In the TP Chandrashekharan murder case, the Kerala High Court imposed life imprisonment without remission to nine convicts (A1 – Anoop, A2 - Manoj @ Kirmani Manoj, A3 – N.K.Sunil Kumar @ Kodi Suni, A4 – T.K.Rajeesh, A5 – K.K.Muhammed Shafi, A6 – S.Sijith, A7 – K.Shinoj, A8 – K.C.Ramachandran, A11 – Manojan). The Court also sentenced 3 convicts (A10-K K Krishnan, A12-Geothi Babu, A18-P V Rafeek) to life imprisonment without curtailing their right to remission.These convicts have been awarded the punishment for the offences of murder and criminal conspiracy under Sections 300 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code respectively. It also upheld imprisonment of three years to A31 under Section 201 IPC.TP Chandrashekaran, the leader of the Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP) was murdered due to political rivalry on May 4, 2012.“While the crime would certainly rank as a heinous one committed against the victim TP Chandrasekharan, it is also one that threatens to undermine the democratic principles by which the people of the country as a whole has chosen to be governed by. Crimes which 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 the society that is governed by the rule of law. While there is under this an element of public interest that is to be safeguarded through the prescription of punishment for the crime, any crime that is committed with the 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.", stated the Bench. The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Kauser Edappagath stated that stricter terms of life imprisonment would strike a balance between the conflicting interests of the accused and the rights of the victim for serving the ends of justice. It stated that a stricter, fixed and modified punishment of life imprisonment would instil confidence in the minds of the community at large.“we are of the view 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 strictly and sternly to crimes virtually causing an attack on democracy itself……..by showing undue leniency to accused will adversely affect public confidence and efficacy of our legal system. Under these circumstances, while we desist from awarding death sentence, we find it just and proper that A1-A8, 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 then they shall be entitled to release on remission only after they complete twenty years of actual sentence.”Considering the age and medical ailments of accused no. 10 and 12, the Court sentenced A10 and A12 to life imprisonment, without curtailing their right to remission. It also upheld the punishment imposed by the Trial Court on A18 and A31.The Court stated that it would not term the murder as rarest of rare cases, warranting capital punishment. "In our jurisprudence, the death sentence is only reserved for those cases that qualify as the rarest of the rare. when the facts and circumstances proved against the accused before us clearly point out their abhorrent and despicable conduct, we would not go far as to categorize it as the rarest of the rare so as to impose the death sentence on them.”Last week, the Court had dismissed the appeals of the convicts against the order of conviction passed by the trial court. The Court also reversed the acquittal of two other accused. The Court posted the matter yesterday for hearing on the sentence.Case title: K C Ramachandran v State of Kerala & Connected MattersCase number: Crl.A Nos. 172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339, 403, 892 of 2014 and Crl.Appeal (Victim) No.571 of 2015
