'Madhu Lynching A Blot On Social Conscience & Cultural Fabric' : Kerala High Court Refuses To Suspend Sentence Of 12 Convicts

The Kerala High Court today rejected the plea for suspension of sentence of 12 convicts out of the 13 convicts in case of brutal lynching of a mentally challenged tribal youth, Madhu, to death for stealing rice from a grocery shop in Attappady in Kerala in February 2018.The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar rejected the suspension of sentence of Marakkar (2nd accused), Shamsudheen (3rd accused), Radhakrishnan (5th accused), Aboobacker (6th accused), Sidhique (7th accused), Ubaid (8th accused), Najeeb (9th accused), Jaijumon (10th accused), Sajeev (12th accused), Satheesh (13th accused), Hareesh (14th accused) and Biju (15th accused) considering the nature of act of parading the deceased naked on the public road and humiliating him. It observed that the act of the accused left a blot on the social conscience and the cultural fabric of the society. It also noted that the accused persons threatened the mother of the deceased while denying suspension of sentence. Granting suspension of sentence and bail to Hussain (1st accused), the Court noted that the first accused was not a party to the group that paraded and humiliated the deceased. It observed that a separate criterion has to be adopted while considering the suspension of sentence of the first accused as he joined later and was not part of the group that captured, paraded and confined the deceased. “ In the case of the 1st accused, there is a difference. The very allegation against him is that he joined the other assailants after the deceased was already captured him in custody and kept under confinement. Based on a solitary act that he stamped the deceased and as a consequence his head hit against a wall resulting in head injury, and that turned out to be a major cause of the death, he was found guilty. When there is no allegation that he was a party to the assembly that perpetrated harassment and ridiculing of the deceased, a different criteria is liable to be taken in his case. Accordingly, we take the view that the 1st accused, who is the petitioner in Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2023 in Crl.Appeal No.601 of 2023 is entitled to get an order of suspension of sentence, whereas the other petitioners are not.”Accused nos. 2, 3, 5 to 10 and 12 to 15 are convicted under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 367,304 Part II r/w 149 of the IPC and S.3(1)(d) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The first accused is convicted under Sections 143, 147, 323, 342, 304 Part II r/w 149 of the IPC. The Special Court did not convict the first accused guilty of the offence under the SC/ST Act.Earlier, the Kerala High Court had upheld the order of the special court that denied bail to the accused persons, except the first accused.Case title: Marakkar v State of KeralaCase number: Crl.Appeal No.598/2023 & connected casesClick Here To Read/Download The Order

'Madhu Lynching A Blot On Social Conscience & Cultural Fabric' : Kerala High Court Refuses To Suspend Sentence Of 12 Convicts

Tellmy Jolly

Tags