Kerala man’s death penalty commuted

Courts never considered whether condemned man could reform: SC Bench

The Supreme Court on Wednesday commuted the death penalty of a man who murdered six of a family, including children, in Kerala on the ground that none of the courts that heard the case bothered to examine the probability of his “reform or rehabilitation and social reintegration.”

A three-judge Review Bench, led by Justice Madan B. Lokur, commuted the death penalty of M.A. Antony to life imprisonment, setting aside its own judgment.

The Review Bench said none of the courts, from the trial court to the Supreme Court, gave a thought to the possibility of his reform.

“There is no meaningful discussion on why, if at all, the appellant [Antony] could not be reformed or rehabilitated,” Justice Lokur observed.

Antony, represented by advocate Manoj George, murdered the family in January 2001 after they refused to lend him money to travel to the West Asia for a job.

The Review Bench held that Antony was in dire straits and had gone to the house in the hope of getting some money and after the refusal, he decided to “kill all of them.”

The Bench held that though the socio-economic condition of a convict was not a factor in disproving his guilt, it was a factor that must be taken into consideration for awarding him an appropriate sentence.

However, Justice Lokur, writing the verdict for the Bench comprising Justices S.Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta, did not agree with Mr. Manoj George’s submission that the life of a condemned man should be spared because he had spent years on death row.

“There are a number of cases where convicts have been on death row for more than six years, and if a standard period was to be adopted, perhaps each and every person on death row might have to be given the benefit of commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment,” Justice Lokur said.

The Review Bench agreed that there was no material to back the State of Kerala’s claim that Antony was a “hardened criminal.”

The Bench also said the courts should consider whether a death row convict from a poor background got adequate legal representation.

“The poor are more often than not at the receiving end in access to justice and access to the remedies available,” Justice Lokur said.