Previous 1 / 19 Next

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITON (CRL.) NO.245 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2009 …Petitioner M.A. Antony @ Antappan versus ….Respondent State of Kerala JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The broad allegations against the appellant have been stated in the decision of this Court in the criminal appeal out of which the present Review Petition arises. It would be more convenient to reproduce the allegations from the decision: Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK GUGLANI Date: 2018.12.12 16:36:46 IST Reason: “On the intervening night of 6th and 7th January, 2001, when inmates of Aluva Municipal Town of Ernakulam District in the State of Kerala were in deep sleep, Manjooran House located in the midst of the town became a scene of ghastly crime. Six members of one family in the Manjooran House lost their lives in a matter of three hours, Antony @ Antappan, the appellant herein, in search of greener pastures abroad for which purpose R.P. (Crl.) No.245 of 2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 811 of 2009 Page 1 of 19

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

MA Antony @ Antappan

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

Case Title: M A Antony v. State of Kerala

Age at Offence: 39

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Christian

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Minorities: Religion
Socio-economic Status

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 20.5937

Longitude: 78.9629

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): India

Contributing TRP Partner

The Square Circle Clinic (India)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Commuted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2000s: 2004

Method of Execution: Hanging

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Murder: Multiple Victims

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Fingerprint/palmprint/footprint

Case Background (300 words max): The case against the accused is for killing six members of a family. The circumstances against him are: motive (economic distress); presence at the site of incident on the day of deaths and day after (supported by presence of his fingerprints and hair on deceased’s body and absence from his house); recovery (of clothes, fingerprints, scalp hair); judicial confession; extrajudicial confession. The trial court convicted the accused and awarded the death penalty on 31.01.2005, which was confirmed by the High Court of Kerala on 18.09.2006. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the sentence 22.04.2009, and once again on a review appeal on 13.04.2010. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd Arif & Ors v. The Registrar Supreme Court of India (2014) which granted a right for limited oral hearing of review petitions in death penalty matters, the review petition was re-opened. The Supreme Court finally upheld the conviction but commuted the sentence to that of life imprisonment, on 12.12.2018.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)

Mitigating factors: The lower courts did not consider the probability of reform, or the accused’s socio-economic context. The accused had no criminal antecedents. Finally, the accused that already been imprisoned for a considerable amount of time, and thus deserved a commutation.
Circumstantial evidence: The case was one of circumstantial evidence, and thus the death penalty should not be awarded.
Public opinion: The idea of ‘collective conscience of society’ had no place in the court’s consideration of material facts, and should not influence the award of sentence. It was not possible to determine public opinion, and not desirable to give it any weight.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max)

The court held,

Mitigating factors: It was found that the accused had no criminal history prior to the crime at hand. It is important to consider mitigating factors, particularly socio-economic factors in this case. They considered his poverty that drove him to committing the crime.
Collective conscience: The court affirmed that matters of public opinion should not influence a court’s reasoning.

Legal Representation Received

Trial: Private
Appeal: Private
Second Appeal: Pro bono
Pre-trial: Unknown

Judicial Precedents: Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. The Registrar Supreme Court of India & others; Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra; State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony; Bachan Singh v State of Punjab; Surendra Pal Shivbalakpal v. State of Gujarat; Mulla v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Kamleshwar Paswan v. Union Territory of Chandigarh; Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde v. State of Maharashtra; Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra; Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan