p>\n
concepts of the need to retain death sentence or abolish the<\/p>\n
same.    It is true that the constitutional validity of the death<\/p>\n
sentence has been upheld but before imposing\/confirming such<\/p>\n
sentence the court has to alertly consider the very purpose of<\/p>\n
punishment and decide whether in the facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
of the case imposition of the graver alternative is necessary and<\/p>\n
unavoidable.\n<\/p>\n
      47. We have already extracted the relevant portion in<\/p>\n
Bachan Singh (supra) which gives the quintessence of the law<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -34-<\/span><\/p>\n
in paragraph 209. The lesser option must be unquestionably<\/p>\n
foreclosed for the Court to identify the rarest of rare cases. In<\/p>\n
this context, we feel that the decision in Swamy Shraddananda<\/p>\n
(supra) is of vital relevance.\n<\/p>\n
      48. The three Judge Bench in Swamy Shraddananda<\/p>\n
(supra) took the view that a sentence of imprisonment for life<\/p>\n
simplicitor is not adequate in that case. The three Judge Bench<\/p>\n
realistically took note of the prevalent situation where the<\/p>\n
sentence of imprisonment for life gets boiled down virtually to a<\/p>\n
sentence of imprisonment for 14 years, subject to remission,<\/p>\n
commutation, etc. The learned Judges of the three Judge Bench<\/p>\n
felt that to avoid a sentence of death, it is possible for the courts<\/p>\n
to devise a graver form of sentence of imprisonment for life<\/p>\n
which will virtually ensure that the society is insulated from the<\/p>\n
criminal for such period as the court may specify including the<\/p>\n
entire rest of his life. The court in its ingenuity has now raised<\/p>\n
the bar to make sure that even in a case where the lesser<\/p>\n
alternative of an ordinary sentence of life is found to be grossly<\/p>\n
inadequate, the court has the option to impose a graver sentence<\/p>\n
of life with appropriate stipulations to be specified by the court.<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07                  -35-<\/span><\/p>\n
The following passages appearing in paragraphs 92 to 94<\/p>\n
according to us is of very great significance in this ultimate and<\/p>\n
sublime exercise of discretion between life and death by the<\/p>\n
courts.     In paragraph 92, the court after observing the<\/p>\n
inadequacy of a sentence of life limited to imprisonment for 14<\/p>\n
years, proceeded to observe that:\n<\/p>\n
            “……….. a far more just, reasonable and proper<\/p>\n
            course would be to expand the options and to<\/p>\n
            take over what, as a matter of fact, lawfully<\/p>\n
            belongs to the court, i.e., the vast hiatus<\/p>\n
            between 14 years’ imprisonment and death.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The court proceeded in paragraph 94 to lay down the dictum<\/p>\n
that such a graver sentence of imprisonment for life with<\/p>\n
appropriate directions can be imposed. Paragraph 94 reads as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
                    ”    94.  In the light   of the discussions<\/p>\n
            made above we are clearly of the view that<\/p>\n
            there is a good and strong basis for the Court<\/p>\n
            to    substitute    a   death   sentence   by   life<\/p>\n
            imprisonment or by a term in excess of<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07                -36-<\/span><\/p>\n
            fourteen years and further to direct that the<\/p>\n
            convict must not be released from the prison<\/p>\n
            for the rest of his life or for the actual term as<\/p>\n
            specified in the order, as the case may be.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      49. In devising or inventing such a mode of graver<\/p>\n
sentence above the ordinary term of imprisonment for life but<\/p>\n
below the sentence of death, the Court has realistically found<\/p>\n
that insistence on imposition of death penalty can be further<\/p>\n
reduced.     The alternative option must be foreclosed. The court<\/p>\n
has in fact increased the alternative options available. The only<\/p>\n
alternative option prior to Swamy Shraddananda (supra) was<\/p>\n
a sentence of life without any rider. The courts are now given<\/p>\n
the option to suitably modulate and prescribe the manner in<\/p>\n
which a life sentence can and ought to be executed. In Swamy<\/p>\n
Shraddananda (supra), the court proceeded to direct that the<\/p>\n
accused in that case who was guilty of a very heinous and<\/p>\n
horrendous crime can be saved from the sentence of death by<\/p>\n
imposing this modified version of a life sentence – with a rider\/<\/p>\n
direction that the accused shall not be released from prison for<\/p>\n
the rest of his life.\n<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07               -37-<\/span><\/p>\n
      50. To avoid the possibility of any confusion for the<\/p>\n
subordinate courts, we would like to clarify that under Section<\/p>\n
302 IPC, there are only two sentences permissible. They are a<\/p>\n
sentence of death and a sentence of imprisonment for life.<\/p>\n
Courts do not have the option to impose any other sentence.<\/p>\n
Swamy Shraddananda (supra) only permits the imposition of a<\/p>\n
sentence of imprisonment for life with the rider that the accused<\/p>\n
shall not be released from prison invoking the jurisdiction for<\/p>\n
commutation\/reduction of sentence for a specified number of<\/p>\n
years or for the rest of his life. Swamy Shraddananda (supra),<\/p>\n
we may clarify, does not permit courts to impose a sentence of<\/p>\n
imprisonment for any specified number of years above 14 years.<\/p>\n
A sentence of death or imprisonment for life has to be imposed<\/p>\n
under Section 302 IPC in every case invariably.<\/p>\n
      51. Abolitionists, according to us, have     won a major<\/p>\n
battle in the war against death sentence by the dictum of the<\/p>\n
three Judge Bench in Swamy Shraddananda (supra). This has<\/p>\n
been achieved by increasing the options that are available to the<\/p>\n
court.   It is the bounden duty of the court now to consider<\/p>\n
whether the worst form of a sentence of imprisonment for life is<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07               -38-<\/span><\/p>\n
also unquestionably foreclosed.       Only when such a definite<\/p>\n
conclusion is reached, can the court choose to impose the death<\/p>\n
sentence now. We reckon this as a definite instance of raising<\/p>\n
the bar much higher than it was available prior to Swamy<\/p>\n
Shraddananda(supra). The court has to consider not only the<\/p>\n
ordinary sentence of life as the lesser option. It has to consider<\/p>\n
the   graver     sentence   of   life  permitted     under    Swamy<\/p>\n
Shraddananda (supra) and a conclusion must be reached that<\/p>\n
even the gravest permissible alternative is unquestionably<\/p>\n
foreclosed in the facts and circumstances of the given case. So<\/p>\n
reckoned, the burden on the Court now becomes heavier. Before<\/p>\n
imposing the death sentence, it has to be considered whether the<\/p>\n
option of a life sentence with the gravest rider is also<\/p>\n
unquestionably foreclosed.\n<\/p>\n
      52. It is perhaps of great relevance to note that in<\/p>\n
paragraph 93 of Swamy Shraddananda (supra) the three Judge<\/p>\n
Bench specifically observes that such an approach will have the<\/p>\n
great advantage of having the death penalty on the statute book<\/p>\n
but to actually use it as little as possible – really in the rarest of<\/p>\n
rare cases only. We extract paragraph 93 below to ensure that<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07               -39-<\/span><\/p>\n
we are properly guided on this aspect.\n<\/p>\n
             93. Further, the formalisation of a special<\/p>\n
                  category of sentence, though for an<\/p>\n
                  extremely few number of cases, shall<\/p>\n
                  have the great advantage of having the<\/p>\n
                  death penalty on the statute book but to<\/p>\n
                  actually use it as little as possible, really<\/p>\n
                  in the rarest of rare cases. This would<\/p>\n
                  only be a reassertion of the Constitution<\/p>\n
                  Bench decision in Bachan Singh besides<\/p>\n
                  being in accord with the modern trends in<\/p>\n
                  penology.”\n<\/p>\n
      53. This is not to say that the decision of the Constitution<\/p>\n
Bench in Bachan Singh (supra) is in any way obliterated. Death<\/p>\n
sentence remains on the statute book.          It is for the Court,<\/p>\n
without importing personal norms in favour of retention or<\/p>\n
abolition to consider dispassionately whether the given case is<\/p>\n
one belonging to the rarest of rare cases where, even the graver<\/p>\n
options of life sentences with rider (ranging from an ordinary life<\/p>\n
sentence which for all intents and purposes boils down to a<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -40-<\/span><\/p>\n
sentence of imprisonment for 14 years to any specified minimum<\/p>\n
number of years above 14 below the entire life and a sentence of<\/p>\n
imprisonment with no release for the rest of life of the accused<\/p>\n
as    indicated    in  Swamy     Shraddananda         (supra))    is<\/p>\n
unquestionably foreclosed. We totally agree with the learned<\/p>\n
Prosecutors that in spite of Swamy Shraddananda (supra)<\/p>\n
there is space for a certain narrow category of cases which still<\/p>\n
belongs to the category of rarest of rare cases – call it the rarest<\/p>\n
of rarest of rare cases if necessary, wherein also a sentence of<\/p>\n
death permitted by Statute can be and will have to be imposed.<\/p>\n
But, in identifying that case, the “lesser option” referred to in<\/p>\n
Bachan Singh (supra) must be understood realistically. Till<\/p>\n
Swamy Shraddananda (supra), there was only one alternative<\/p>\n
option of sentence of life without prescribing any further<\/p>\n
restrictions or guidelines. Now, we have not one alternative<\/p>\n
option; but various alternative options taking advantage of the<\/p>\n
“vast hiatus between 14 years’ imprisonment and imprisonment<\/p>\n
till death”.    All Courts called upon to choose between the<\/p>\n
sentence of death and the alternative options now available can<\/p>\n
impose a death sentence only when the Court is convinced and<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -41-<\/span><\/p>\n
satisfied that none of the other alternatives available in the wake<\/p>\n
of Swamy Shraddananda (supra) are sufficient and those<\/p>\n
options are unquestionably foreclosed. We have no hesitation to<\/p>\n
opine that the imposition of death sentence can now be made<\/p>\n
only in such graver cases, where all the other options are found<\/p>\n
to be insufficient.     The bulk of such cases shall stand<\/p>\n
considerably and substantially reduced now -after           Swamy<\/p>\n
Shraddananda (supra).\n<\/p>\n
      54. A question still remains whether the instant case is<\/p>\n
one in which the graver alternatives of a life sentence are also<\/p>\n
unquestionably foreclosed.     We have rendered our anxious<\/p>\n
consideration to all the relevant inputs. We are unable to agree<\/p>\n
that all the options now available can be said to be<\/p>\n
unquestionably foreclosed in the given circumstances. In every<\/p>\n
case of death sentence, the court must consider the purpose of<\/p>\n
the sentence.     The theory of reformation will have no place<\/p>\n
whatsoever in a case of imposition of death sentence. In a case<\/p>\n
like the instant one, the consideration of compensation\/<\/p>\n
restoration cannot also have any place, as all the members of the<\/p>\n
family have been liquidated by the conduct of the accused. The<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -42-<\/span><\/p>\n
purpose of a death sentence – of eliminating the menace to the<\/p>\n
society in the form of a hardened criminal and to save society<\/p>\n
from the activities of such criminal may not also have much role,<\/p>\n
given the alternative option of a life sentence which will ensure<\/p>\n
that the accused does not come into contact with the society<\/p>\n
thereafter. The learned Prosecutors point out that there may be<\/p>\n
jail breaking or natural calamities which may lead to escape of<\/p>\n
prisoners from the jail and such convicts may still come into<\/p>\n
contact with the members of the society. We do not think that,<\/p>\n
that contingency is one which can be taken into account by the<\/p>\n
court ordinarily while considering whether the possibility of the<\/p>\n
hardened criminal being exposed to society is eliminated by a<\/p>\n
graver     sentence   of  life   as  permitted   under     Swamy<\/p>\n
Shraddananda(supra). The argument that tax payers’ money<\/p>\n
will have to be spent unnecessarily for supporting a life in prison<\/p>\n
with no tangible relevance or purpose for the society does not<\/p>\n
impress us at all as that argument is virtually directed against<\/p>\n
the prescription of a sentence of imprisonment for life by the<\/p>\n
legislature. A refined civilization wedded to the ideal of respect<\/p>\n
to life and its dignity must be happy to spend money to avoid<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07               -43-<\/span><\/p>\n
liquidation of life when there is an alternative available.<\/p>\n
      55. Deterrence is the other possible concern which has to<\/p>\n
be taken note of. As to how many criminals can be deterred from<\/p>\n
committing the crime because of the severity of the death<\/p>\n
sentence is itself a very uncertain area. Statistics, it appears to<\/p>\n
us, cannot be of any crucial assistance on this aspect.    We have<\/p>\n
no hesitation to observe that more criminals can be deterred<\/p>\n
from crimes by the conviction that immediate and certain<\/p>\n
punishment shall follow rather than the impression that he may<\/p>\n
be visited with a graver capital punishment on some uncertain<\/p>\n
future date. Immediateness and certainty of reasonable<\/p>\n
punishment and not the severity of the same serves the cause of<\/p>\n
deterrence best in our assessment.       In a situation where the<\/p>\n
society comes across certain types of crimes frequently (like<\/p>\n
bride burning or terrorist machinations or crimes by personnel<\/p>\n
of the protection (armed) forces like body guards, etc..),<\/p>\n
deterrence may certainly have a place. But to deter persons<\/p>\n
from committing a crime like the instant one, we are of the firm<\/p>\n
opinion that imposition of death sentence on an offender like the<\/p>\n
accused herein may not have much significance.<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07             -44-<\/span><\/p>\n
      56. The theory of retribution is the other concern.<\/p>\n
Refined and civilised states have altogether given up the theory<\/p>\n
of retribution as a theory in itself justifying imposition of a<\/p>\n
sentence. But the theory of retribution has indirect influence on<\/p>\n
the doctrine of proportionality.   “To each what he deserves”<\/p>\n
according to us is the most acceptable definition of justice. In<\/p>\n
that view of the matter, a person who has deprived another of his<\/p>\n
right to live may, under the doctrine of proportionality or on the<\/p>\n
doctrine of moral entitlement, have to face a sentence of death.<\/p>\n
Cry for justice from society is also relevant. The court must<\/p>\n
translate into its decision the abhorrence with which the<\/p>\n
enlightened society views a crime.    No Judge can afford to be<\/p>\n
more liberal, more refined, more tolerant or more civilised than<\/p>\n
what the society, from which he hails can afford and accept. If<\/p>\n
there is unbridgable gap between the norms prevalent in the<\/p>\n
society and the liberal attitude of the Judges, the system would<\/p>\n
run the risk of the ugly head of private vengeance being raised.<\/p>\n
But, this is not to say that the judges must ride the crest of<\/p>\n
populist sentiments and attitudes. The Judge also has a duty to<\/p>\n
refine society.    He can lead the society in civilisation and<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -45-<\/span><\/p>\n
refinement. The judge need not wait to be the last die hard to<\/p>\n
convert, transform, assimilate and imbibe liberal ideals. But it<\/p>\n
will have to be ensured that he is only ahead of them and not far<\/p>\n
removed from them in attitudes and norms. In this view of the<\/p>\n
matter, in appropriate cases death sentence will certainly have<\/p>\n
to be imposed.\n<\/p>\n
   57. Courts at all levels will have to ensure that subjectivity is<\/p>\n
eliminated altogether while choosing to impose or not choosing<\/p>\n
to impose the death sentence. Life is such a precious commodity<\/p>\n
and the Constitution cherishes the human right of right to life so<\/p>\n
much that personal prejudices and predilections of the individual<\/p>\n
judge have to be eliminated completely in the decision to<\/p>\n
judicially terminate and liquidate life. There cannot be benches<\/p>\n
that are pro death sentences and anti death sentences. Of all the<\/p>\n
arguments against the retention of the death sentence, none is<\/p>\n
more effective and disturbing than the thought that the choice<\/p>\n
between life and death may depend on the personal attitude<\/p>\n
and vagaries       of the judge before whom the case may<\/p>\n
comeup. The observation         in  Aloke Nath and Swamy<\/p>\n
Shraddananda (supra) to which we have already adverted to<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -46-<\/span><\/p>\n
suggest that the Indian legal system has not yet been able to<\/p>\n
acquit itself creditably on this aspect even during the post<\/p>\n
Bachan Singh period.           This imposes a great amount of<\/p>\n
responsibility on the Judges called upon to perform that sublime<\/p>\n
responsibility of choosing between the graver and the lesser<\/p>\n
options. One of the surest ways to correctly identify the fit case<\/p>\n
to impose the death sentence or to put it better to identify that<\/p>\n
case where all the alternative options are unquestionably<\/p>\n
foreclosed, is to ascertain whether all unbiased trained judicial<\/p>\n
minds without doctrinaire prejudices and predilections are likely<\/p>\n
to unanimously endorse and answer the question in favour of<\/p>\n
death sentence.    Then and then alone can the graver option of<\/p>\n
death sentence be preferred by a court.\n<\/p>\n
      58. Having considered all circumstances, we are of the<\/p>\n
definite opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case,<\/p>\n
the sentence of death is not warranted.            A sentence of<\/p>\n
imprisonment for life, subject to the safeguards\/directions as<\/p>\n
permitted by Swamy Shraddananda (supra) shall serve the<\/p>\n
ends of justice, we are of the very definite opinion.<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07               -47-<\/span><\/p>\n
      59. Let it not be assumed that this court does not perceive<\/p>\n
the instant one to be a serious and dastardly crime. We, to say<\/p>\n
the least, are convinced that the offence committed calls for<\/p>\n
societal abhorrence and disapproval.          But, the totality of<\/p>\n
circumstances instill in us the satisfaction that this is not a case<\/p>\n
where the range of further options available to the court after<\/p>\n
Swamy Shraddananda (supra) are unquestionably foreclosed.<\/p>\n
Placing fetter on the powers of the Executive under Section 432<\/p>\n
and 433 Cr.P.C. for a prescribed period (and with due caution<\/p>\n
administered that the powers under Article 72 and Article 161<\/p>\n
should not be lightly invoked to get over the prescription of such<\/p>\n
period fixed by this Court) a sentence of imprisonment for life<\/p>\n
which shall ensure that the offender does not get exposed to<\/p>\n
society for a period of 30 years can be imposed. We are not<\/p>\n
prescribing the ‘entire rest of the life’ as the period, as fixed by<\/p>\n
their Lordships in Swamy Shraddananda (supra), considering<\/p>\n
the totality of circumstances and because of the optimistic faith<\/p>\n
in the infinite capacity of the human soul to repent and reform.<\/p>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07                -48-<\/span><\/p>\n
  60. In the result:\n<\/p>\n
            (a)   this appeal is allowed in part.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (b)   the verdict of guilty and conviction of the<\/p>\n
                  appellant under Sections 449, 309 and 302<\/p>\n
                  IPC are upheld.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (c)   The sentence imposed on the appellant\/<\/p>\n
                  accused for the offences punishable under<\/p>\n
                  Sections 309 and 449 IPC are upheld.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (d)   The death sentence reference is answered<\/p>\n
                  against   the   prosecution.   The   sentence<\/p>\n
                  imposed for the offence punishable under<\/p>\n
                  Section 302 IPC is modified and reduced to<\/p>\n
                  imprisonment for life. It is further directed,<\/p>\n
                  as permitted by the decision in Swamy<\/p>\n
                  Shraddananda        (supra) that the accused<\/p>\n
                  shall not be released from prison for a period<\/p>\n
                  of 30 (thirty) years including the period<\/p>\n
                  already undergone with set off under Section<\/p>\n
                  428 Cr.P.C. alone.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
D.S.R.No.4\/07
\n& CRL.A.No.1620 \/07              -49-<\/span><\/p>\n
            (e)   Needless to say, even thereafter, if the<\/p>\n
                  question of release is being considered, the<\/p>\n
                  same must be done only after careful<\/p>\n
                  consideration   and    evaluation   of   all<\/p>\n
                  circumstances.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    R.BASANT, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                                     M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
dsn<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Navas @ Mulanavas vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1620 of 2007() 1. NAVAS @ MULANAVAS, S\/O.IBRAHIM, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon’ble MR. Justice R.BASANT […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-195049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNavas @ Mulanavas vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Navas @ Mulanavas vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-31T11:35:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"49 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Navas @ Mulanavas vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-31T11:35:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":9761,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Navas @ Mulanavas vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-31T11:35:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Navas @ Mulanavas vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Navas @ Mulanavas vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Navas @ Mulanavas vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-31T11:35:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"49 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Navas @ Mulanavas vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-31T11:35:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010"},"wordCount":9761,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010","name":"Navas @ Mulanavas vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-31T11:35:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/navas-mulanavas-vs-state-of-kerala-on-9-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Navas @ Mulanavas vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195049","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=195049"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195049\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}