Muthukutty Chandran Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 1800 of 1990
Petitioner: Muthukutty Chandran
Respondent: State of Kerala & Anr.
Apeal: Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 1800 of 1990
Judges: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN & K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 26, 1991
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Practice and Procedure
Death sentence – ‘Ripper killings’ – PIL – Reopening of case on the plea that ‘ripper killings’ still took place even after arrest of the M, the accused and that matter be handed over to CBI for further investigation – Sentence of death reached finality on confirmation by the Court – Held that plea for reopening of case was totally misconceived and incomprehensive.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. A letter dated 21.10.90 addressed by one Shri. V. Jayaprasad who defended the condemned prisoner, Muthukutty Chandran before the High Court is treated as a Writ Petition. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct an investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to determine the number of ‘ripper model murders’ that have occurred after the condemned prisoner was arrested and further to investigate whether all the ripper model cases are committed “by the Ripper inside the jail or outside the jail”, and to release the said condemned prisoner who is now detained in Cannanore Central Prison, Cannanore District, Kerala State.
2. The condemned prisoner, Muthukutty Chandran @ Surendran @ Ramesh Pujari had been tried for various offences in the Court of Sessions, Kasargod and convicted under Sections 449, 458, 382, 392, 397, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death for his conviction under section 302 IPC and to various terms of imprisonment for the other convictions. According to the prosecution, the said Muthukutty Chandran on 10.10.85 after sunset, committed house trespass by entering into the dwelling house of one Narasappayya Hande and brutally murdered Narasappayya Hande, his servant Viswanathan by attacking them while they were sleeping with a deadly weapon, namely, a pick axe (MO 1) and attempted to cause the death of Indira (PW 13) by causing hurt to her and committed robbery of ornaments belonging to Indira. The Trial Court for awarding the extreme penalty of law has given the special reasons, as follows:-
“It is an unprovoked dastardly double murder. Narasappaya Hande was sleeping alone with his wife in the kitchen. After days work a coolly Viswanathan was sleeping in the out house of Narasappayya Hande. They were given blows to death. The crime would shock the conscience of the community and infliction of death penalty on the accused is the just and proper punishment for the continuous peaceful community life. The murder was committed for gain of ornaments. The crime is of the rarest of rare attracting the extreme penalty provided by law. Two innocent unarmed defenceless persons put to death by a brute for committing theft. Both of them were done away while they were sleeping peacefully at night. This crime arose social wrath.”
3. On a reference made by the Trial Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Referred Trial No.6/87 was registered before the High Court. The accused challenging his conviction, preferred Criminal Appeal No.311/87. The High Court by its judgment dated 29.7.88 dismissed the Criminal Appeal and disposed the Referred Trial confirming the sentence of death imposed on the accused Muthukutty Chandran. For confirming the death sentence, the High Court has recorded the following reasons:
“Blows were delivered mainly on the region of the head. Motive was only gain and nothing else. The manner of attack was brutal and sadistically cruel. They were attacked first and then we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that this is one of the rarest of rare cases where the ultimate penalty prescribed by law must necessarily be imposed. We confirm the sentence of death.”
4. Challenging the judgment of the High Court, the said Muthukutty Chandran preferred Criminal Appeal No.231/89 before this court which was disposed of on 3.4.89 by a Bench of this Court to which one of us (S. Ratnavel Pandian,J.) was a party. The order of this Court reads as follows.
“The murder of the two persons is one of the rarest of rare cases as has been rightly held by the Courts below and as such, in our considered opinion, the sentence of death is called for. We, therefore, confirm the order of conviction and punishment awarded by the Courts below. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.”
5. Thereafter, an application for stay of the execution of the death sentence was filed. This Court granted stay by an order dated 21.5.90 staying the execution of death sentence but ultimately that application was dismissed on 20th August 1990, by a Bench of this Court. It appeals from the records that on 23.10.90, a message was sent to the Secretary, (Home), Government of Kerala by the Home Department, Government of India, New Delhi asking to stay the execution of the death sentence till the mercy petition of Muthukutty Chandran forwarded by the State Government was disposed of by the Home Ministry. The said message reads as follows:
“The Government of India in their message No. 9/2/90-JUDL dated 23.10.1990 has intimated that the mercy petition of the condemned prisoner 6411 Muthukutty Chandran is under study and hence directed to stay the execution until the mercy petition is disposed off by that Ministry.”
6. Again a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7374/90 was filed for stay of execution of sentence of death of the condemned prisoner Muthukutty Chandran, but the said application was also dismissed on 24.10.1990 by a Bench of this Court.
7. While the matter stood thus, the above mentioned Shri Jayaprasad, Advocate has sent the letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court, who directed the Registry to treat the letter as a writ petition and also stayed the execution of the death sentence on 26.10.1990.
8. Alongwith the letter, certain newspaper clippings are also annexed. One letter dated 22.10.90 has also been addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice by the said Jayaprasad. In the letter dated 21.10.1990, it is stated that even after the arrest of Muthukutty Chandran, a number of “ripper model killings” have been committed and the ‘real ripper’ is at large and 5 cases of ripper model killings are pending trial and, therefore, in the present circumstances an investigation by CBI may be directed to determine the number of ripper model murders that have occurred after the arrest of Chandran, and prayed for the release of Muthukutty Chandran. The serious averment made in the letter dated 22.10.90 is that the author of the letter, namely, Jayaprasad had an occasion to travel with Mr. M. Sudhakaran, District Judge who tried the case of the condemned prisoner and the said District Judge told him that the evidence adduced by the prosecution as against Muthukutty Chandran was fabricated but he gave the capital punishment as the crime was very heinous and shocking.
9. The learned counsel appearing in this writ petition, Mr. S. Murlidhar submits that he is not pressing the ground taken in the signed letter of Jayaprasad dated 22.10.1990 as well the prayer for release of the condemned prisoner but would request the Court to direct an investigation by the CBI relating to the reports of the ‘ripper model murders’ that are being committed in the borders of Karnataka and Kerala States. Learned counsel further forcibly contends before us that this fresh material that frequent recurrence of ‘ripper type of murders’ being committed in the border area of Karnataka and Kerala State was not available at the time when the SLP was disposed of and, therefore, in view of the availability of the said fact, the conclusion in the SLP must be re-opened by way of a review and the entire matter may be examined afresh if not for an acquittal but atleast for the alteration of the sentence. In support of his submission, he relies on the paper cuttings and nothing more. The above submission of Mr. Murli Dhar has to be rejected for more than one reason. Firstly, nowhere either in the judgment of the Trial Court or of the High Court, the condemned prisoner Muthukutty Chandran has been characterised as ‘ripper murderer’ nor the murders committed by Muthukutty Chandran are characterised as ‘model of ripper killings’. When it is so, it is highly inconceivable that the newspaper report of ‘ripper model killings’ and the murders committed by Muthukutty Chandran are of the same pattern warranting any investigation by CBI. Secondly, when the case has reached its finality with the confirmation of the sentence of death on its merit, the present submission of the learned counsel for re-opening the case in our considered opinion, is totally misconceived and incomprehensive. Hence, the prayers in the petition are liable to be dismissed as devoid of any merit. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
10. Now it is brought to our notice that a mercy petition is pending before the Home ministry, New Delhi and the execution of death sentence is stayed by the Home Ministry. Hence we direct the Home Ministry, New Delhi to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without causing any further delay in the matter but at the same time without being influenced by any of our observations made on justification of this order.
11. The Writ Petition is dismissed subject to above observations.
1. A letter dated 21.10.90 addressed by one Shri. V. Jayaprasad who defended the condemned prisoner, Muthukutty Chandran before the High Court is treated as a Writ Petition. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct an investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to determine the number of ‘ripper model murders’ that have occurred after the condemned prisoner was arrested and further to investigate whether all the ripper model cases are committed “by the Ripper inside the jail or outside the jail”, and to release the said condemned prisoner who is now detained in Cannanore Central Prison, Cannanore District, Kerala State.
2. The condemned prisoner, Muthukutty Chandran @ Surendran @ Ramesh Pujari had been tried for various offences in the Court of Sessions, Kasargod and convicted under Sections 449, 458, 382, 392, 397, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death for his conviction under section 302 IPC and to various terms of imprisonment for the other convictions. According to the prosecution, the said Muthukutty Chandran on 10.10.85 after sunset, committed house trespass by entering into the dwelling house of one Narasappayya Hande and brutally murdered Narasappayya Hande, his servant Viswanathan by attacking them while they were sleeping with a deadly weapon, namely, a pick axe (MO 1) and attempted to cause the death of Indira (PW 13) by causing hurt to her and committed robbery of ornaments belonging to Indira. The Trial Court for awarding the extreme penalty of law has given the special reasons, as follows:-
“It is an unprovoked dastardly double murder. Narasappaya Hande was sleeping alone with his wife in the kitchen. After days work a coolly Viswanathan was sleeping in the out house of Narasappayya Hande. They were given blows to death. The crime would shock the conscience of the community and infliction of death penalty on the accused is the just and proper punishment for the continuous peaceful community life. The murder was committed for gain of ornaments. The crime is of the rarest of rare attracting the extreme penalty provided by law. Two innocent unarmed defenceless persons put to death by a brute for committing theft. Both of them were done away while they were sleeping peacefully at night. This crime arose social wrath.”
3. On a reference made by the Trial Court under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Referred Trial No.6/87 was registered before the High Court. The accused challenging his conviction, preferred Criminal Appeal No.311/87. The High Court by its judgment dated 29.7.88 dismissed the Criminal Appeal and disposed the Referred Trial confirming the sentence of death imposed on the accused Muthukutty Chandran. For confirming the death sentence, the High Court has recorded the following reasons:
“Blows were delivered mainly on the region of the head. Motive was only gain and nothing else. The manner of attack was brutal and sadistically cruel. They were attacked first and then we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that this is one of the rarest of rare cases where the ultimate penalty prescribed by law must necessarily be imposed. We confirm the sentence of death.”
4. Challenging the judgment of the High Court, the said Muthukutty Chandran preferred Criminal Appeal No.231/89 before this court which was disposed of on 3.4.89 by a Bench of this Court to which one of us (S. Ratnavel Pandian,J.) was a party. The order of this Court reads as follows.
“The murder of the two persons is one of the rarest of rare cases as has been rightly held by the Courts below and as such, in our considered opinion, the sentence of death is called for. We, therefore, confirm the order of conviction and punishment awarded by the Courts below. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.”
5. Thereafter, an application for stay of the execution of the death sentence was filed. This Court granted stay by an order dated 21.5.90 staying the execution of death sentence but ultimately that application was dismissed on 20th August 1990, by a Bench of this Court. It appeals from the records that on 23.10.90, a message was sent to the Secretary, (Home), Government of Kerala by the Home Department, Government of India, New Delhi asking to stay the execution of the death sentence till the mercy petition of Muthukutty Chandran forwarded by the State Government was disposed of by the Home Ministry. The said message reads as follows:
“The Government of India in their message No. 9/2/90-JUDL dated 23.10.1990 has intimated that the mercy petition of the condemned prisoner 6411 Muthukutty Chandran is under study and hence directed to stay the execution until the mercy petition is disposed off by that Ministry.”
6. Again a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7374/90 was filed for stay of execution of sentence of death of the condemned prisoner Muthukutty Chandran, but the said application was also dismissed on 24.10.1990 by a Bench of this Court.
7. While the matter stood thus, the above mentioned Shri Jayaprasad, Advocate has sent the letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court, who directed the Registry to treat the letter as a writ petition and also stayed the execution of the death sentence on 26.10.1990.
8. Alongwith the letter, certain newspaper clippings are also annexed. One letter dated 22.10.90 has also been addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice by the said Jayaprasad. In the letter dated 21.10.1990, it is stated that even after the arrest of Muthukutty Chandran, a number of “ripper model killings” have been committed and the ‘real ripper’ is at large and 5 cases of ripper model killings are pending trial and, therefore, in the present circumstances an investigation by CBI may be directed to determine the number of ripper model murders that have occurred after the arrest of Chandran, and prayed for the release of Muthukutty Chandran. The serious averment made in the letter dated 22.10.90 is that the author of the letter, namely, Jayaprasad had an occasion to travel with Mr. M. Sudhakaran, District Judge who tried the case of the condemned prisoner and the said District Judge told him that the evidence adduced by the prosecution as against Muthukutty Chandran was fabricated but he gave the capital punishment as the crime was very heinous and shocking.
9. The learned counsel appearing in this writ petition, Mr. S. Murlidhar submits that he is not pressing the ground taken in the signed letter of Jayaprasad dated 22.10.1990 as well the prayer for release of the condemned prisoner but would request the Court to direct an investigation by the CBI relating to the reports of the ‘ripper model murders’ that are being committed in the borders of Karnataka and Kerala States. Learned counsel further forcibly contends before us that this fresh material that frequent recurrence of ‘ripper type of murders’ being committed in the border area of Karnataka and Kerala State was not available at the time when the SLP was disposed of and, therefore, in view of the availability of the said fact, the conclusion in the SLP must be re-opened by way of a review and the entire matter may be examined afresh if not for an acquittal but atleast for the alteration of the sentence. In support of his submission, he relies on the paper cuttings and nothing more. The above submission of Mr. Murli Dhar has to be rejected for more than one reason. Firstly, nowhere either in the judgment of the Trial Court or of the High Court, the condemned prisoner Muthukutty Chandran has been characterised as ‘ripper murderer’ nor the murders committed by Muthukutty Chandran are characterised as ‘model of ripper killings’. When it is so, it is highly inconceivable that the newspaper report of ‘ripper model killings’ and the murders committed by Muthukutty Chandran are of the same pattern warranting any investigation by CBI. Secondly, when the case has reached its finality with the confirmation of the sentence of death on its merit, the present submission of the learned counsel for re-opening the case in our considered opinion, is totally misconceived and incomprehensive. Hence, the prayers in the petition are liable to be dismissed as devoid of any merit. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
10. Now it is brought to our notice that a mercy petition is pending before the Home ministry, New Delhi and the execution of death sentence is stayed by the Home Ministry. Hence we direct the Home Ministry, New Delhi to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without causing any further delay in the matter but at the same time without being influenced by any of our observations made on justification of this order.
11. The Writ Petition is dismissed subject to above observations.
