{"id":333526,"date":"2024-03-08T19:20:11","date_gmt":"2024-03-08T13:50:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=333526"},"modified":"2024-03-08T19:20:11","modified_gmt":"2024-03-08T13:50:11","slug":"tp-chandrasekharan-murder-supreme-court-cpim-ldf-kannur-kozhikode","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/magazine\/tp-chandrasekharan-murder-supreme-court-cpim-ldf-kannur-kozhikode\/","title":{"rendered":"Kerala\u2019s Killing Fields"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

As the Kerala High Court sentences the killers of Marxist leader to 20 years of rigorous life imprisonment, it triggers adebate on what constitutes \u201crarest of the rare\u201d killing and who\u00a0 qualifies for the death penalty<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

By Sanjay Raman Sinha<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Revolutionary Marxist Party leader TP Chandrasekharan was brutally murdered on May 4, 2012, in Onchiyam, Kozhikode. A Division Bench of Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Kauser Edappagath of the Kerala High Court recently upheld the life imprisonment awarded to 10 of the 11 people convicted for the murder. The murder was chilling as the hoodlums had hacked Chandrasekharan\u2019s body, which bore 51 wounds. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court held that it was not sufficient to impose a sentence of simple life imprisonment, given the barbaric nature of the crime. The Court also clarified that nine of these convicts will have to undergo at least 20 years of imprisonment before they can even apply for a remission of their sentence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case was at first heard at the Sessions Court of Kozhikode division in 2014. The Sessions Court had recognised the gravity of the crime and had said: \u201cThe murder in this case was cold-blooded, pre-planned and brutal. The motive of the crime was not any personal enmity. The manner in which the murder was committed reveals extreme depravity. The action of the accused was not only inhuman, but also ruthless and barbaric. It shocks not only the judicial conscience, but the collective conscience of the society.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the Sessions Court stopped short of awarding death penalty to the convicts and gave them life sentences, instead. The lower court cited a series of judgments in which similar murder cases were heard and imprisonment was awarded instead of the death sentence. The Court based its verdict on the doctrine of the \u201crarest of the rare\u201d as propounded in the historical Bachan Singh case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the case of Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court gave the \u201crarest of the rare\u201d doctrine. The doctrine stated that the death punishment is an absolute, unique exception, and cannot be the rule. The crime done by the accused must be base and inhuman enough to justify the death penalty, and death penalty should not be given in every situation. The doctrine worked out a test to decide on awards of the death punishment to a criminal if found guilty for a particular crime. The conditions laid down by the Court were:<\/p>\n\n\n\n