Kerala High Court Modifies Death Sentence to Life Term, Upholds Convictions, Says Test Identification Parade Not Mandatory When Accused Known to Witnesses
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala, Division Bench of Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian modified the death sentence imposed on the first accused to life imprisonment while upholding the conviction of both accused in the 2016 Kovalam murder and sexual assault case. The Court found that the accused jointly committed the murder of a man and the brutal assault on his wife, leaving her in a vegetative state. Based on medical, forensic, and recovery evidence, the Bench held the prosecution’s case conclusively proved. It also clarified that a Test Identification Parade is not mandatory when the accused are already known to the witnesses or when they had sufficient opportunity to identify them during the incident.
The case concerns a 2016 incident at Kovalam in which a man was murdered and his wife brutally assaulted at their residence. The prosecution alleged that two accused persons unlawfully entered the victims’ house at night with the intent to commit theft, and during the commission of the offence, they attacked the husband with a heavy weapon, causing his death, and sexually assaulted the wife, leaving her in a persistent vegetative state. The first accused was charged under Sections 302, 376A, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the second accused under Sections 302, 394, and allied provisions.
The defence contended that the evidence was circumstantial and insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, arguing that the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) rendered the witness identification unreliable. The prosecution, on the other hand, presented oral, medical, and forensic evidence to prove the charges. DNA analysis, medical reports, and testimony from the forensic experts and doctors confirmed the presence of the first accused’s spermatozoa in the vaginal swabs collected from the victim. Bloodstains on the clothes of both accused matched the deceased’s blood sample.
The post-mortem report established that the injuries inflicted caused the husband’s death, and the medical board certified that the wife’s vegetative condition was likely permanent. The trial court convicted both accused, sentencing the first to death and the second to life imprisonment. The High Court considered their appeals and the reference for confirmation of the death sentence, examining the evidentiary record, admissibility of identification evidence, and sentencing standards laid down under Section 354(3) CrPC and precedents including Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra.
The Court recorded that the “proved circumstances are sufficient to hold the appellants guilty of the charges levelled against them, as rightly found by the trial court.” It noted that medical and forensic evidence “clearly reveal that the 1st accused had sexual intercourse with the victim” and that the “bloodstains found on the clothes worn by accused nos.1 and 2…matched with the blood sample taken from the deceased.” The Bench observed that when all the circumstances discussed above are taken together, they lead to only one inference, namely that, in all human probability, the murder of the deceased was committed by accused nos.1 and 2 jointly after committing the act of house trespass.
The Bench stated that there is no inflexible rule requiring a test identification parade in every case for reliance on a witness’s identification. It recorded that where the accused are already known to the witnesses, or where witnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused during the incident, identification in court can be relied upon. The Court found the witnesses credible and their testimonies consistent with medical and forensic materials.
On sentencing, the Bench observed that judicial discretion in awarding punishment “must be exercised after balancing all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the crime.” Referring to the principles in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and subsequent rulings, the Court stated that the extreme penalty should be imposed “only in extreme cases where the exceptional reasons are founded on the exceptionally grave circumstances of the particular case relating to the crime as well as the criminal.” After considering the probability of reformation and the materials placed before it, the Bench recorded, “we feel that the imposition of stricter terms of life imprisonment would strike the right balance between the conflicting interests of the appellant and the public at large and go a long way towards sustaining public confidence in our legal system.” Accordingly, it modified the death sentence of the first accused to life imprisonment.
However, considering the second accused’s role, the Court examined his degree of participation, absence of prior criminal record, and potential for reformation. Referring to Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra, it recorded that the probability of reform must be seriously considered before imposing the extreme penalty. After reviewing reports and the sentencing record, the Bench concluded that the second accused’s life sentence was appropriate while confirming the death sentence of the first.
The Bench concluded: “In the result, we confirm the conviction imposed on the appellant in Crl.A.No.79 of 2020 by the trial court in respect of the offences under Sections 302, 307, 376A, 397 and 449 read with Section 34 IPC. As for the sentences imposed for the offences under Sections 302 and 376A of the IPC, we deem it appropriate to modify the sentence to one of life imprisonment with the further condition that he shall undergo mandatory imprisonment without remission for a period of thirty years for both the offences. The sentences shall run concurrently. Save for the aforesaid modification of the sentences imposed on the 1st accused in respect of the offences under Sections 302 and 376A, we uphold the impugned judgment of the trial court in relation to accused nos.1 and 2. The Crl.A.No.79 of 2020 is thus partly allowed, Crl.A.No.401 of 2021 is dismissed and the DSR is answered in the negative i.e. by refusing to confirm the death sentence.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners/Appellants: Smt. Rajatha P., Advocate; Sri. J.R. Prem Navaz and Sri. Sumeen S., Advocates
For the Respondents/State: Sri. V.S. Vineeth Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor; Smt. Ambika Devi, Special Public Prosecutor; Smt. Sheeba Thomas, Public Prosecutor.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Arun Kumar & Chandrasekharan
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:76072
Case Number: D.S.R.No.3/2019; Crl.A.No.79/2020; Crl.A.No.401/2021
Bench: Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar; Justice Jobin Sebastian
