Rape and murder of 60-year-old widow from Puthenvelikara: High Court quash death sentence of migrant worker from Assam 

KOCHI: The High Court has quashed the death sentence of a migrant worker in the case of raping and murdering a 60-year-old widow in Puthenvelikara, Ernakulam. A division bench comprising Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian acquitted Parimal Sahu (29), a native of Nagaon, Assam. This quashed the 2021 order of the North Paravur Additional Sessions Court.

The HC order stated that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence and that the trial court erred in accepting the statement of the mentally unwell son of the murdered woman. This was done by dismissing the government's petition seeking permission to execute the death sentence and allowing the appeal of the accused against the sentence.

The murder took place after midnight on March 18, 2018. The woman's body was found lying naked inside the house with serious injuries. Parimal Sahu alias Munna, who was staying in the room she had rented, was later arrested. The case was that Munna killed the elderly woman by hitting her with a stone and tightening a cloth around her neck when she resisted the rape attempt. The arrest was made taking into account the woman's son's statement that Munna was at home. The trial court awarded the maximum sentence.

However, the High Court found that the prosecution evidence was in favour of the accused. Although the only eyewitness, the son, is 35 years old, the examination revealed that he has the intelligence of a seven-and-a-half-year-old. The trial court also ignored the inconsistencies in what the man said during the statements and examination. The division bench clarified that this testimony could not be taken into account.

The confession made by the accused before doctors, not in court, was also presented as evidence. The accused was taken to a dentist to assess the injuries on the body. The forensic report said that the semen recovered was not sufficient to determine that it belonged to the accused. The method by which the stone used in the attack was recovered is also questionable. It was clarified that all these things are conducive to assessing the innocence of the accused.