Palakkad Twin Murder Case: Kerala Court Awards Death Penalty To Convict Chenthamra

The Additional District and Sessions Court IV, Palakkad on Monday (July 20) awarded death penalty to Chenthamra @ Chenthamarakshan in the Nenmara (Palakkad) double murder case.

Sri. Kenneth George, Additional Sessions Judge, passed the order today, imposing the capital punishment.

On July 13, the court had found him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) [Murder] and 126(2) [Wrongful restraint] of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 based on circumstantial evidence.

It had then called for a mitigation investigation report from the Chief Legal Aid Defense Counsel and the Deputy Legal Aid Defense Counsel, Palakkad.

Later, the court heard arguments adduced by both sides on the question of sentence and perused the mitigation investigation report, District Probation Officer's report and the report of the Medical Board.

It then observed after considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances:

"Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the present matter falls squarely within the category of “rarest of rare cases.”...In the present case, the accused swooped down upon the victims in a barbaric manner. The nonchalant audacity of the assailant, who walked away after extinguishing innocent lives, calls for deterrent chastisement. This Court is satisfied that it is a fit case where nothing short of capital punishment for the offence under Section 103 of the BNS, 2023, would meet the ends of justice. The cold-blooded, savage, and barbaric murders of the victims, who had done nothing against the convict, together with the aggravating circumstances...constitute special reasons under Section 393(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, warranting the extreme penalty."

Prosecution case

The prosecution allegation was that Chenthamra committed the murder of Sudhakaran and his mother Lakshmi Amma on January 27, 2025 while he was out on bail in a 2019 crime relating to the murder of Sudhakaran's wife Sajitha. He had entered Nenmara violating the bail conditions imposed. It is alleged that Chenthamra committed the murder because he believed that Sudhakaran was the reason for his wife and his daughter separating from him.

Chenthamra had wrongfully restrained Sudhakaran while the latter was riding his motorcycle towards his house. He had then hacked Sudhakaran with a chopper on different parts of his body, causing multiple injuries that resulted in his death.

The other victim, Lakshmi Amma, had then come to the place of occurrence and she was also attacked with the same weapon, resulting in injuries that caused her death.

In October 18, 2025, the Additional Sessions Court had sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder of Sajitha.

Report of District Probation officer, Mitigation and Medical Board reports

The mitigation investigation report had opined that there is a real possibility of reformation for Chenthamara.

The court also perused the report of the District Probation Officer, who had conducted an interview with the convict. It noted that as per the report, Chenthamara had no showed any remorse for the commission of murder but was attempting to justify his action. It further noted that the report points to a likelihood of Chenthamara repeating the offence and that if circumstances permit, he may annihilate others.

The court further looked into the Psychological Evaluation report by the Medical Board, which stated that Chenthamara did not have any mental illness.

Aggravating and mitigating circumstances, rarest of rare case

The court, however, felt that the mitigating circumstances were virtually nil after examining him due to contradicting reports. In this regard, it observed:

"On 13.07.2026, this Court examined the accused with reference to the adverse reports, whereupon he specifically stated his intention to repeat the offence and his lack of inclination towards reformation....The record unmistakably demonstrates that the accused is a menace to society. There is no trace of remorse discernible in his conduct. On the contrary, he continues to defend his own cause with defiance. Though the prospect of reformation is ordinarily considered a matter of future conduct, the materials available in this case clearly establish that the chance of reformation is virtually nil. The accused, being a middle-aged person without any mental or physical disabilities, exhibits a hardened criminal disposition, unrepentant in attitude and unrestrained in action. His continued justification of his deeds, coupled with the absence of any mitigating circumstance, reinforces the conclusion that he poses a grave and continuing threat to the social order."

Considering the aggravating circumstances, the court observed:

"In the present case, the convict committed the twin murders of members of a family, leaving behind the two daughters (of one of the deceased) to the mercy of nature. The double murder was perpetrated in total disregard of the bail condition imposed in the earlier case relating to the murder of their mother, wherein the accused was specifically restrained from entering the territorial jurisdiction of Nenmmara Panchayath. Such deliberate defiance of a lawful restriction on his movement, which does not amount to a violation of his fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, and that too after prior warning by the police based on the apprehensions of frightened neighbours, including one of the deceased and the helpless daughter, constitutes a serious aggravating circumstance."

The court further noted that there was meticulous planning undertaken to commit the murders, there was sharing of intention to do so with a co-worker and that there was preparation to executing the crime as well. It also found that there is a likelihood of Chenthamra proceeding against other family members of the deceased also.

"His arrogant and spontaneous replies to queries during the sentencing stage further reveal a hardened disposition and a propensity to repeat such offences...The sequence of events, the deliberate premeditation, and the callous disregard for human life together constitute grave aggravating circumstances, warranting the most serious consideration under the doctrine of the rarest of rare," it added.

Compensation

The court directed the District Legal Services Authority to provide reasonable compensation and adequate rehabilitation to two of the minor daughters of the deceased persons, Sudhakaran and Sajitha, as well as the surviving children of Lakshmi Amma.

The Court also added that a government job needs to given to one of the daughters:

"It has emerged from the evidence that despite timely attempt by neighbours, one of the deceased...to alert the authorities regarding the illegal presence of the accused, which posed a grave threat to their lives, no effective or swift action was taken, save for a mere warning to the accused to withdraw from his house. Undoubtedly, there was a lapse in affording proper protection to the victims' family, which has now been rendered destitute.In these circumstances, the responsibility of the State does not end with the prosecution and sentencing of the offender. To ensure a measure of stability and steady income, it is incumbent upon the Government to extend rehabilitative support. This obligation includes providing suitable employment to the daughter of deceased Sudhakaran..., thereby enabling her to sustain herself and to care for her sister."

Witness protection

Noting that there were lapses in granting adequate protection to witnesses even while the convict was enlarged on bail, the court remarked that witness protection must be strengthened. It opined:

"This Court therefore emphasizes that witness protection cannot remain a mere formality. It must be actively enforced, with accountability mechanisms and periodic review. The State Government must strengthen its witness protection scheme, ensuring that victims, their families, and witnesses are afforded real and meaningful security. Effective protection is indispensable to the administration of justice, for without it, the integrity of trials and the safety of those who come forward in aid of justice stand compromised."

Case No: SC/100490/2025

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Chenthamra alias Chenthamarakshan

Public Prosecutor: Vijayakumar M.J.

Counsel for the accused: Jacob Mathew

Click to Read/Download Judgment