The Madras High Court has commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of pushing his former lover in front of a moving train after she refused to marry him. The bench agreed that the act amounted to murder, but held that the case did not qualify as among the “rarest of rare,” and observed that the accused was not beyond redemption and could possibly be reformed. The court considered reports from a probation officer and the prison superintendent, and also took into account the accused’s young age, lack of previous criminal history, and potential for rehabilitation. Accordingly, the court replaced the death sentence with life imprisonment, directing that the convict not be eligible for any statutory remission or commutation until he serves at least twenty years in prison.
The case arose from the death of a college‑student woman, who was pushed in front of a local train at the St. Thomas Mount Railway Station in Chennai on 13 October 2022 by the accused, identified as Sathish. The victim and the accused had been in a relationship, but the victim’s family disapproved of the match, deeming the accused unfit because of his caste, alleged alcoholism, drug use, lack of stable employment, and no permanent earnings. Following the family’s arrangement of her marriage to another man, the accused allegedly continued to stalk the victim, following her to college and the railway station. On the day of the incident, he approached her under the pretext of speaking on the phone, and suddenly pushed her onto the tracks just as a train was arriving. She was struck by the train and died on the spot.
At trial, after evaluating oral and documentary evidence including eyewitness testimony and CCTV footage, the court found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder. The trial court imposed the death penalty by hanging, along with a fine, and also convicted him under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The death sentence was referred to the High Court for confirmation, while the accused filed an appeal challenging the quantum of punishment.
In its decision, the High Court acknowledged that while the crime was heinous, capital punishment was not warranted. It noted that while the accused had committed the murder deliberately and could not claim any right to take the life of another even under provocation or frustration, the principles of sentencing require consideration of reformation and reintegration into society when possible. The court therefore concluded that life imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.
While commuting the sentence, the court also set aside the conviction under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, but retained the portion of the trial court’s judgment awarding compensation to the younger sisters of the deceased. The court’s order underscores that though the crime is grave and punishable under law, the death sentence is reserved for only the most exceptional cases, and courts must balance retributive justice with the possibility of reform.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.