Case of the prosecution is appellant has killed his wife and 4 children
1. This case is the second one of its nature that has become ripe for judgment in a short while wherein a husband and father has allegedly forgotten all propriety, morality and responsibility toward his family members. The prosecution contends that Reji Kumar – appellant herein had, over a period of few days killed his wife Lissy and four children, namely, 1 st daughter (12 years old), son (10 years old), 2 nd daughter (9 years old) and 3 rd daughter (3 years old). We are left to wonder as to how someone who is supposed to feel the utmost love, care and affection for the young lives could have come to committing such a crime – where the lights of these lives have been extinguished in the most brutal of manners.
Death reference and appeal by accused against his conviction heard by Hon’ble High Court
2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 12th November, 2014 in Death Reference No.1/2010 and Criminal Appeal No.1663 of 2010 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The former travelled up to the High Court by way of statutory requirement and the latter was preferred by the appellant against the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Sessions Court, Palakkad in S.C.No.114 of 2009, under Sections 302, 376, 297 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Facts summary from paragraph.3
The appellant, Reji Kumar, worked as an agricultural laborer and lived in rented accommodation.
He developed an intimate relationship with a woman named Baby (Usha).
His wife Lissy went missing on 9th July 2008.
On 11th July, he took his son and youngest daughter, promising to return with the rest of the family.
Neighbors’ inquiries were met with evasive answers.
On 20th July, he claimed he was going to Kottayam to bring back his family.
On 22nd July, neighbors found the house locked from inside and discovered the bodies of two daughters.
On 25th July, the bodies of Lissy, the son, and youngest daughter were found in a septic tank and nearby fields.
3.5 The final report was submitted under Section 302, 376, 297 and 201 IPC before the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Pattambi on 23rd October, 2008, from where it was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellant convict was defended by legal aid counsel.
Trial court conviction
After detailed consideration of the evidence under the heads as above, it was concluded by the Trial Court that the convict-appellant had indeed committed the murders of his wife and four children. It was also concluded that he had deliberately concealed the bodies of the deceased persons and caused disappearance of evidence of such acts in order to escape from punishment. As such, he was convicted for having committed offences punishable under the Sections noted in paragraph 2. On the charge under 297 IPC it was held that the evidence as produced by the prosecution was insufficient to sustain the same. He was, therefore, acquitted of said charge. On the aspect of sentence, the Court considered the following factors in awarding capital punishment :
a) The nature of the crime being extremely brutal, diabolical and revolting;
b) The appellant-convict had a responsibility to nurture and protect, instead he became the destructor and killed helpless children;
c) He betrayed the trust of his wife. It is not as if he is an uneducated man. He holds a degree in chemistry and a graduate diploma in computer applications;
d) The manner of commission of the crime was well arranged and planned.
The defence counsel’s argument that the offence was out of unhappiness and frustration, and not criminal tendency, was rejected.
Placing reliance on Siriya alias Shri Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant-convict was sentenced to death. For the offence under Section 376 IPC he was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and for the offence under Section 201 IPC he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 7 years. Both these offence also carried a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof one month’s simple imprisonment was also to be undergone. They were all to run concurrently.
High court confirmed the death sentence
7. It is in this background that the confirmation of death sentence, in a statutory appeal as also the convict-appellant’s appeal against judgment and sentence, is before us.
Analysis
Appellant having affair is a sufficient motive
10. PW-1 testifies that he had no direct knowledge of conversations between PW-24 and the convict-appellant. PW13, namely, Krishnankutty, has testified that he and PW-24 were very close and the factum of their closeness was told to him by the convict-appellant himself stating that he wished to marry her. PW-24, namely, Ushadevi @ Baby said that she and the convict appellant would speak on the phone 10-15 times a day. She has testified that sexual relations took place between them on the night of 8th July 2007, i.e., the day that he had allegedly killed Lissy. The convict-appellant had apparently told her that there had been no conjugal relations between him and the deceased Lissy for the last five years and that the youngest child, namely, 3 rd daughter, was not fathered by him. PW-26, namely, Sheela Sara Abraham, nodal officer of Tata Teleservices Ltd. testified that there had been numerous calls from the number ‘9288173334’ to ‘9388920657’ and later to ‘9961625774’, both numbers belonging to the convict-appellant as testified by PW24. She further stated that there was another number which ended in the numbers ‘812’ and that they would often call each other using said number. Ex.27 are the call details between the numbers ‘9747017812’ and ‘9961625774’. A cumulative consideration of the above testimonies does point to the presence of sufficient motive. He suspected infidelity on the part of the deceased Lissy and that she had borne a child out of wedlock, along with the fact that there was no physical relation between them.
Last seen witnesses proved the presence of children with the appellant before they die
11. Now we consider the evidence in respect of the last seen theory. PW-1 testified that on 8th July 2008 he had seen Lissy walking along with the convict-appellant to their house. When he saw the convict-appellant working in the field on 13th July 2008 he enquired regarding Lissy and their two children to which the reply was that they were away visiting her maternal uncle and would be back on 17th July 2008. When they did not return on the said date, he said that one of the children was being admitted to a convent at Pala for studies and he would go there on 20th and return with his wife on the same day. Yet he did not return. PW-1 stated to have been present at the time of recovery of the bodies as well. PW-2 states that she saw Lissy on 8 th July 2008, her son and 3 rd daughter on 11th July 2008, i.e., the day after they had taken these two children along with themselves to attend a wedding on 10th July 2008. The other two children, 2 nd daughter and 1 st daughter were last seen when they were at home in the summer vacations. She further testified that around this time, when she had enquired from the convict-appellant regarding Lissy, she was also told the same story as PW-1. PW-7 namely Suhara, a neighbour of PW-1, stated that she had seen the convict appellant getting down from an autorickshaw with his children – son and 3 rd daughter and entering the house on 12th July 2008. This has been taken as clinching evidence by the Courts below. PW-9, namely, Sajan Antony, the Headmaster of St. Joseph’s UPS, Vellilappally, has testified that on 22nd July 2008 the convict-appellant came to the school desiring to take away 1 st daughter and 2 nd daughter, on the pretext that his mother had passed away, to which he had no objection but said that requisite permission should be taken from the concerned authority of the children’s home where they resided. Connected with the above is the convict-appellant’s travel to Kottayam and stay at Bino Lodge from 20th July 2008 to 21st July 2008, which fact is testified to PW-17 and PW-18.
Primary charges stand proved
14. With the above discussion, the primary charges of Sections 302 (four counts) & 376 (one count) IPC, stand proved. We affirm the findings of the Courts below. The conviction of the convict-appellant, therefore, remains undisturbed. We shall now proceed to the aspect of sentence.
Considering aggravating circumstances
16. The aggravating circumstances have already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, but are once again pointed out here:
(a) Brutality of the crime;
(b) Pre-determined intention to kill all family members;
(c) No remorse even after having killed one person since there was adequate time between the killings of Lissy, which is presumed to be on 8th July 2008 when she disappeared, and of two of the children few days later and the two other children almost ten days thereafter;
(d) Sexual assault on his own daughter;
(e) Multiple persons killed.
Appellant’s death row is converted into life sentence
17. Keeping in view the discussion made in Ramesh A. Naika v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc. and considering the facts that the convict-appellant had no prior antecedents; good conduct for the past 16-17 years of incarceration; difficulties in mental health and consistent efforts at being a model prisoner, we find that the imposition of death penalty would be unjustified. He is, therefore, removed from death row. However, considering the severity of the crime, the number of persons killed, that out of five four were his own children, we are of the view that he does not deserve to be set free and direct that he shall spend the remainder of his days in jail, till his last breath, hoping to do acts of penance to atone for the crimes he has committed and particularly for the fact that he extinguished four bright flames.
Judgments involved with citations
1. Siriya alias Shri Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 22
2. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
3. Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 353
4. Ramesh A. Naika v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka Etc. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 575
Acts and sections involved
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
– Section 302 (Murder)
– Section 376 (Rape)
– Section 297 (Disrespect to dead body)
– Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence)
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.):
– Section 368 (Confirmation of death sentence)
– Section 366(1) (Appeal in death sentence cases)
Party
Reji Kumar alias Reji (Appellant) versus State of Kerala (Respondent) – Criminal Appeal Nos. 1179-1180 of 2023 – 2025 INSC 538 – 22nd April, 2025 – Hon’ble Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta [3 Judge Bench].
