According to the prosecution, the victim's father was doubtful about the paternity of the said child and assaulted him.
Kerala High Court. (Creative Commons)
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, 26 June, upheld the conviction and life sentence of a man who brutally beat to death his three-year-old son more than seven years ago over doubts he had about the child’s paternity.
A bench of Justices PB Suresh Kumar and MB Snehalatha said the violence inflicted by the man on his son was “brutal and heinous”, and upheld the trial court verdict finding him guilty of murder.
“… we find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Appeal is devoid of any merit, which deserves only dismissal. We do so,” the bench said.
According to the prosecution, the victim’s father “was doubtful about the paternity of the said child” and on 26 February, 2017 had thrown the toddler from the courtyard into the house.
Thereafter, he indiscriminately beat the boy with a belt and hit the child’s head on the floor by holding him by the legs, the prosecution told the high court.
The child had died as a result of the injuries suffered in the brutal assault, it said.
In December 2021, the trial court convicted and sentenced the man to life for killing his son.
He had then moved an appeal in the high court against the trial court’s decision, claiming that he should be punished for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 of IPC and not for the offence of murder.
Rejecting his contention, the high court said that there was ample evidence before it to show that the act was done by the accused with the intention of causing bodily injury to the child.
“… and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a child aged 3,” the high court said.
“The acts done by the accused were brutal and heinous. Hitting the head of a child aged 3 years on the floor by holding the legs cannot be said to be an act done by the accused without the intention of committing murder…
“Therefore, the argument put forward by the counsel for the accused that the case on hand would not fall under section 300 (murder) and the offence would fall under 304 is untenable and cannot be accepted,” the bench said.
(Disclaimer: The headline, subheads, and intro of this report along with the photos may have been reworked by South First. The rest of the content is from a syndicated feed, and has been edited for style.)
Jun 28, 2024
Jun 28, 2024
Jun 28, 2024
Jun 28, 2024
Jun 27, 2024
Jun 27, 2024
