2025:MHC:2712 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 18.11.2025 Pronounced on : 27.11.2025 CORAM : The Hon’ble Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and The Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.JOTHIRAMAN R.T.No.1 of 2025 and Crl.A.No.1744 of 2025 R.T.No.1 of 2025 : The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai. Vs. .. Referring officer Sathish Crl.A.No.1744 of 2025 : .. Respondent D.Sathish .. Appellant Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Integrated Crime Unit-I, Crime Branch – Criminal Investigation Department, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. Crime No.07 of 2022 .. Respondent R.T.No.1 of 2025 : Referred Trial under section 366 Cr.P.C. on the judgment and order dated 27.12.2024 made in Sessions Case No.194 of 2023 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai. Crl.A.No.1744 of 2025 has been filed under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27.12.2024 in S.C.No.194 of 2023 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai. For respondent in RT and for appellant in Criminal Appeal For Respondent : Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Advocate for Mr.J.B.Soloman Peter Kamal Dos in Criminal Appeal : Mr.Hasan Mohamad Jinnah, State Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.A.Damodaran, Addl. PP and Mr.S.Santhosh, GA and Ms.M.Sumi Arnica and Mr.S.Arun Pandi and Mr.A.Mohammed Imran and Ms.A.Safra – – – – COMMON JUDGEMENT N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. Referred Trial No.1 of 2025 is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam under Section 366 of Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the capital punishment of death sentence awarded to the accused in S.C.No.194 of 2023 by a judgment dated 27.12.2024. 2.Criminal Appeal No.1744 of 2025 has been filed by the accused under section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging his conviction and sentence in the above sessions case. The appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows : Conviction Sentence Section 302 IPC Sentenced to death and be hanged by the neck till he is dead subject to confirmation by the Hon’ble High Court and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment. Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 Sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment The trial court has also ordered that out of the fine amount of Rs.35,000/- to be paid by the accused, Rs.25,000/- shall be given as compensation to the younger sisters of the deceased under section 357(1)(c) of Cr.P.C, after the expiry of the appeal time and after the disposal of the appeal if any filed. The trial court has also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the younger sisters of the deceased, as compensation from the Tamil Nadu State Government within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the judgment as mentioned in Section 357A of Cr.P.C. 3.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: 3.1.The deceased Sathya and P.Ws.1,2 and 3 were college mates. The accused and deceased were in love affairs for some period. The deceased and P.Ws.1 to 3 were studying in Shri Shankarlal Sundarbai Shasun Jain College for Women. The deposition of P.W.1 is that the accused used to come to the college to see the deceased. He used to call the deceased frequently over phone and involved in altercation with the deceased. The deceased also informed P.W.1 Dharani that the family members of the accused also requested to marry him. However, the the family members of the deceased did not agree for the same on the ground that the accused belongs to different caste, besides he is also a drunkard and a drug addict and has no permanent job. That apart, he is also 10 years elder than the deceased. Therefore, the parents of the deceased did not agree for the marriage and they decided to marry the deceased to one Rahul. Thereafter, the deceased was not in talking terms with the accused. The accused also used to follow the deceased even after the relationship with the deceased fell apart. P.W.1 has also deposed that P.W.1 and the deceased used to travel in suburban train. They used to board the train at St. Thomas Mount railway station. The accused also used to visit the deceased in St. Thomas Mount railway station and P.W.1 has also seen the accused beating the deceased. In the month of September, 2022, while P.W.1 and deceased were sitting in the railway station, the accused came and requested P.W.1 by prostrating to make the deceased to speak to him. He was in the habit of coming to the railway station for many times and following the deceased. The accused has also set up a DP in his phone indicating that “Sathish loves Sathya we are married”. As the accused frequently follow the deceased, a police complaint has also been given against the accused which is Ex.P.7 with P.W.19, Sub Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount. P.W.19 enquired the accused and he has also given an undertaking that he will not involve in such things hereafter and accordingly, the accused was warned. Ex.P.8 is the CSR Receipt No.243 of 2022. The mother of the deceased Ramalakshmi has also requested the Inspector of Police of St. Thomas Mount police station not to take any further action which is marked as Ex.X.1. The undertaking given by the accused is marked as Ex.P.9. The undertaking given by the uncle of the accused is marked as Ex.P.12. As the two families have given undertakings, the case has been closed under Ex.P.28. 3.2.It is the deposition of P.W.1 that on 12.10.2022 at about 12.30 p.m., as usual, the deceased has reached the railway station prior to the arrival of P.W.1 and when P.W.1 saw the deceased, she panicked and when P.W.1 enquired the deceased, the deceased informed her that the accused came and stared at her and on the same day around 6.00 p.m., the accused was standing in front of the college. On 13.10.2022, as usual around 12.40 p.m., P.W.1 reached the railway station and the deceased Sathya also was coming to the railway station. She was covering her face with mask. At that time, the accused came to the railway station and was sitting in the chair near the staircase in the railway station. The accused also came near to the place where P.W.1 and deceased were standing. The accused pretending as if he was speaking to some one over the phone, came towards the deceased and P.W.1. By that time, an announcement was also made in respect of the arrival of the train from Tambaram to Beach and the train was also arriving. When the accused came near to the deceased, the deceased asked him by gesturing her hand as to why he came here. At that moment, by pretending as if he was speaking to some one over phone, the accused came near to the deceased and pushed her on the track. The deceased fell down and before she got up, the train ran over the deceased. The accused ran away from the place of occurrence. P.W.1 and others in the station have chased him but they could not succeed in their attempt. The deceased died on the spot and her body parts were scattered. Immediately P.W.1 informed P.W.2 and other college mates about the incident. They also reached the railway station. 3.3.Thereafter, P.W.1 informed the officials in the railway station that the mother and aunt of the deceased were working as Writer in the Alandur Police station and the officials informed about the incident to Alandur police station. After some time, the aunt of the deceased also came there. Thereafter, the police officials came from the Mambalam police station and enquired about the incident and P.W.1 gave a complaint which was marked as Ex.P.1. The phone of the deceased was identified by P.W.1 which was marked as M.O.1 and the dresses worn by the deceased were marked as M.Os.2 to 5. On the date of occurrence, the accused was wearing a white colour shirt and black colour pant which were identified by the P.W.1 and they were marked as M.O.6 and M.O.7. The spectacles worn by the accused was identified by P.W.1 and the same was marked as M.O.8. The photographs of the deceased which were taken after the incident were marked as Ex.P.2 series. The CCTV footages in the pendrive which were shown to P.W.1 were marked as M.O.9. 3.4.P.W.2 Arthi also on receipt of the information from P.W.1 rushed to the spot and she was also enquired by the police officials. P.W.3, Shalini who is also a college mate of P.Ws.1 and 2 and deceased, has deposed that she also knows the accused since the deceased had love affair with the accused. The deceased also informed P.W.3 that her family had arranged her marriage with some one and that she did not talk to the accused. P.W.4, Kanchana, who is the aunt of the deceased has deposed that she was working as I Grade Constable in the Vigilance and Anti corruption Department. The deceased is her sister’s daughter. According to her, the father of the accused was a retired police man and they are residing in the same police quarters. On 16.05.2022, they decided to marry the deceased to one Rahul, who is the son of P.W.4’s brother. On 20.05.2022, a friend of the deceased Monisha called her around 2.30 pm or 3.00 pm informing her that the accused came to the college, created ruckus and beat the deceased. The sister of P.W.4 and mother of the deceased Ramalakshmi gave a complaint Ex.P.7 to the St. Thomas mount police station. The accused was called by the police and he has also given an undertaking that he will not involve in such activities which is marked as Ex.P.9. The mother of the accused has also given an undertaking Ex.P.10. The sister of the accused has also given an undertaking which was marked as Ex.P.11. The accused’s sister’s husband has also given an undertaking which was marked as Ex.P.12. A complaint was also given to the jurisdictional police station, namely Mambalam Police station by the sister of P.W.4 which was marked as Ex.P.13. The accused has prostrated before the mother of the deceased and sought apology. The FIR against the accused was registered under section 75 of the City Police Act and the accused was warned and let off. Thereafter, on 13.10.2022, P.W.4 on receiving information from her mother, went to the railway station and has seen the dead body of the deceased. 3.5.P.W.5 is a uncle of deceased Sathya. He has deposed that on 13.10.2022 when he was working in Egmore Police Station, he received information from his wife that the deceased was pushed down on the train. So, he rushed to the St. Thomas Mount railway station and as the dead body was not there, he went to Mambalam Railway police station and it was informed that the dead body of the deceased was sent to the Government hospital. Later at about 01.30 a.m., the father of the deceased died due to heart attack. 3.6.P.W.6 is the wife of P.W.5. According to her, she was also informed by the mother of the deceased about the previous complaint given against the accused. She also rushed to the spot after hearing the news of death of the deceased. P.W.7 is the person in whose presence the police has prepared Ex.P.14 observation mahazar and the police has also recovered from the place of occurrence a chain, one pair of ear stud, bracelet, identity card, air pods, books and water bottle and the same were recovered under a seizure mahazar Ex.P.15. P.Ws.8 and 9 who were the persons, have lifted the dead body in the railway station and sent the same to the hospital through ambulance and in their presence also, the observation mahazar Ex.P.14 was prepared. Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.17 are the signatures of P.Ws.8 and 9 in the observation mahazar. 3.7.P.W.10 who is the Revenue Inspector in whose presence the confession of accused was recorded by the Investigating Officer. The signature of P.W.10 is marked as Ex.P.18. In pursuance of the same, the purse of the accused, rail tickets, photo of the accused, the photo of the deceased and a Sai Babu statute were all seized under seizure mahazar Ex.P.19. Ex.P.20 are rail tickets. The brown colour purse with passport size photo of deceased and accused was marked as M.O.10 and M.O.11 is the small Saibaba statute. M.Os.6 and 7 dresses of the accused were also seized by the police. 3.8.P.W.11 is the loco pilot. He was in-charge of the train No.40068 from Tambaram to Beach. At about 12.32 hours, he started the train from Tambaram railway station and around 12.55 hours, the rain reached the St. Thomas Mount railway station. At that time, the speed of the train was around 30 – 35 kms and one girl fell down on the train and was run over. P.W.12 was the train manager of the train bearing No.40068. He deposed that the train was suddenly stopped by applying brake at around 12.55 hours by P.W.11 and he found the dead body of the deceased. 3.9.P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police, working in the railway protection force, rushed to the spot on seeing the dead body and he has also verified the CCTV and the time was recorded as 13.37 hours, the time has not been reflected properly and the time was shown 43 minutes in advance in the CCTV camera. The CCTV footages downloaded by P.W.13 and the CD was marked as M.O.12 and the pendrive M.O.9 was shown and identified by him. He has issued production memo and certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which was marked as Ex.P.22. Ex.P.23 photograph taken by him was marked. Ex.P.24 is the certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P.25 is the production memo. 3.10.P.W.14, the railway points man, has also seen the deceased being run over by the train. P.W.15, Chief Ticket Inspector of St. Thomas Railway Station at that time, has also seen the dead body and he has also seen P.W.1 was crying and weeping. P.W.16, Commercial Supervisor of St. Thomas Mount railway station, has identified the tickets Ex.P.20 issued by his office. P.W.17 is the person who had earlier resided in the police quarters, in his deposition has stated that he has seen the deceased Sathya and the accused Sathish going together on one day, i.e., four years prior to the date of occurrence and he has informed the same to the grand mother of the deceased. 3.11.P.W.18 is the Electrician and Plumber and is also residing in the police quarters. The accused was working under P.W.18 for some time. He was also aware of the complaint given against the accused by the family of the deceased in the Mambalam police station during the month of May, 2022 and therefore, the accused did not come to job for two days and thereafter, the accused came to the job and later, the accused did not come for work from 08.10.2022 and thereafter, he came to know about the occurrence. 3.12.P.W.19, Sub Inspector of Police at St. Thomas Mount Police station has deposed that on 21.05.2022 around 12.15 hours, Ramalakshmi, the mother of the deceased came to the station and gave a complaint against the accused stating that the accused was following the deceased and creating fear in her mind. P.W.19 enquired the accused and he has given an undertaking that he will not repeat the same in future and the mother, sister and uncle of the accused have also given an undertaking in the same line. The accused was warned. The mother of the deceased gave a written communication not to take any further action against the accused. The CSR Receipt bearing CSR No.243 of 2022 was given which was marked as Ex.P.8. The written communication given by the mother of the deceased for not taking any further action was marked as Ex.X1. Ex.P.9 is the undertaking given by the accused. The undertaking given by the mother of the accused was already marked as Ex.P.10. Likewise, the undertaking given by accused’s sister was marked as Ex.P.11 and his aunt’s undertaking was marked as Ex.P.12. 3.13.P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, has deposed that he has enquired the previous complaint given by the mother of the deceased against the accused in R-1 Mambalam Police Station on 22.05.2022 regarding creating ruckus and beating the deceased. The accused was summoned and was enquired. The accused and his mother gave an undertaking that the accused will not give trouble to the deceased. Therefore, he registered the FIR under section 75 of the City Police Act and let him on bail and closed the case since both family agreed not to precipitate the matter. Ex.P.30, the production cum receipt memo, Ex.P.31, the arrest card in Crime No.98 of 2022, Ex.X2, a copy of the first information report in Crime No.98 of 2022, Ex.P.32, the copy of the station bail issued in Mambalam Police Station, Ex.P.33, the copy of the undertaking given by the mother of the accused, Ex.P.34 the copy of the undertaking given by the accused, Ex.P.35, the copy of the final report in Crime No.98 of 2022 were marked. 3.14.P.W.21, the medical officer of Chennai Medical College Hospital has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has found the following external injuries: ‘Body was found as three separate parts 1.Head bearing Cervical vertebrae from C1 to C7 28 cms in length from the vertex to the base of cervical vertebra C7, 2.Chest and abdomen with both lower limbs, right upper limb and left upper limb upto proximal two third of the left forearm 145 cms in length from the lower neck to the heel, This portion bearing thoracic vertebrae from T1 to Coccyx, 3.Lower forearm with left hand 26 cms in length from proximal amputated forearm to tip of left middle finger. The proximal and distal portions of the decapitated and amputated limbs align well with each other in color, size and shape. Grease stains smeared over most parts of the body and over the wounds. 1.Traumatic decapatation of the body at the level of lower neck with an irregular margin with dark reddish marginal abrasion 6 cms to 8 cms for a circumference of 35 cms at the base of the head exposing the lacerated subcutaneous tissues, muscles, tendons, nerves, vessels and transected vertebra at the base of cervical vertebra C 7. Decapitated head bears cervical vertebrae from C 1 to C7. i)An irregular laceration 2.5 cms x 0.5 cm x bone deep at the base of right side chin ii)1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on right eyebrow iii)Avulsion laceration of left ear with an irregular laceration 8 cms x 3 cms x bone deep at the root of left ear iv)Dark reddish abrasions a) 7 cms x 3 cms at the base of midchin, b) 5 cms x 4 cms on right cheek, c) 3 cms x 1 cm on front aspect of nose 2.A gapping laceration 13 cms x 11 cms x cavity deep on upper aspect of the chest in midline between two mid-clavicular regions exposing the fractured clavicles, ribs, lacerated tendons, nerves, vessels, muscles and subcutaneous tissues. i)An irregular laceration 11 cms x 7 cms x cavity deep on left axilla ii)An irregular laceration a) 2.5 cms x 1 cm x bone deep, b)1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on front aspect of left arm iii)An irregular lacerations a) 5 cms x 1.5 cms x cavity deep, b) 2 cms x 1 cm x cavity deep, c) 1.5 cms x 1 cm x cavity deep on right side of neck iv)Dark reddish abrasions a) 16 cms x 3 cms on left axilla, b) 14 cms x 9 cms on front aspect of upper midchest, c) 3 cms x 1 cm on front aspect of right upper chest, d) 14 cms x 12 cms on upper aspect of right shoulder, d) 3.5 cms x 0.5 cm on outer aspect of right shoulder, e)15 cms x 8 cms on back aspect of right shoulder, f) 15 cms x 5 cms on outer aspect of right lower forearm, g) 3 cms x 2 cms on back aspect of right elbow, h) 1 cm x 0.5 cm on back aspect of right mid-forearm, i)2 cms x 1 cm on front aspect of right thigh, j) 2 cms x 0.5 cms, 3 cms x 0.5 cm, 1 cm x 0.5 cm on front aspect of right knee, k) 3 cms x 1 cm, 2 cms x 0.5 cm on outer aspect of right knee, l) 5 cms x 3 cms, 5 cms x 0.5 cm, 3 cms x 1 cm on front aspect of right upper leg, m) 2 cms x 1 cm on front aspect of left knee, n) 4 cms x 3 cms, 5 cms x 3 cms on inner aspect of left upper leg, o) 2 cms x 0.5 cm on inner aspect of left midleg, p) 1 cm x 1 cm on front aspect of left ankle, q) 12 cms x 0.5 cm, 6 cms x 1 cm, 4 cms x 0.5 cm on outer aspect of left thigh, r)5 cms x 0.5 cm, 7 cms x 0.5 cm on outer aspect of left hip, s)6 cms x 3 cms, 3 cms x 0.5 cm on back aspect of left forearm, t)12 cms x 6 cms on back aspect of right hip, u) 12 cms x 2 cms on back aspect of abdomen in lumbar region, v)4 cms x 0.5 cm, 5 cms x 0.5 cm, 3 cms x 0.5 cm on back aspect of left hip w) Dark red imprint abrasion 34 cms x 10 cms obliquely from back aspect of right shoulder to the left lower scapular region’ The following internal injuries are found on the dead body of the deceased: 1.HEAD (a)Scalp findings – Dark reddish scalp contusion 18 cms x 12 cms x full thickness on left parieto-occipital region (b)Skull (Describe fractures here & show them on body diagram enclosed) – full thickness elevated fracture of occipital bones with an elevation of 0.75 cms with sutural separation of lambdoid suture of both sides for a length of 22 cms with a radiating full thickness fracture into left occipital bone for a length of 7 cms and a radiating fissured fracture into left parietal bone for a length of 4 cms (c)Meninges, meningeal spaces & Cerebral vessels – Dural laceration of 4 cms x 0.5 cms x full thickness on left parietal region. Diffuse Subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhages on surfaces and bases of both cerebral and cerebellar hemispheres (Haemorrhage & its locations) (d)Brain findings (Wt 1200 gms) – Normal in size, An irregular laceration 4 cms x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on upper surface of left parietal lobe, cut section – normal (e)Base of skull – Comminuted fracture of posterior cranial fossa and left anterior cranial fossa 2.NECK -Mouth, Tongue & Pharynx and vocal cords – Intact and Normal -Larynx – Missing -Condition of neck tissues – most parts of t he neck tissues missing. Only few lacerated neck muscles found adherent to the head portion. -Thyroid & other cartilage conditions – Missing, Hyoid bone – Missing 3.CHEST -Ribs and Chest wall – Irregular complete fracture of right clavicle, first and second rib on right side in mid-clavicular line, left clavicle and left ribs from 1 to 5 in midclavicular line with surrounding intercostal muscle contusion. -Oesophagus – Traumatic amputation at the level of lower neck -Trachea – missing -Diaphragm – Normal and Intact -Pleural Cavities – R – Normal ●L – Normal ●Lungs findings & Wt.200 gms & Lt 200 gms – Normal in size, Cut section – Normal ●Pericardial Sac empty ●Heart findings & Wt.200 grams, Normal in size, Chambers empty, ●Large blood vessels – Normal and Patent 4.Abdomen -Condition of abdominal wall – Normal -Peritoneum & Peritoneal cavity – Normal -Stomach (wall condition, contents & smell) contained 280 grams of light brown coloured partly digested food particles with no specific odour, mucosa- normal -Small Intestines including appendix – Normal -Large intestines & Mesenteric vessels – Normal -Liver including gall bladder (Wt 1100 grams) – Normal in size, Cut section- Normal -Spleen (Wt 110 gms) – Normal in size, cut section – normal -Pancreas – Normal -Kidneys findings & Wt- Rt 100 gms & Lt 110 gms – Normal in size, cut section – congested -Bladder & urethra – Normal and empty -Pelvic cavity – Normal -Pelvic Bones – Intact -Genital organs (Note the condition of vagina, scrotum, presence of foreign body, presence of foetus, semen or any other fluid, and contusion, abrasion in and around genital organs) – Normal and no external injuries Labia majora and minora – Normal, no injuries, Vulva – Normal, no injuries, Hymen – Normal and Intact, no injuries, Vaginal swab could be introduced through the hymenal orifice and swab taken and preserved, Clitoris – Normal, no injuries, Posterior fourchette – Normal, no injuries -Uterus – normal in size, uterine cavity – empty 5.SPINAL COLUMN & SPINAL CORD (To be opened where indicated) – Complete transection of spine at the level between cervical vertebra C7 and Thoracic vertebra T1′ P.W.21 has issued Ex.P.36 postmortem certificate. After the Toxicology report Ex.P.37, P.W.21 has issued the final opinion which was marked as Ex.P.38 opining that the deceased would appear to have died of traumatic decapitation. She has also received the Serology report Ex.P.39, Ex.P.40, Biological report and Ex.P.41 DNA report. 3.15.P.W.22 is the Additional Director of the Forensic Sciences Department. In his evidence, he has stated that he has examined M.O.9 pendrive, M.O.12 DVD and has issued Ex.P.44 Physics Report opining that there is no digital manipulation in the CCTV footages downloaded. He has also examined M.O.17 CD, M.O.6 shirt and M.O.7 jeans pant and opined that the shirt and pants worn by the male individual and in the CCTV footages belong to same male person. P.W.23 working as Scientific Officer in the Forensic Sciences Department in Biology section has examined the material objects recovered from the scene of occurrence and has issued Ex.P.45 Biological report opining that he did not find semen on any of them. 3.16.P.W.24, the Assistant Director in Forensic Sciences Department, Anthropology section has examined M.O.9 pendrive, Ex.P.46 photographs of the accused and Ex.P.47, photograph of the wall with name Sathya and has issued Ex.P.48 Anthropological report. She has opined that the photographs of the accused and the images of a male individual in the pendrive were compared and they were tallying with the photographs of the accused. P.W.25, Assistant Director of the Forensic Sciences Department in Computer Forensic Section has examined two mobile phones used by the accused and the deceased and also examined the whatsapp messages and has issued Computer Forensic Examination report Ex.P.50. P.W.26, Special Sub Inspector has deposed that he has accompanied the dead body and handed over the same to the hospital. P.W.27 is the police photographer and he took photographs of the accused and also took photograph of the wall in the residence of the accused where the name of the deceased was written. He developed the photographs and downloaded the same in the CD and handed over the same to the Inspector. The production cum receipt memo was marked as Ex.P.51. He has also issued a certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act which was marked as Ex.P.52. 3.17.P.W.28, who was the Sub Inspector of Police at the relevant point of time in Mambalam Railway Police station, on receipt of the intimation about the occurrence rushed to the St. Thomas mount railway station and received the complaint Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 and registered the crime No.172 of 2022 under section 302 of IPC at 01.15 p.m. and the said FIR was marked as Ex.P.53. She took up the investigation. She prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.14 and drew rough sketch Ex.P.54 in the presence of P.W.7 Selvaraj and one Mohan. She has also seized the material objects from the place of occurrence under a seizure mahazar Ex.P.15 which was already marked. She conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared inquest report Ex.P.55 and sent the dead body to the hospital. She recorded the statements of witnesses and handed over the case file to the Railway Inspector. P.W.28 has also recovered from the place of occurrence some blood stained stones, ordinary stones and also a cloth under Form 95 which was marked as Ex.P.56 and forwarded the same to the court for the purpose of sending them to the forensic science examination. 3.18.P.W.29, is the Sub Inspector of Police, CBCID, OCU-1, Egmore. He went to the place of occurrence and verified the CCTV camera and gave a special report Ex.P.58 and he has also prepared a special report with call details records which was marked as Ex.P.59 which was handed over to the Inspector. He has received the material objects, namely, mobile phone, pendive ad CD and handed over them to the forensic science department for examination. 3.19.P.W.30, the Railway Inspector of Police, after receipt of the intimation about the occurrence, has directed the Sub Inspector of Police to commence the investigation immediately as he went to the Chengalpattu court relating to some other case. He took up the investigation on 13.10.2022 at 19.00 hours and recorded the statements of witnesses and also verified the CCTV camera. He arrested the accused on 14.10.2022 at 02.30 a.m. and recorded his confession statement in the presence of witnesses. The doctor who conducted postmortem had handed over the dresses worn by the deceased to P.W.30 and he recovered the same under Form 95 which was marked as Ex.P.60 and thereafter, he sent the accused to the court. Subsequently, as the investigation of the case has been directed to be conducted by CBCID, he has handed over the case file to the CBCID Inspector. He has also issued production memo relating to the cell phones of the deceased and accused and handed over them to the CBCID Inspector. Ex.P.61 is the production cum receipt memo relating to the phone of the accused. Ex.P.62 is the production cum receipt memo relating to the phone of the deceased. The production cum receipt memo in respect of spectacles and photographs of the accused was marked as Ex.P.63. 3.20.P.W.31, the Inspector of Police CBCID, took up the investigation as per the proceedings of the Director General of Police, Head of Police Force Tamil Nadu and the Director General of Police, CBCID, Chennai which were marked as Exs.P.64 and P.65 respectively and registered the FIR Ex.P.66 in Crime No.7 of 2022. She went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.67 and rough sketch Ex.P.68. She also collected the material objects already produced by P.W.30. She has also given requisition to the concerned nodal officers of the respective telephone operators to furnish the call details. She has also collected the pendrive and CD relating to the CCTV footages and sent them to the court under Form 95 which was marked as Ex.P.72. Thereafter, she took up the police custody of the accused and examined him. She has also collected the material objects already seized by the other officers and after examining all the other witnesses, finally filed the final report under sections 354D and 302 of IPC and Section 4A(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. 3.21.On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.194 of 2023 and was made over to the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai for trial. 3.22.The trial Court framed the charges against the accused under section 354D IPC or in alternative under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and under section 302 IPC or in alternative under section 4A(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. 3.23.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 31 witnesses, namely P.W.1 to P.W.31 and marked 90 documents, namely Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.90. Two documents, namely Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 were also marked as court side exhibits. Further, the prosecution has produced 23 material objections, namely M.O.1 to M.O.23. Ex.X1 to Ex.X.5 documents were also marked. 3.24.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. He denied all the incriminating circumstances. On the side of the defence, two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and seven documents were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7. 3.25.On the side of the accused, D.W.1, the reporter of Puthiya Thalaimurai has deposed that on 22.10.2022, they telecast the news pertaining to the case in their Television and they have also telecast the request from the police officials to the public that if the general public know about the occurrence, they can inform the police. D.W.2, the Psychiatric doctor working in the Puzhal central prison was also examined. She deposed that she has examined the accused in the jail. The accused informed her that he is in the habit of taking drinks and the accused further informed her that as he was thinking about the occurrence, he had headache for two days and he did not have proper sleep. D.W.2 deposed that proper counselling was given to the accused. Ex.D.6 is the behaviour report of the accused maintained in the prison and Ex.D.7 is the copy of the Intake form in which the accused was interrogated on his custody in prison and the same was recorded in the said form. 3.26.The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record, by judgment dated 27.12.2024, found the accused guilty of the offences and thereby, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonments as stated above. 4.Challenging the conviction and sentence, Crl.A.No.1744 of 2025 is filed by the accused. A reference has been made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam under Section 366 of Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the capital punishment of death sentence awarded to the accused which was numbered and taken as R.T.No.1 of 2025. 5.Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial court has given maximum punishment to the accused as according to him, the murder is a brutal one and the deceased was pushed in front of the running train since the deceased refused to marry the accused and decided to marry the other person. The prosecution has proved the complicity of the accused in the crime. The presence of the accused in the occurrence place has been clearly spoken to by P.W.1 who is the eye witness. That apart, the CCTV footages were downloaded in the pendrive and CD and were marked as material objects. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.22 that there is no digital manipulation which has been clearly spoken to by the expert. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the accused used to follow the deceased in respect of which a complaint has earlier been given by the mother of the deceased to P.W.19, Sub Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount police station and thereafter, a complaint has also been lodged to the jurisdictional police station at Mambalam before P.W.20. 6.According to learned Public Prosecutor, it is the choice of a woman to marry a man of her choice and that the accused cannot take advantage. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused had already decided to eliminate the deceased and with pre-determined mind, the accused has followed the deceased continuously and there is no sudden provocation for the accused to commit the crime. It is with the intention of committing such a grave crime, the accused came to the railway station on the date of occurrence and committed such a grave crime. The evidence of eyewitness and the electronic evidence have clearly proved the offence committed by the accused and the evidences are corroborated with each other. Therefore, the Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no mitigating circumstances to give lesser punishment to the accused. The occurrence has happened in the railway station with full public view and it is a preplanned gruesome murder without any sudden provocation. Further, after the incident, the family of the deceased was totally devastated. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the capital punishment imposed by the trial court has to be confirmed. 7.The learned senior counsel Mr.R.John Sathyan, appearing for the appellant in the criminal appeal and respondent in the Referred Trial, fairly submits that as far as the occurrence is concerned, he has no case, but the case does not require any capital punishment. The relationship between the accused and deceased is not disputed and they are in love affair for many years. Both of them are residing in the same police quarters since some of the family members of both accused and deceased were working in the police department. The very evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicates that there were messages exchanged between deceased and accused and in fact, a perusal of the instagram account of the accused clearly shows that they were in love affair. This has been spoken to by P.W.1. According to learned Senior Counsel, when they were in such relationship, suddenly, the family of the deceased decided to marry the deceased to some one mainly on the ground that the accused is from different caste and he is jobless and is 10 years elder to deceased, that apart he is a drunkard and addicted to drug. On that ground, the deceased has in fact agreed to marry the other person. The learned senior counsel submitted that such a situation has forced the accused to commit such offence as he is mentally disturbed. In fact, the accused had momentary loss of sanity and reasoning. There was no intention of the accused to commit such an occurrence. 8.Further, the learned senior counsel submitted that the accused is young and in a fit of rage and due to the sidelining by the deceased though they were in love affair for many years which provoked him and caused frustration which has developed as sustained provocation. Due to such sustained provocation and fit of anger, he has pushed the deceased in the railway track. Learned senior counsel submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is clear that the deceased tried to get up but slipped. Therefore, the accused has no intention to commit the offence. In any event, the entire occurrence is due to fit of rage and due to sustained provocation. The accused had momentary loss of sanity and reasoning and out of frustration, he has committed the offence and therefore, it is not a fit case for awarding the capital punishment. The conduct of the deceased and their relationship would clearly show that there are mitigating circumstance to award lesser sentence other than the capital punishment. The accused was mentally and emotionally disturbed due to the deceased sidelining him. Therefore, the mental and emotional aspect of the accused also should be taken note of. It is a fit case where the capital punishment awarded by the trial court has to be set aside and this court may consider awarding the lesser punishment to the accused. 9.We have perused the entire materials and paid anxious consideration to the submissions made by both sides. 10.It is to be noted that P.Ws.1 to 3 were classmates of the deceased in the college and they were all students of Shri Shankarlal Sundarbai Shasun Jain College for Women. In her evidence, P.W.1 has clearly spoken that the deceased and P.W.1 used to go to the college in the electric train. They used to board the train at St. Thomas Mount railway station regularly. The accused also is known to them and previously, the accused and the deceased had love affair. When the family of the accused requested for the marriage, the same was negatived by the family of the deceased on the ground that the accused is addicted to drinks and drugs and is jobless and that the accused is 10 years elder to the deceased and is from different caste. Therefore, the family of the deceased decided to marry the deceased to one Rahul. After such development, the accused was still following the deceased. He has also involved in a quarrel with the deceased on many occasions. On one occasion, the accused went to the college of the deceased, where he had created ruckus and waylaid the deceased and even beat her. In respect of the same, a complaint has also been filed before P.W.19 by the mother of the deceased. P.W.19, Sub Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount police station has clearly spoken about the complaint Ex.P.7 given by the mother of the deceased. He has also enquired the accused which resulted in filing CSR No.243 of 2022 and after enquiry, the accused was warned and the said case was closed. Later, they were also asked to give a complaint to the jurisdictional police. P.W.20, Sub Inspector of Police, Mambalam Police station has also enquired the complaint given by the mother of the deceased and has enquired the accused and warned him. He filed FIR under section 75 of the City Police Act and collected fine and released the accused on bail. These facts clearly establish that after the deceased disowned the accused and after her family decided to marry her to one Rahul, the accused still was following the deceased and in fact, was persistent in continuing the relationship with deceased. 11.The evidence of P.W.1 when carefully scanned, it is clearly seen that even after the relationship of the accused and deceased was broken, still the accused has kept in his DP that ‘Sathish loves Sathya we are married’. P.W.2, one of the classmates of the deceased has also spoken about the love affair between the deceased and accused. P.W.3 also has spoken about such affair between the deceased and accused. P.Ws.1 to 3 were classmates of deceased and they were aware that the deceased and accused had love affair which later broke out due to the intervention of the family of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.1 further clearly shows that even after the deceased disowned the accused, the accused was following her which resulted in a complaint which was enquired by P.W.19 and P.W.20 and the accused was warned and has given an undertaking that he will not repeat the same. On 12.10.2022 also, the accused came to the railway station which has been informed by the deceased to P.W.1. On 13.10.2022, on the date of occurrence, P.W.1 has reached the railway station at about 12.40 p.m. and after some time, the deceased also came there to go to the college. The accused was also in the railway station and was seated in the railway station. When the train from Tambaram to Beach train was approaching the railway station, the accused pretending in conversation over phone came nearer to the deceased and has pushed her, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the track and was run over by the train. Thereafter, the accused has started running from the place of occurrence. 12.The evidence of P.W.1 is also clearly substantiated by the electronic evidence. The video footages in the CCTV camera from 11.10.2022 till the date of occurrence, i.e., on 13.10.2022 have been downloaded by P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force, St. Thomas Mount Railway station. He in fact downloaded the same in M.O.9 pendrive and M.O.12 CD. He has also issued a certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is relevant to note that his evidence in the cross examination clearly indicates that he was also in-charge of the CCTV system though there is a separate control room with regard to the CCTV. His evidence clearly shows that he was only looking after the CCTV system and he has downloaded the footages and has issued the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act which is marked as Ex.P.22. 13.P.W.22, the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Department has examined the said pendrive and the CD and other materials sent to him and found that there is no digital manipulation in the video footages downloaded in the M.O.9 pendrive and M.O.12 CD. He has also given a report Ex.P.44. He has also given the evidence to the effect that on examination of the material objects, no digital manipulation was found in the CCTV footages downloaded and therefore, we are of the view that the electronic evidence cannot be discarded. P.W.1 has also identified the CD footages in the court. We have also seen the footages and the same is clearly substantiated by the evidence of P.W.1. The presence of P.W.1 and the accused at the relevant point of time has also been clearly established. P.W.24, the Anthropologist working in the Forensic Sciences Department has also examined the pendrive and photographs of the accused Ex.P.46 and compared the photographs by using Amped-Five software and has issued Ex.P.48, Anthropological report. The said report clearly indicate that the morphological facial features described from the facial images of the male individual seen in the photographs were compared with the visually available facial features of the male individuals appearing in the video footages of the pendrive. The video footages were examined in normal speed and in slow motion and also in the form of selected snapshots both on screen and as hard copies. The male individual with facial features similar to the male individual seen in the photographs were identified from the video footages of the pendrive and finally opined that the male individual seen in the photographs items 2 to 7 and the identified male individual appearing and seen pushing a female individual onto the railway track while the train comes on the track in the video footages of the pendrive item 1 could possibly be the same male individual. She has also given a detailed examination and a report. P.W.1 in her evidence has also clearly identified the images in the CCTV and immediately after the occurrence, she sat down in the seat and she has also identified the dead body which was also captured in the CCTV footages. All these were clearly spoken to by P.W.1. 14.P.W.13, Sub Inspector of Police, RPF, St. Thomas Mount Railway Station has also clearly stated in his evidence that though the timing is shown as 13.37 hours in the CCTV, the timing in the CCTV recording was shown to be 43 minutes extra. The court is of the view that though the time has been altered some how or the other, the fact remains is that the occurrence took place when the Tambaram -Beach Train approached the station which has been clearly established. P.W.11, the loco pilot, in his evidence has clearly stated that the train ran over the deceased at 12.55 hours. Therefore, merely because there is some difference in the CCTV camera with regard to the time, that will not tilt the prosecution version. The presence of P.W.1 and the accused were clearly established not only by the ocular witnesses, but also through electronic evidence. We have also seen the video footages downloaded which clearly shows that the accused was very much present and pretending to be in conversation with some third party over phone, he has pushed the deceased Sathya on the track and immediately, the train ran over the deceased. This fact clearly shows that it is only the accused who has pushed the deceased down. P.W.1 was accompanying the deceased daily to the college. Her evidence appears to be natural and there was no reason to implicate the accused in the crime. Further, the evidence of experts, namely P.W.22 and P.W.24 clearly proved the electronic evidence and that the identity of the accused has also been established by Anthropological report Ex.P.48 and the evidence of P.W.24. Therefore, the act of the accused pushing the deceased into the track has been clearly established. 15.The motive of pushing the deceased on the railway track, particularly on noticing that the train was entering the railway station has also been clearly established. The accused had love affair with the deceased which fact has been clearly established not only by P.Ws.1 to 3 but also by the evidence of P.Ws.19 and 20 who have been examined to prove the previous complaints given against the accused as the accused was following the deceased and was giving trouble to the deceased and has created ruckus in front of the college where the deceased was studying. Therefore, the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime by eliminating the deceased in view of the fact that she disowned him, has been clearly established. 16.P.W.21, the medical officer who has conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found the injuries on the dead body as noted above and the post mortem report is Ex.P.36 and has given the opinion Ex.P.38 that the deceased would appear to have died of traumatic decapitation. The postmortem doctor has noted that all the injuries noted by him are antemortem in nature. 17.Further, the body of the deceased was torn into pieces due to the train being run over. The body of the deceased has been identified through DNA Test Ex.P.41 which has been marked through P.W.21, doctor. Further, the identity of the victim has also been identified not only in the DNA test but also by the dresses worn by her. This fact was also spoken to by P.W.1. In fact, the electronic evidence clearly proved the complicity of the accused with the crime and P.W.1 who was present at the time of occurrence has also clearly spoken about the occurrence. Therefore, the question of identity does not arise at all. The evidence of P.W.11, loco pilot, P.W.12 Train manager and P.W.15 Chief Ticket Inspector have also clearly spoken that the train ran over the deceased and immediately thereafter, the train was also stopped. The fact remains is that the time between the accused pushing the deceased into the track and the train ran over has happened within a few seconds. 18.Therefore, it is clear from the analysis of the deposition of witnesses and the materials found that only the accused has pushed the deceased in a fit of rage due to the failure in love affair as the deceased has disowned him and a complaint in this regard was also given by P.W.1 and the FIR has also been registered. Though the FIR has been registered on the same day, it reached the court the next day with some delay. Considering the nature of the incident which has occurred in the busy railway station and the dead body was removed from the place of occurrence and was sent to the Government Hospital and the investigating officers were present and the investigation was carried out immediately, the despatch of the FIR to the Court with a delay is not fatal to the prosecution when all other evidences are undoubtedly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the evidence of eye witnesses and the scientific evidences are corroborating with each other. Even in section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning also, the accused has not disputed that he had affairs with the deceased. The call details of the accused and the deceased were also examined by the Experts and it is clearly found from the messages and in the instagram of the accused that the accused maintained the DP indicating that he loves the deceased. 19.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the electronic evidence and the medical doctor’s evidence, this court is of the considered view that it has no doubt in his mind to conclude that it is only the accused who has committed the offence of murder. The very act of the accused pushing the deceased knowing well that the train is approaching in the said direction clearly shows that the accused knew that it is so imminently dangerous that his act must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. This act of the accused certainly falls within the ambit of Section 300 of IPC. The intention of the accused can also be gathered through his act. The accused was following the deceased even after she disowned him and even he wanted to continue the relationship with her. In fact, he prostrated before P.W.1 on one occasion and requested her to make the deceased to speak to him. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that the accused prostrated before P.W.1 and he wanted to continue the relationship with the deceased. This fact clearly shows that the accused has committed the act out of frustration as the deceased disowned him. However, the fact remains is that it is the choice of the deceased to marry a person of her choice. 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. From the conduct of the accused, the intention of the accused to cause death can be easily inferred. After pushing the deceased into the track, the accused has tried to flee from the place of occurrence which fact has also been clearly captured in the CCTV and has also been spoken to by P.W.1. This act of the accused clearly shows that the accused had, in fact with the intention of doing away the deceased, meticulously executed the plan knowing fully well that the train was approaching the railway station which resulted in the death of an innocent girl. Therefore, we are of the view that the act of the accused is certainly comes under the ambit of section 300 of IPC. 20.The contention of the learned senior counsel for the accused is that since the accused was in frustration and the provocation which was persistent in his mind for a few months after the deceased disowned him has caused sustained provocation and has led to the occurrence. Such a contention cannot be countenanced. In fact, the accused was waiting in the railway station for the deceased to come to the station and was watching her from a distance under the pretext that he was talking to some one over phone and when the train was approaching the station, he was casually coming near to the deceased in order to execute his plan of committing murder and in a fraction of second, he pushed the deceased to the track. This act of the accused clearly shows that the act of the accused is not due to sudden or sustained provocation. Therefore, the act of the accused cannot be brought under any of the exceptions to section 300 of IPC. The learned senior counsel has very fairly submitted that the act caused by the accused is not disputed but he tried to bring the act of the accused within any of the exceptions to section 300 of IPC. 21.On a perusal of the entire evidence and also looking the manner in which the accused pushed her and was waiting in the railway station not only on the occurrence date but also on the previous day, this court is of the view that the accused has meticulously executed his plan of doing away the deceased. Therefore, his act will not fall within the ambit of any of the exceptions as contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the accused. The accused is certainly liable for punishment under section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, the charge against the accused under section 302 of IPC has been clearly established. 22.The trial court has also convicted the accused under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998. To bring the act of the accused within the ambit of harassment of woman, it must be proved that any indecent conduct or act by a man causes or likely to cause intimidation, fear, shame or embarrassment including abusing or causing hurt or nuisance or assault or use of force. A perusal of the entire evidence would show that though in the month of May, 2022, there was some incident in the college, later there was no such harassment whatsoever caused. The accused has followed the deceased and was waiting in the railway station and therefore, in the absence of any evidence with regard to harassment, it cannot be said that the offence under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 has been made out. The accused has just followed her and he, some how or the other, wanted to restore the relationship with the deceased. Therefore, when the accused and the deceased are known to each other and when he tried to restore the relationship and made such attempts towards the same, it cannot be said that there was some harassment to bring the offence within the ambit of section 4. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under aforesaid section 4 alone is set aside. However, we confirm the conviction imposed by the trial court against the accused under section 302 of IPC. 23.Now the question that arises is whether the act of the accused requires any capital punishment. 24.No doubt, the accused has decided to eliminate the deceased since the relationship with her failed despite several attempts made by him to restore the same. At the same time, it is pertinent to note that it is the choice of a women to select her spouse. Merely because the deceased girl disowned him will not give licence to the accused to take away her life. Due to the death of the deceased, her father has committed suicide and her mother who was suffering from cancer also died. The entire family of the deceased was devastated and shattered due to the act of the accused. The act of the accused clearly indicates that he was mentally and emotionally disturbed due to frustration on account of the failure of his relationship with the deceased. The evidence of the witnesses also indicate that the family members of the deceased and accused were working in the police department and they were residing in the same police quarters and therefore, the accused and deceased developed love affair for many years. Suddenly when the family of the deceased disowned him and decided to marry the deceased to one Rahul, the same has caused frustration in the mind of the accused and therefore, the accused was nurturing the ill towards deceased and decided to eliminate her. Though the act of the accused certainly comes under section 300 of IPC, we are of the view that the act of the accused committing murder of the deceased does not fall within the category of ‘Rarest of Rare’ case. It is relevant to note that Hon’ble Apex Court in Manoj Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2023) 2 SCC 353 in paragraphs 247 to 251 has held as follows: ‘247. The goal of reformation is ideal, and what society must strive towards — there are many references to it peppered in this Court’s jurisprudence across the decades — but what is lacking is a concrete framework that can measure and evaluate it. Unfortunately, this is mirrored by the failure to implement prison reforms of a meaningful kind, which has left the process of incarceration and prisons in general, to be a space of limited potential for systemic reformation. The goal of reformative punishment requires systems that actively enable reformation and rehabilitation, as a result of nuanced policy-making. As a small step to correct these skewed results and facilitate better evaluation of whether there is a possibility for the accused to be reformed (beyond vague references to conduct, family background, etc.), this Court deems it necessary to frame practical guidelines for the courts to adopt and implement, till the legislature and executive, formulate a coherent framework through legislation. These guidelines may also offer guidance or ideas, that such a legislative framework could benefit from, to systematically collect and evaluate information on mitigating circumstances. Practical guidelines to collect mitigating circumstances 248. There is urgent need to ensure that mitigating circumstances are considered at the trial stage, to avoid slipping into a retributive response to the brutality of the crime, as is noticeably the situation in a majority of cases reaching the appellate stage. 249. To do this, the trial court must elicit information from the accused and the State, both. The State, must—for an offence carrying capital punishment—at the appropriate stage, produce material which is preferably collected beforehand, before the Sessions Court disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused. This will help establish proximity (in terms of timeline), to the accused person’s frame of mind (or mental illness, if any) at the time of committing the crime and offer guidance on mitigating factors (1), (5), (6) and (7) spelled out in Bachan Singh [Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580] . Even for the other factors of (3) and (4)—an onus placed squarely on the State—conducting this form of psychiatric and psychological evaluation close on the heels of commission of the offence, will provide a baseline for the appellate courts to use for comparison i.e. to evaluate the progress of the accused towards reformation, achieved during the incarceration period. 250. Next, the State, must in a time-bound manner, collect additional information pertaining to the accused. An illustrative, but not exhaustive list is as follows: (a) Age (b) Early family background (siblings, protection of parents, any history of violence or neglect) (c) Present family background (surviving family members, whether married, has children, etc.) (d) Type and level of education (e) Socio-economic background (including conditions of poverty or deprivation, if any) (f) Criminal antecedents (details of offence and whether convicted, sentence served, if any) (g) Income and the kind of employment (whether none, or temporary or permanent, etc.); (h) Other factors such as history of unstable social behaviour, or mental or psychological ailment(s), alienation of the individual (with reasons, if any), etc. This information should mandatorily be available to the trial court, at the sentencing stage. The accused too, should be given the same opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal, towards establishing all mitigating circumstances. 251. Lastly, information regarding the accused’s jail conduct and behaviour, work done (if any), activities the accused has involved themselves in, and other related details should be called for in the form of a report from the relevant jail authorities (i.e. Probation and Welfare Officer, Superintendent of Jail, etc.). If the appeal is heard after a long hiatus from the trial court’s conviction, or High Court’s confirmation, as the case may be — a fresh report (rather than the one used by the previous court) from the jail authorities is recommended, for a more exact and complete understanding of the contemporaneous progress made by the accused, in the time elapsed. The jail authorities must also include a fresh psychiatric and psychological report which will further evidence the reformative progress, and reveal postconviction mental illness, if any. ‘ 25.In a recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vasanta Sampat Dupare Vs. Union of India reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1823, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manoj case supra has been referred to say that the above directions oblige the State, rather than the accused, to place before the trial court, at the very sentencing stage, a structured dossier covering psychiatric assessment proximate to the offence, socio-econommmic and family history, educational attainment, prior conduct, and a contemporaneous report on jail behavior and by doing so, it is intended to prevent sentencing from defaulting into a purely retributive response to the brutality of the crime and to supply appellate courts with a baseline against which genuine progress towards reformation can later be measured. 26.In the light of the above guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court and as the said guidelines were not followed by the trial court, this court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to produce the materials relating to psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused for finding out the frame of mind or mental illness if any at the time of committing the crime and his conduct after he was put in prison. The report in this regard was also filed by the learned Public Prosecutor in a sealed cover. 27.The report of the Probation Officer (i/c), Prisons and Correctional Services Department, Saidapet @ Tambaram, Chennai, dated 15.11.2025 is as follows: ‘With reference to the above cited subject, an enquiry has been conducted regarding convict PID No 458810 Satish s/o Dayalan (Central Prison-1, Chennai-66) in the residential address No 100D, Global View Apartment, Balagangadhar street, Adambakkam, Chennai-88. At present the age of Convict PID No:458810 Satish s/o Dayalan is 34. He is the last and third child of Mr.Dayalan and Mrs.Saraswathy. He is the only son of the family. He is having two elder sisters namely Sarala and Saranya. Both are married and living with their husband in Adambakkam. Father of the convict Mr.Dayalan is a Retired SSI from Palavanthangal police station. He got his retirement in the year 2014. Now he is receiving pension. Convict’s family were residing in police quarters situated in Alandur. After his father’s retirement, they shifted to the house situated in Raja street, which is very near to the police quarters for lease. After the incident, convict’s parents vacated the house in raja street, and moved to Adambakkam with their younger daughter Mrs.Saranya to the above mentioned address which is a rented house. Now Mrs.Saranya is taking care of their parent’s need. Convict is un-married and he is a school dropout who had studied up to Class 8th in Mont fort school, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Due to loss of interest in studies he stopped to going to school. He tried to appear for tenth privately which was unsuccessful. Convict’s parents were very loving and car

by Sekar Reporter · November 27, 2025