PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE Vs. KATTAVELLAI @ DEVAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As against the award of death sentence, there are mixed opinion among the citizens of this Country. A majority of the citizen want the judicial system to deal the offenders of rape and murder with an iron hand, without showing any sympathy or mercy to them. They also want the Judiciary to take note of the plight and trauma that would have been undergone by the families of the victims silently. Contrarily, there are also voices that require the judicial system to soft pedal on the issue by resorting to reformative theory and to relieve the offender (s) from the gallows and to view the offence committed by the accused with a humanitarian approach. In this context, several decisions have been cited before us by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the sole accused, supporting and opposing the award of death sentence imposed by the trial court in the judgment dated 07.03.2018, passed against the sole accused/respondent in Special Sessions Case No.9 of 2013 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni, which is the subject matter of this Referred Trial, seeking confirmation of this Court under Section 366 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Before traversing into the case and counter case, a gist of the narrative of case of the prosecution would throw much light on the issues for consideration in this appeal. The accused/respondent in this case is alleged to have committed double murder, a murder for gain and another for lust of flesh. The brutality with which the crime has been committed, according to the prosecution, is that, the accused, soon after committing the rape and murder of the hapless victim girl, had indulged in an act of butchery and chopped her limbs and unleashed an act of terror. It is in this context the prosecution raises a hue and cry that the accused had done to death two young lovers, by clipping their dreams to fly high in their life journey together, without any provocation or any other motive to do so, therefore, he should not be visited with any other punishment other than the death sentence. The trial Court also, by accepting the case putforward by the prosecution held that the offence committed by the accused is barbaric, inhuman and gruesome and therefore, such an offence will fall within the definition of 'rarest of rare category' and awarded death sentence. It is in this background, we proceed to examine as to whether the trial Court is justified in inflicting a death sentence on the accused or such punishment imposed on the accused is required to be interfered with by this Court.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is consciously narrated below: