The story so far: On January 30, 2024, the Additional Sessions Court 1 of Alappuzha in Kerala convicted 15 persons to death for murdering a lawyer, who was also a Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) State leader.
The prosecution case was that all the accused, who belonged to one religion and were the office-bearers of the now-banned Popular Front of India (PFI) and the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), brutally attacked and killed Ranjith Sreenivasan, the 45-year-old lawyer, who was practising in the Alappuzha Bar, in retaliation to the killing of one of their leaders. The murder of Ranjith on December 19, 2021 was one of the series of retaliatory murders involving the BJP/RSS and PFI/SDPI activists in the coastal district of Alappuzha in Kerala.
The history of killings
Political murders and retaliatory attacks are not new to the coastal town of Alappuzha. However, violent conflicts involving organisations associated with different religious communities are relatively new to the district. The murder of Ranjith is the latest case of retaliatory attack involving such organisations.
The recent incidents of brutal killing of political adversaries in the district began with the murder of Nandu R. Krishna, a young man, at Vayalar on February 24, 2021. It was a skirmish involving the activists of BJP/RSS and PFI/SDPI over a public meeting to be held in the district that culminated in the murder of Nandu. Eight PFI activists were picked up by the police in the case.
Chain of events
The prosecution in the Ranjith murder case had argued that the PFI/SDPI activists of the district were expecting a retaliatory attack from the saffron camp from the day of the murder of RSS activist Nandu. The PFI/SDPI activists, according to the prosecution, drew up a list of BJP/RSS persons who had to be eliminated in the event of any of their activists being killed.
The local office-bearers of the PFI in Alappuzha town collected the photographs of RSS/BJP activists of Mannancherry and Alappuzha areas online so that they could retaliate quickly in the event of a counterattack from the BJP/RSS activists, alleged the prosecution. They also feared that K.S. Shan, the 36-year-old State secretary of SDPI, may be targeted by RSS workers and hence decided to identify a person from among the RSS/BJP workers who held similar organisational responsibilities as that of Shan. The assailants thus zeroed in on Ranjith, the State secretary of the OBC Morcha of BJP, argued the prosecution.
The killing of the SDPI leader
The fears of the SDPI/PFI activists became true on the night of December 18, 2021 when Shan was brutally attacked and killed at Kuppezham Junction at Mannancherry in Alappuzha around 7.30 p.m. The assailants attacked him with iron rods and other weapons after rear-ending his motorbike with a car. Within 12 hours of the murder, the SDPI retaliated and killed Ranjith, as planned earlier.
The death sentence
The Ranjith murder case has gone into the annals of the criminal justice dispensation system of Kerala, with the judicial officer awarding capital punishment to all the 15 accused in the case, the highest number so far in Kerala.
The judge, who analysed the evidence on record, concluded that it was a case of pre-planned and cruel murder. She was convinced that the evidence categorically proved the complicity of the accused in the conspiracy and execution of the cold-blooded murder. The judge, who awarded the death penalty to all those who hacked Ranjith to death, also did not spare the other assailants who stood guard outside the house of the deceased to prevent his escape. They too were given capital punishment.
Factors that influenced the decision
Besides the host of evidence that categorically proved the culpability of the accused, the reports of the District Collector, Alappuzha, which was sought by the court, and the body language of the accused in the court hall too seemed to have influenced the judge to award the maximum punishment to all the accused.
The Collector’s report, as quoted in the judgment, indicated that the accused “never had any guilty feeling or repentance and they are ready even to lose their lives, finding pleasure for doing whatever they have been instructed to do by the said organisation.” They are also “hardcore criminals and there is no chance for any reformation or rehabilitation. They are even threatening the main witnesses in this case and, in case, any leniency is shown, it would definitely cause mental stress on the witnesses who have adduced evidence in this case,” the court noted.
The judge felt that the accused had chosen a “person, who is a philanthropist, a benefactor of society, a good person by all means and a practising lawyer” as their victim. The court noticed that “there were no symptoms of repentance” on the face of the accused throughout the trial and while being in the dock. It appeared “from their body language that what they have done has a justification in their minds because they have the firm belief that what they have done is morally right,” the judge felt. The “brutality of the attack, the vulnerability of the victim and the diabolic notes and acts of perversion” cumulatively justified the imposition of the death penalty and there was “absolute justification for imposing capital punishment for all the accused persons in this case,” the court was convinced.
Legal view on death sentence
The death sentence awarded to all the 15 accused has kicked up a debate among the legal and judicial fraternity in Kerala. Some senior judges felt that the discretion of judges in awarding sentences was not unlimited and they should consider aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as legal standards, while deciding on the death penalty.
The personal opinions or biases of individual judges should not influence the death penalty verdicts, which are subject to appellate review to ensure that legal standards are followed and that the accused received a fair trial. Appellate courts may overturn death sentences if they find errors in the trial proceedings or the sentence is deemed disproportionate or unjust, felt some senior judges.
The imposition of the death penalty, they opined, shall be guided by legal principles, due process, and established standards of justice. The personal opinions of judges should not play a determining role in the decision to impose the death penalty, which must be based on legal analysis and adherence to procedural safeguards, they felt. The imposition of the death penalty can vary depending on whether the accused directly participated in the murder or were indirectly involved in the crime.
Courts may be inclined to impose the death penalty on individuals who had directly committed the murder, especially if they were the ones who inflicted fatal injuries or actively participated in the killing. However, if the accused were not directly involved in committing the murder but were part of a conspiracy or aided and abetted the crime in some way, their level of culpability may be evaluated differently, they felt.
In cases where individuals played a secondary role, such as providing assistance, facilitating the crime, or being part of a conspiracy, the imposition of the death penalty may depend on various factors such as the extent of their involvement and their intentions. The Supreme Court had in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab had provided elaborate guidelines for determining the rarest of rare cases in which death penalty could be awarded, they noted.
A case of delayed justice?
Though the accused were awarded punishment in the Ranjith murder case, the delay in beginning the trial in the Shan murder case, which is considered to have triggered the Ranjith case, has come under criticism from certain quarters. This is also the case with the murder of Nandu which led to the murder of Shan. Though the police have charge-sheeted the accused in both cases, which ultimately led to the murder of Ranjith, the trial is yet to begin in both the cases.
