A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Friday commuted the death sentence awarded by the Thiruvananthapuram District and Sessions Court to former IT professional Nino Mathew in a double murder case in Attingal to life imprisonment of 25 years without remission.
The Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John upheld the life imprisonment awarded to Anu Santhi, colleague of Nino, against the sessions court order. The murder took place on April 16, 2014. Anu Santhi’s mother-in-law Vijayamma alias Omana and her three and a half year- old daughter Swastika were murdered by Nino Mathew. The court passed the order while dismissing appeal filed by Anu Santhi and disposing of appeal of Nino.
The incident
The prosecution case was that an extramarital affair between Anu Shanthi and her colleague led to the murder. Anu Shanthi’s husband Lijeesh was also attacked by Nino. The prosecution alleged that they hatched a conspiracy to do away with her child and her mother-in-law to live together.
When the appeals came up for hearing, P. Vijayabhanu, senior counsel appearing for Nino, submitted that there was no direct evidence to show that it was Nino who committed the murder. The prosecution had failed to establish the case, the contended.
The court observed that the imposition of death sentence on him is not warranted in this case, especially in view of the fact that the accused did not have any criminal antecedents. However, in a case of this nature, imprisonment for a period of 14 years was grossly inadequate. It was a fit case to substitute the death sentence by a sentence of imprisonment for life by fixing a term in excess of 14 years with a direction not to release the convict before the actual term. The court, therefore, found that the death sentence for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (murder) against Nino could be converted to imprisonment for life, with a direction that he shall not be released from the prison for a period of 25 years.
Criminal conspiracy
The court added that there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the criminal conspiracy and sharing of common intention between the two accused in committing the crime.
