STATE OF KERALA Vs. MUHAMMED AMEER-UL ISLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are called upon in these cases to adjudicate the sustainability of the conviction and the death sentence imposed on the accused in a horrifying case of rape and murder. The facts are deeply disturbing and represent an egregious violation of human dignity and sanctity of life, for after committing rape in an inhumane manner, the victim has also been murdered horrendously. Its impact on the society was profound and far reaching as it instilled not only fear, but also a sense of vulnerability, particularly amongst women. It eroded the trust reposed in institutions responsible for ensuring public safety. It sparked public outrage and calls for justice, leading to demands for reforms in law, policies and social attitudes towards violence against women and vulnerable groups. No doubt, social impact of a crime of this nature needs to be tackled through a multifaceted approach including judicial response by holding the perpetrators accountable through a fair trial and appropriate sentencing, in order to give a strong message that such acts will not be tolerated by the society. Let us examine the sustainability of the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused, keeping in mind the background aforesaid of the case.

(2.) The Death Sentence Reference and Criminal Appeal arise from S.C.No.662 of 2016 on the files of the Court of the Special Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ernakulam. The sole accused in the case stands convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 449, 342, 376, 376A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced among others, to death. Since the trial court passed a sentence of death, the proceedings has been submitted to this Court for confirmation in terms of Sec. 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code). The appeal is instituted by the appellant challenging his conviction and sentence.

(3.) Inasmuch as the conviction of the accused and the sentence imposed on him are under challenge, it is necessary to consider the sustainability of the conviction and sentence before dealing with the DSR. The accused who is a native of Assam was a migrant labourer. He was residing during April, 2016 at Vaidyasalapadi near Perumbavoor. The accused was aged 22 years then. The victim, a 30 year old law student was one who was brought up in an impoverished background by her mother, and the latter was deserted by her husband during the early childhood of the victim. The victim and her mother were since then residing in a small three room house put up in the puramboke land on the side of an Irrigation Canal in a place named Vattolipady near the place where the accused was residing. The mother of the victim belongs to Ezhava Community and her father belongs to Pulaya Community, a Scheduled Caste.