Madras HC Upholds Conviction Of Man Accused Of Killing His Son For Being ‘Road Block For His Sexual Journey Towards His Wife’ [Read Judgment]
The son exposed his own life to fatality, fit enough to be a sacrifice, sufficient to save his mother from her tormentor for a considerable period, but not sufficient to save his own life, the bench observed.
The Madras High Court recently upheld the conviction of a man accused of killing his own son.
A bench headed by Justice S Vimala termed the case as a rare case where the father has allegedly murdered the son and in respect of the same, the wife of the accused is the main witness.
The bench began its judgment thus: “The son, the hapless and innocent, as he was, earned the enmity of his evil incarnate father, just because of his efforts in eroding the chances of erotic encounters of his father with his elusive life partner, whose cause and concern the son believed to be espousing. Thus, the son exposed his own life to fatality, fit enough to be a sacrifice, sufficient to save his mother from her tormentor for a considerable period, but not sufficient to save his own life.”
The prosecution case was that the accused used to sexually abuse his wife and he believed that his son is the roadblock for his sexual journey towards his wife. It was this which made him kill his son. The wife lodged the complaint before the police and deposed as witness before the trial court which found the accused guilty.
Perusing the evidence on record, the high court observed that the evidence of wife in fact is corroborated by the evidence of the minor daughter as well as by the neighbour. “In Indian context, it is very difficult to hear the wife deposing against the husband, especially when the financial background is poor and there are children to be maintained. There is nothing to suspect the evidence of the wife to be out of vengeance. The evidence of wife in fact is corroborated by the evidence of the minor daughter as well as by the neighbour. Under the circumstances, the evidence of the wife convinces the mind of this Court that it was only the accused, who had committed the murder of his son,” the bench said.
With respect to the contention that as the injury caused is only one and there was no intention to murder, the bench observed that the injury is caused by using a deadly weapon and that injury had been caused on the vital part of the body, namely, on the head. “When the role of the father is bound to give protection to children, the conduct of the accused is otherwise. History shows a father in BABUR the founder of the Mogul Empire, who worshipped the God to cut short his life in lieu of giving fresh lease of life to his ailing son Humayun, which was granted by the God, ending his life in 1530 A.D. Such is the glory of paternal instinct and filial piety. But here for the sake of well-being of his mother, a son asserts and his father kills him,” the bench remarked.
The bench further observed: “The eldest son, who doomed to be a victim in this case could have no understanding about this urge displayed by his father towards his mother, possibly because of his infantile imagination, confining the nocturnal overtures shown by his father only to the realm of torture / harassment alone, to the exclusion of everything we normally associate with this kind of behaviour, namely, passion, desire, love, lust etc., and this explains his taking sides with his mother, erroneously imagining his father as his sworn enemy, to which role, the accused, eventually, moves gradually, till his son is finished off forever.”Read the Order Here