Murder Of TP Chandrasekharan Threatens To Undermine Democratic Principles, Committed To Silence Dissent: Kerala HC Sentences CPIM Workers To Life Imprisonment Without Remission Before 20 Years
The Kerala High Court has sentenced CPI (M) (Communist Party of India-Marxist) workers, who are prime accused in the case, to life imprisonment without remission before twenty years for committing murder of former CPI member T.P. Chandrasekharan.
The Court said that his murder threatens to undermine the democratic principles by which the Indian people have chosen to be governed and is committed with a view to silence dissent. The Court was dealing with a batch of appeals filed by the convicts against the State.
Earlier, on February 19 this year, the Court had confirmed the conviction of the accused and had adjourned the case for hearing on sentencing.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Kauser Edappagath in the latest order on the sentencing of the convicts observed, “What, then, would be the appropriate punishment that we can impose on the convicted accused in these cases ? While the crime would certainly rank as a heinous one committed against the victim T.P. Chandrasekharan, it is also one that threatens to undermine the democratic principles by which the people of this country, as a whole, have chosen to be governed. Crimes that have the effect of inducing fear in the people to the point where they are prevented from freely exercising their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and expression ought to be dealt with firmly, for they cannot be tolerated in a society that is governed by the rule of law. While there is, undoubtedly, an element of public interest that is sought to be safeguarded through the prescription of a punishment for a crime, any crime that is committed with a view to silence dissent, which is an integral facet of the right to privacy under Article 21 of our Constitution, has to be seen as a crime against the people at large in a society that has chosen to be governed by democratic principles.”
The Bench added that it is equally obligated under the Constitution to recognise the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed to the people, which expression takes within its fold even a convicted criminal and that the daunting task before it is to strike a balance between the conflicting interests.
Factual Background -
T. P. Chandrasekharan, a former member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)], established a new political party called the Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP). In connection with the alleged vengeance for the CPI(M) candidate's defeat in the Lok Sabha election at Vatakara constituency, Chandrasekharan was fatally attacked on May 4, 2012. According to the prosecution, the first accused deliberately collided with Chandrasekharan's motorcycle, causing him to fall onto the road. Subsequently, the accused attacked him with swords, resulting in his death. Other accused individuals deployed bombs to prevent witnesses from approaching the crime scene. The charges included criminal conspiracy, murder execution, and attempts to conceal evidence.
In 2014, the Additional District Court Judge sentenced 11 accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 for murder. The High Court directed the Jail Superintendent to produce accused 1-8 and 11 in person before the Court for hearing accused 1-5 and 7 on the sentence to be imposed under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and all of them on the plea of enhancement of sentence and compensation. The Court further directed that the registry issue non-bailable warrants for the immediate arrest and production of accused 10 and 12 before the Trial Court.
The High Court in the above context noted, “The psychological and psychiatric evaluation report in relation to all the accused indicates that a preliminary evaluation does not reveal the presence of any significant active psychopathology at present. It also clarifies that a detailed evaluation with a reliable informant for an observation period of not less than 10-14 days is recommended to establish the presence or absence of mental illness. The report regarding the work done by A1, A2, A4 to A8, A11 and A18 in jail submitted by the Jail Superintendent, Kannur, shows that all of them performed their work in a satisfactory manner. Their behaviour in jail is reported to be satisfactory. So far as A3 is concerned, the Jail Superintendent, Tavanur, reported that he was shifted from High-Security Prison, Viyyur, on 09.11.2023 on disciplinary grounds and that he has not been allotted any work at Tavanur prison.”
The Court said that the reports of the Probation Officer in respect of A1 to A8, A11 and A18 reveal that although they hail from socially and economically backward families, they are currently being taken care of and none of their families are entirely dependent on them for their sustenance.
“The report in respect of A18 shows that his wife is doing tailoring work and earning a livelihood for her family, which consists of three children. It is also reported that except A2 and A7, all other accused are involved in criminal cases. This leads us to infer that there are no serious mitigating factors other than the probability of their reformation that need to be taken into account while determining the sentence to be imposed on the various accused”, it further noted.
The Court said that the prosecution has not produced any material to suggest that the reformation of the accused is improbable. It also said that the death sentence is reserved only for those cases that qualify as the “rarest of the rare”.
“While the facts and circumstances proved against the accused before us clearly point to their abhorrent and despicable conduct, we would not go so far as to categorise it as the “rarest of the rare” so as to impose the death sentence on them. Taking note of the submissions made by them and their counsel during the hearing on sentence, reports obtained in relation to them, and the possibility of their reformation, we feel that the imposition of stricter terms of life mprisonment would strike the right balance between the conflicting interests of the accused and the public at large and go a long way towards sustaining public confidence in our legal system”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court observed that a sentence of life imprisonment simpliciter would not be proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and would not meet the need to respond swiftly and sternly to crimes that virtually amount to an attack on democracy itself and that apart, the barbaric nature of the crime, where an unarmed man was hacked to death on a highway by six armed assailants who had no known enmity against him but were mere assassins and co-conspirators, needs to be condemned in a befitting manner.
“Not doing so in such a brutal case, by showing undue leniency to the accused, will adversely affect public confidence in the efficacy of our legal system. Under these circumstances, while we desist from awarding the death sentence, we find it just and proper that A1 to A8 and A11 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, with the rider that their right to claim remission on their sentence of life imprisonment shall stand restricted for a period of twenty years so that they shall be entitled to a release on remission only after they complete twenty years of actual sentence.”, it directed.
Accordingly, the High Court awarded life sentence to the convicts and dismissed the appeals.
Cause Title- K.C. Ramachandran v. The State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024/KER/14975)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates K.M. Ramadas, Arun Bose, and K. Viswan.
Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor P. Kumarankutty and Assistant Spl. Public Prosecutor Saphal. K.
