DHORA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case involves both patricide and matricide, besides severely hacking two neighbors with a sharpened chopper. Prosecution case reveals the story of appellant running berserk during the early hours of 16.10.1987, killing his father and mother after mangling two others. At 4.30 in the morning he gatecrashed into the bed room of a neighbour and showered a fusillade of cuts with the chopper from head to toe, next he dashed into the bed room of another neighbour and did the same thing. He then nm back to his house, caught his father and hacked him with the chopper, and then turned to his mother and did the- same thing to her also. His father died instantaneously and his mother died at the hospital on the same day. The other two injured, despite extensive cuts sustained, survived with expert medical aid as they were not destined to die. Learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of offences under Ss. 302, 307 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life for the first count, but no separate sentence was awarded for other counts. This appeal has been filed from jail.

(2.) When judgment finding him guilty of the offences was pronounced by the learned Sessions Judge, Additional Public Prosecutor, who conducted prosecution in the trial court, made a forceful plea for awarding capital punishment to the appellant However, learned Sessions Judge was not fortunately persuaded to impose death penalty in spite of want of any ostensible extenuating circumstance. We say fortunately because the story has the appearance, at the first blush, of one of the rarest of rare cases in which the lesser sentence could be foreclosed. According to the learned Sessions Judge, accused might have been prompted by some mental derangement and hence death penalty need not be imposed on him.

(3.) Some more facts may be useful for narration to dispose of this appeal. Appellant and his wife (P.W. 13) were living in an apartment different from the place where his aged parents were residing, but both apartments are situated close to each other. P.Ws. 2 and 3 (the other two injured) were residing in a different building situated in the vicinity. It is alleged that appellant snooped into the affairs of his neighbors and twaddled gossips concerning Jayamala (daughter- in- law of P.W. 2 and wife of P.W. 5). It appears that appellant was instrumental in forestalling the progress of a marriage proposal mooted for one Rajeswari (niece of P.W. 2). These two instances were mentioned as the possible motive for the appellant to become inimical towards P.Ws. 2 and 3 (we failed to understand how those instances would incite wrath in his mind against P.Ws. 2 and 3 or anybody else). On the previous day, appellant is alleged to have commented that he would get better supply of meals in the jail. This is all the background for the brutal carnage indulged in by the appellant on the morning of the date of tragedy.