The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside the life sentence imposed on a man by a trial court in Nagercoil for murdering a couple. The court directed the man to be released forthwith provided his presence was not required in connection with any other case.
The court was hearing the appeal preferred by S. Charles of Kanniyakumari district. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2010 by the Nagercoil Sessions court for the murder of the couple Rajendra Kumar and Leela in 2009.
The case of the prosecution is that Charles used to look after the farm owned by the couple. He is said to have murdered them after they turned a deaf ear to his advice asking them not to go to the church. The couple were living with their two children.
On August 8, 2009, the deceased had gone along with their children to partake in a church festival. It was said that they returned home without their children at around 9.30 p.m. They were found dead the next day.
Charles surrendered and gave an extrajudicial confession stating that he had advised them not to go to the church. But, they ignored his advice. He was angry with them and attacked them indiscriminately with a knife resulting in their death.
Apart from this, the second motive attributed to the murder was that the Charles had feared that his services would be discontinued by the deceased if they decided to sell the farm and the third motive was that Charles had demanded a share in the property.
A Division Bench of Justices P.N. Prakash and R. Hemalatha expressed their shock. They said they were surprised that the prosecution had not placed any materials giving details of the children of the deceased.
The judges observed that the fact remains that the appellant himself is a Christian. He being a Christian, his version that he advised the deceased not to go to church sounds a bit illogical. Supposing he is a person professing any other religion, the court could find some substance in such a version of his. That is not the case here.
An extrajudicial confession has to be either believed in toto or rejected in toto and it cannot be both believed in part and rejected in part. There are conflicting versions with regard to the motive. Motive assumes significance in a case predicated on circumstantial evidence as the present one, the judges said.
Mere recovery of the knife on the alleged disclosure of the appellant in his police confession without anything more, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained, the judges said and set aside the judgment passed in 2010 by the Sessions court. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith.
