Madras High Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Who Pushed Former Lover In Front Of Train For Refusing Marriage

The Madras High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man who pushed his former lover in front of a moving train after she refused to marry him. While the bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice M Jothiraman agreed that the commission of murder could not be justified, the court added that the act did not fall under the category of rarest of rare. The court also noted that the accused was not beyond redemption and there was a possibility of reformation. “Considering the reports of the Probation Officer and the Superintendent of Prisons and considering the entire occurrence which is due to frustration of the accused because of failure in the love affair and the family of the deceased disowned him, we are of the view that the death sentence is not warranted and if life imprisonment is awarded, that will meet the ends of justice,” the court said. The case relates to the death of Sathya, a college student, who was pushed in front of the local train at the St. Thomas Mount Railway Station in Chennai on 13th October 2022, by the accused Sathish. Both the accused and the deceased were in a relationship. However, the family of the deceased objected to their marriage as the accused belonged to a different caste, was a drunkard, drug addict, and had no permanent job. Thereafter, the deceased's family arranged her marriage to another man. The accused thereafter kept following the deceased in an attempt to resume the relationship, and even had a quarrel with her. The accused also used to come to the railway station every day. On the day of the incident, the accused came to the railway station and in the pretext of talking over the phone, came near the deceased. He then pushed the deceased into the railway track. Though the deceased tried to get up, she was hit by the moving train, killing her on the spot. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to death by hanging and a fine of Rs. 25,000. The trial court also found him guilty under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and sentenced him to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. A reference was made by the Sessions Judge under Section 366 of CrPC to confirm the death sentence, and an appeal was filed by the accused challenging the sentence. The public prosecutor argued that the murder was a brutal one where the girl was pushed in front of a moving train for refusing to marry the accused. It was submitted that the complicity of the accused in the crime had been proved and his presence at the crime scene has also been proved through the evidence of eye witness and the CCTV footage. The prosecutor argued that the accused had come to the railway station with the intention of committing the grave crime, which was also proved. Thus, it was submitted that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the capital punishment imposed by the trial court should be confirmed. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the accused that the case did not require capital punishment. It was submitted that the accused did not have an intention to commit the crime and that the act was due to a momentary loss of sanity and reasoning. It was submitted that the act was due to the sustained provocation and a fit of anger. Thus, it was submitted that the mental and emotional aspect of the accused should also be taken note of and that it was a fit case where the sentence of capital punishment could be set aside. On perusing the materials, the court noted that the accused committed the act knowing that it was imminently dangerous and that his act would cause death or would cause bodily injury resulting in death. The court thus observed that the act of the accused would fall within the ambit of Section 300 of IPC. The court added that merely because the deceased refused to marry him, it did not give the accused a license to commit such an act of murder. The court added that though the accused was under frustration, it did not give him any authority to take another person's life. “The right to marry a person of one's choice is a fundamental right. Merely because the deceased did not like to marry the accused will not give a licence to the accused to commit such an act of murder. Though the accused might have been under frustration to cause such drastic act by committing murder by pushing the deceased on the railway track, particularly knowing well that the train is approaching the station, he has no authority to take another's life. The commission of murder cannot be justified under any circumstances,” the court said. The court added that the act of the accused did not fall under any of the exceptions and he was liable to be punished under Section 302. At the same time, noting that there was no harassment involved...

Madras High Court Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Who Pushed Former Lover In Front Of Train For Refusing Marriage

Upasana Sajeev

Tags