NAVAS @ MULANAVAS versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 18-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 26 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 913 : 2024 INSC 215
Navas @ Mulanavas 
v. 
State of Kerala
(Criminal Appeal No. 1215 of 2011)
18 March 2024
[B. R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant-accused was held guilty for the offences punishable u/
ss.302, 449, 309, IPC and sentenced accordingly. For the offence 
punishable u/s.302, IPC, he was sentenced to death. High Court 
confirmed the conviction, however the sentence of death was 
modified and reduced to imprisonment for life with a direction 
that he shall not be released from prison for a period of 30 years 
including the period already undergone with set off u/s.428, Cr.P.C. 
alone. What should be the appropriate sentence and whether the 
High Court was justified in adopting the Swamy Shraddananda v. 
State of Karnataka [2008] 11 SCR 93 line of cases and whether 
the fixing of the quantum at 30 years without remission was the 
appropriate sentence, in the facts and circumstances of the case?
Headnotes
Sentence/Sentencing – Murder – Appropriate period of 
sentence to be imposed under the Swamy Shraddananda v. 
State of Karnataka [2008] 11 SCR 93 principle wherein it was 
held that to avoid a death sentence, the courts can device a 
graver form of imprisonment for life beyond fourteen years – 
Aggravating and mitigating circumstances – Relevant factors 
for arriving at the number of years which the convict will 
have to undergo before which remission could be sought – 
Trial Court sentenced the accused to death for the offence 
punishable u/s.302, IPC – High Court confirmed the conviction, 
however modified the death sentence to imprisonment for 30 
years without remission following the Swamy Shraddananda 
line of cases – Correctness:
Held: Circumstances of the present case were by themselves 
consistent with the sole hypothesis that the accused and the 
accused alone was the perpetrator of the murders – On the 
aggravating side, act committed by the accused was pre-planned/
914
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
premeditated; he brutally murdered 4 unarmed and defenseless 
persons, one of whom was a child and the other an aged lady – 
By the act of the accused, three generations of single family lost 
their lives for no fault of theirs; nature of injuries inflicted on ‘L’ 
and two others highlights the brutality and cold-bloodedness of 
the act – On the mitigating side, the accused was quite young 
(28 years old) when he committed the act; the act committed was 
not for any gain or profit; he did not try to flee and in fact tried 
to commit suicide as he was overcome with emotions after the 
dastardly act; he had been in jail for 18 years and 4 months and 
the case was based on circumstantial evidence – Further, conduct 
report of the appellant indicated that no disciplinary actions were 
initiated against him in the prison and his conduct and behavior 
had been satisfactory so far – Judgment of the High Cout is upheld 
insofar as the conviction of the appellant u/ss.302, 449, 309 IPC 
is concerned – Sentence imposed for the offence u/ss.449, 309, 
IPC also not interfered with – High Court was justified on the 
facts of the case in following Swamy Shraddananda principle 
while imposing sentence for the offence u/s.302 IPC – However, 
the sentence u/s.302 imposed by the High Court is modified from 
a period of 30 years imprisonment without remission to that of a 
period of 25 years imprisonment without remission, including the 
period already undergone. [Paras 13, 58-60]
Sentence/Sentencing – Murder – Remission – Commutation of 
death penalty to life imprisonment, however convict cannot be 
released on the expiry of 14 years (the normal benchmark for 
life imprisonment) – Aggravating and mitigating circumstances 
– Appropriate period of sentence to be imposed under the 
Swamy Shraddananda principle – Relevant factors for arriving 
at the number of years which the convict will have to undergo 
before which remission could be sought:
Held: Once the court decides that the death penalty is not to be 
imposed and also that the convict cannot be released on the expiry 
of 14 years, the guidelines set out in Swamy Shraddananda, V. 
Sriharan and the line of cases which applied these judgments will 
have to be considered and principles, if any, set out therein have 
to be applied – There can be no straitjacket formulae – Pegging 
the point up to which remission powers cannot be invoked is an 
exercise that has to be carefully und

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.