- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ramasubramanian Alias Mani v. State Of Kerala .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Rama Subramanian, had worked and resided on the premises of the deceased, Sabitha Beevi, who lived with her three children—Jasmin, Jiyas and Navas—at Jiyas Manzil, Kollam, Kerala. Following dismissal from his job and alleged personal disputes, the appellant entered the house on the night of 8-8-1999. The next morning PW-1 (father-in-law of the deceased) discovered the bodies of Sabitha Beevi and Jasmin, while the other two children were critically injured. Police commenced investigation at 8:30 a.m., collected forensic material, and eventually arrested the appellant on 30-3-2000, recovering jewellery, clothing, and the alleged weapon.
After trial, the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 392 and 449 IPC and imposed the death penalty. The High Court confirmed the conviction but altered Section 392 to Section 380 IPC, reducing that sentence to three years, while affirming the death sentence for the murders. The present appeal—filed from jail—challenges both conviction and sentence before the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant alone committed the murders and related offences.
- Whether the facts of the case met the “rarest of rare” threshold justifying imposition of the death penalty.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The single wooden stick (50.5 cm) allegedly used could not realistically enable one person to murder four victims inside a house.
- Nearby residences would have heard any outcry, rendering the prosecution narrative improbable.
- An iron rod recovered at the scene suggested involvement of additional assailants.
- Failure to examine an elderly co-resident (mother of PW-1) was fatal to the prosecution case.
- The prosecution withheld potential DNA evidence by not submitting semen samples for testing.
State’s Arguments
- The 94-year-old co-resident was deaf and dumb and incapable of witnessing events; her testimony was unnecessary.
- The iron rod merely bore bloodstains acquired when the appellant washed his hands and did not imply multiple assailants.
- Samples were unsuitable for DNA analysis; hence no adverse inference could be drawn.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2003) 12 SCC 199 | Guidelines on awarding the death penalty in “rarest of rare” cases. | Considered but distinguished; helped the Court decide that capital punishment was not mandatory here. |
| Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 258 | Criteria for confirming or commuting death sentences. | Relied upon by State; the Court nonetheless chose commutation after weighing mitigating circumstances. |
| State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram (2003) 8 SCC 224 | Assessment of brutality and aggravating factors in murder cases. | Cited by the State to support retention of death penalty; ultimately not followed in result. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of guilt, emphasizing a chain of convincing circumstantial and scientific evidence:
- Motive: Testimony of PW-5 showed appellant’s resentment after dismissal without compensation.
- Presence at the scene: Chance fingerprints on the bedroom almirah matched the appellant’s prints; hair samples on the deceased’s clothing tallied with his hair.
- Post-crime conduct: Multiple witnesses (PWs 2, 11–13) placed the appellant near the scene in the early hours of 9-8-1999 and later travelling toward Tenkassi.
- Recovery evidence: Gold ornaments identified by relatives were recovered from PW-24 following information supplied by the appellant; the alleged weapon (MO-22) was found on the poultry-shed roof.
- Rejection of defence contentions: The Court found the elderly co-resident incapable of meaningful testimony, held the iron rod irrelevant, and accepted the State’s explanation for the absence of DNA testing.
On sentencing, the Court acknowledged the “cruel and dastardly” nature of killing a mother and three children but noted uncertainty about the exact circumstances and the appellant’s grievance over unpaid dues. Guided by cited precedents, it concluded the matter did not fall within the “rarest of rare” category.
Holding and Implications
Holding: Conviction on all counts affirmed; death sentence commuted to life imprisonment; all other sentences maintained.
Implications: The decision spares the appellant from capital punishment, substituting life imprisonment, and underscores the Court’s cautious approach to the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The ruling applies settled principles rather than creating new precedent.
Order
1. This is an appeal from jail challenging the conviction and sentence. The appellant was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 449 of the Penal Code, 1860 by the Sessions Judge, Kollam in Kerala, for having caused the death of one Sabitha Beevi and her three children Jasmin, Jiyas and Navas. The learned Sessions Judge imposed the capital punishment and the death sentence was confirmed, however, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 392 IPC was set aside, and in its place the appellant was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 380 IPC by the High Court and his sentence was reduced to three years. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and also learned Senior Counsel for the State.
2. The prosecution case reads as follows:
The deceased Sabitha Beevi, with her three children Jasmin, Jiyas and Navas, was staying at Jiyas Manzil near Ashtamudi Mukku at Kollam. Her husband Hashim died about two years prior to the incident. The appellant Rama Subramanian had been engaged by Hashim for sundry jobs at the poultry farm. The appellant was residing in a small shed constructed on the terrace of the house and was taking food from that house. After the death of Hashim, the appellant continued to work in the poultry farm and, according to prosecution, the appellant gradually developed illicit relation with the deceased Sabitha Beevi. Later, the appellant started misbehaving with the eldest daughter Jasmin, who was aged about 14 years. Jasmin brought this fact to the notice of her mother and Sabitha Beevi wanted to terminate the services of the appellant. She waited for the opportunity and it so happened that due to the negligence of the appellant, some of the chicks in the poultry farm died and there was also an allegation that the appellant committed theft of a cycle from the neighbourhood. Taking advantage of this situation, the service of the appellant was terminated.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that the appellant was enraged by the conduct of Sabitha Beevi in terminating his service and he came to the place of the incident and gained entry into the house of Sabitha Beevi in the night of 8-8-1999. PW 1, the father-in-law of Sabitha Beevi had been in the house till about 11 o'clock in the night of 8-8-1999 and he left the premises thereafter. PW 1 was staying in the house about 19 m away from the house of Sabitha Beevi. On the next day morning at 7.30 he came to the house of Sabitha Beevi in order to read the daily newspaper. He found the house closed. He searched for his daughter-in-law but there was no response. He switched on the calling bell but there was no answer and went around the house and searched in the nearby poultry farm. He went to the terrace and searched the room occupied by the appellant and the room was found open. Ultimately he pushed open the door of the house and went inside the house and found the bedroom locked. He saw the key of the bedroom under the floor mat and opened the bedroom and found the deceased Sabitha Beevi and her children Jasmin, Jiyas and Navas with multiple injuries. The deceased Sabitha Beevi and Jasmin had died by that time and Jiyas and Navas were in a serious condition. He sent another person to inform the police and the police came within a short time.
4. At about 8.30 a.m PW 1 gave the FI statement and PW 53 took over the investigation. The injured Jiyas and Navas were sent to the hospital and the dead bodies of Sabitha Beevi and Jasmin were sent post-mortem. During the course of investigation, the chance fingerprints found on the almirah kept in the bedroom were taken and other incriminating articles were seized by him. The investigating officer recovered a “lungi” and shirt from the nearby well. Later, PW 55 took over the investigation and the appellant herein was arrested on 30-3-2000. Pursuant to the information given by the appellant, series of articles were seized. They are mostly gold ornaments allegedly worn by the deceased Sabitha Beevi and Jasmin. Samples of hair were taken from the appellant and sent for forensic examination for comparison with the hair recovered from the scene of offence. MO 22, the weapon of offence, was also recovered at the instance of the appellant from the roof of the poultry shed.
5. On the side of the prosecution PWs 1 to 55 were examined and the Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to death. The court mainly relied on the evidence of the appellant being seen with the deceased and also the presence of the appellant near the place of incident after the incident and the scientific evidence produced by the prosecution in the form of comparison of the hair and the report on the chance fingerprints found at the place of occurrence. The court relied on the presence of semen found in the vaginal swab of the deceased Sabitha Beevi. The presence of bloodstains on the various articles were also taken into consideration by the court. The High Court reappreciated the entire evidence and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution could not satisfactorily prove the guilt of the accused. It was submitted that the weapon of offence was a stick having the length of 50.5 cm and the incident had happened inside the house and it was not possible for a single individual to commit the murder of four persons with such a weapon. Counsel also contended that in the near vicinity there were other houses and if the victim had made any outcry it would have been certainly heard by the neighbours and the prosecution case is thus highly improbable. Counsel pointed out that an iron rod was recovered from a corner of the house and the same might have been used as a weapon of offence and it indicated that there must have been more than one assailant. Counsel further stated that there was one more inmate in the house of Sabitha Beevi, who was the mother of PW 1 and this witness was not even questioned by the appellant and the non-examination of this witness is fatal to the prosecution case. Counsel pointed out that the most crucial evidence that could have been adduced by the prosecution was the DNA fingerprint but the samples of semen were not supplied for DNA test and the prosecution withheld the evidence of DNA test, thereby it failed to adduce evidence that could have been available to the prosecution.
7. All these contentions were rebutted by counsel for the State. It was submitted that Amin Ummal, the mother of PW 1, who was present in the house of Sabitha Beevi was aged about 94 years and there is evidence of PW 1 to the effect that Amin Ummal was deaf and dumb and she was not in a position to know what might have happened in the house. As regards recovery of iron rod recovered from the place of the incident, it was submitted that it must have had bloodstains when the appellant washed his hands immediately after the incident. As regards the DNA test, it was submitted that the sample was not suitable for DNA test and that is why it was not supplied for the DNA test.
8. The evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case satisfactorily proves that the appellant and none else has committed this crime. The appellant had been working as a servant in the house of Sabitha Beevi for about 8 to 9 years prior to the incident. He was taking food from the house and he was staying in a room on the terrace of the house. This shows that the appellant had enjoyed full freedom in the house and there is evidence to the effect that the services of the appellant were terminated prior to the incident.
9. PW 5 is an LIC agent and a close friend of the appellant. He deposed that the appellant had met him and told that his service was terminated by Sabitha Beevi and that he was not given any compensation. The appellant was very much annoyed and even told PW 5 that if he was sent away, he would not even allow Sabitha Beevi to run the poultry farm. It shows that the appellant had a strong enmity with the deceased Sabitha Beevi. There is evidence to the effect that the appellant came to the house of Sabitha Beevi on the date of the incident and there is satisfactory circumstantial evidence to show that Sabitha Beevi had also consumed liquor on that date and the appellant had sexual relation with Sabitha Beevi. There is reliable evidence to show the movement of the appellant immediately after the incident. PW 2, a tea shop owner, saw the appellant at about 3 o'clock in the morning of 9-8-1999. PW 2 used to open his tea shop at about 2.45 a.m and he identified the appellant as he saw the appellant on that day. PW 11 is an autorickshaw driver who took him to the railway station. PW 12 is another autorickshaw driver who met the appellant on that day. The appellant told him that he wanted to engage a taxi. PW 12 got the help of PW 13 who was the owner of a taxi and the appellant was driven in a taxi to Tenkassi in the morning of 9-8-1999.
10. The scientific evidence adduced by the prosecution is also very clear and convincing to prove the guilt of the appellant. The chance fingerprints found on the handle of the almirah in the bedroom of the deceased Sabitha Beevi were taken immediately after the occurrence and they were compared with the fingerprints of deceased Sabitha Beevi and Jasmin, Jiyas and Navas, but it did not tally with their fingerprints. Eight months thereafter the appellant was arrested and his fingerprints were taken and the fingerprints taken from the appellant tallied with the chance fingerprints taken from the handle of the almirah. This evidence is very crucial and convincing to show that the appellant had been in the room of the deceased Sabitha Beevi.
11. The recovery of various gold ornaments pursuant to the information given by the appellant has been satisfactorily proved by the various witnesses. The gold ornaments were recovered from PW 24 who was staying at Tenkassi. This proves that the appellant sold out all these gold ornaments and PWs 1, 4 and 14 identified these gold ornaments as that of the deceased Sabitha Beevi and her daughter Jasmin. It is also pertinent to note that certain pieces of hair were recovered from the saree and undergarments of the deceased Sabitha Beevi. These were compared with the hairs taken from the samples of the appellant and they were found to tally with each other. The recovery of weapons also is an important evidence. All these prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the Sessions Judge rightly found him guilty for the offence and the High Court was fully justified in confirming the same.
12. The appellant was sentenced to death and the counsel for the State submitted that the crime was cruel in nature and the appellant killed the three innocent children along with their mother and he deserves the death penalty, whereas the counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution could not adduce the best evidence and even if he is found guilty, his sentence is liable to be commuted to life imprisonment.
13. The counsel for the State relied on the decisions of this Court in Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2003) 12 SCC 199, Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 258 and State of Rajasthan v. Kheraj Ram (2003) 8 SCC 224 in this connection. It is true that the crime committed by the appellant is cruel and dastardly in nature and the appellant deserves no mercy. However, it may be noted that it is not known how and under what circumstances the incident had taken place on 9-8-1999. The appellant was annoyed by the fact that his services were terminated without being paid any compensation despite serving his employer for quite a long period. Taking the overall facts into consideration, we do not find that this is one of the rarest of rare cases where death sentence could be the only punishment. Therefore, the sentence of death imposed on the appellant is commuted to life imprisonment. To that extent, the appeal is allowed. However, his conviction and sentence as regards on all other counts are maintained.
Alert