The Supreme Court looked at one of the most terrible and upsetting criminal cases in which a man killed his own wife and four young children in Reji Kumar @ Reji v. State of Kerala. The Sessions Court of Palakkad held Reji Kumar guilty of violating Sections 302, 376, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. His case was upheld by the Kerala High Court in issuing a death sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but substituted the death sentence with life prison until the natural death of the person. The ruling was an indication of the change in the perceptions of the court with regard to the death sentence weighing down the necessity to punish against the possibility of rehabilitation.
Background and Facts
This case is regarding the horrific series of horrors that occurred in Kerala between July 8 and 22, 2008. Reji Kumar, a farmer, was accused of killing his wife Lissy and their four daughters together with a boy child and a baby girl. These killings were done during several days which means that they were well-planned and the killers had no conscience. He was also charged with raping her 12-year old daughter and murdering her after the act.
Initially, when the family disappeared, a good number felt suspicious. Later, neighbors found the corpses of the two girls at home. The bodies of Lissy, the boy, and the youngest daughter were found in a septic tank in a nearby field. On July 27, 2008, Reji was detained on basis of having been filed an FIR. His defense was that he did not do anything bad but he got a conviction based on several facts.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Laws and Charges
The accusations against the person who filed the appeal were:
- Murder (five counts) under Section 302 IPC
- One count of rape under Section 376 IPC
- Section 201 of the IPC: Making evidence vanish
- Section 297 IPC: Disrespecting the dead (not proven in the end)
The trial court found him guilty of several murders and sentenced him to death since the crime was so savage, it broke the confidence of his family, and there were no mitigating considerations.
Results from the Trial Court and the High Court
The Sessions Court in Palakkad found Reji Kumar guilty after hearing from 44 witnesses and looking at 72 pieces of evidence. The court said that the killings were planned and carried out over a period of time. It didn’t accept his defense that he did it out of anger. He was given the death penalty for the murders, 10 years for the rapes, and 7 years for hiding evidence.
The Kerala High Court maintained the convictions and the death sentence. It noted that the act showed a lack of remorse that was frightening, and that Reji’s wish to live with another lady may have been a reason for it. The court said that the murders were planned and that the savagery was so bad that the “rarest of rare” concept from Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab called for the death penalty.
Review by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court looked closely at the evidence and the sentence again in an appeal. They upheld the conviction but looked again at whether the death penalty was justified.
The judges, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, all agreed that the following factors made the situation worse:
Planning and executing five family members in a cold-blooded way
Rape of his own little daughter
Hiding evidence
No sorrow and lying behavior after the crime
But also, took into consideration of important things which put the situation not as serious as reported by probation officer, psychiatric evaluation as well as jail officials:
The prisoner was not in trouble with law ever in his life.
He always conducted himself well in jail over a 17 years period.
He assisted other detainees and felt guilty of the action.
Psychological tests indicated that the individual was traumatized, had emotional issues, and bad childhood.
The court referred to the manoj v. health of Madhya Pradesh as it was stated that sentence should be given upon taking into consideration the history of the offender, his mental health and also his capacity to reform. It is not necessary that the crime cannot be horrendous, the Supreme Court added the balance of punishment and rehabilitation should be met here.
Key Questions and the Way Court Ruled
The first legal issue was whether the death penalty still fitted considering the behavior of the convict in prison, his mental condition, and his socioeconomic background.
The court opined that death penalties must only be awarded in circumstances where there is non-alternative. In this instance, even though the offense passed the “crime test,” it did not pass the “criminal test” (the chance of change) since the death penalty was not an option. The criminal had changed in a way that could be seen and had said they wanted to do something good while in prison.
The judge ruled that death penalty was to be commuted to life imprisonment without being released on parole.
Final Decision and Directions
The Supreme Court:
Uphold the guilty judgment under IPC Sections 302, 376 and 201
Replaced death penalty with life imprisonment until the perpetuators of crimes die naturally
The accused was sentenced to spend the remainder of this life in jails and have no possibility of parole or release.
He emphasized that he was able to perform penance and continue assisting other people even in jail.
In conclusion
The Indian courts are becoming more mature in their views on the death penalty. They are now looking at the criminal as well as the crime. The Supreme Court changed the death sentence in Reji Kumar v. State of Kerala to a life sentence. This showed that even in circumstances of severe violence, a humanitarian approach is needed as long as real change is shown.
This finding brings out clearly that the death sentence should only be applied in exceptional cases where there is no possibility to correct the individual. It goes the extent of showing how we need to regard the mental and social well being of a person in determining his sentence with regard to attacking justice that would provide punishment and forgiveness in equal measure.
