It is a presentation base on case Father Benedict VS State Of Kerala

1. TOPIC – FATHER BENEDICT VSTATE OF KERALA

2. The Father Benedict Vs State of Kerala case is a legal
case that revolves around allegations of Murder and
rape against a Catholic priest in Kerala , India.

3. 1. Murder.
2. Abduction in order to murder.

4. MURDER
is the
killing of
Murder
unlawfully
another
without
human
justification
excuse,
the
or valid
especially
unlawfully killing of
another human with
malice aforethought.
This state of mind
may, depending upon
the jurisdiction,
distinguish
from other
unlawful
murder
forms of
homicide,
such asmanslaughter.

5. (I) INTENTION: Must be intended to cause death.
(I) CAUSE OF DEA
TH: The act has to be done with the
knowledge that the act may cause the death of another.
(I) BODIL
Y INJURY
: There must be intent to cause such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

6. MURDER
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code defines murder as an
act of injury caused by a person to kill another person or to
cause such bodily injury which in turn causes the death of
such person or voluntarily commits an act which causes
death. After such person, the person who causes such death
shall be said to commit murder under the provisions of
section 300. As a murder is a criminal offence, the provision
of punishment for this offense as provided under section
302 of the Indian PenalCode.

7. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code provides for the
punishment of murder. According to this section,
whoever commits murder is punished with the
following punishments:
(i) Death;
(ii) Life imprisonment;
(iii) The guilty will also have to pay a fine.

8. In rare case is the principle given in Rarely Singh v State of
Punjab (1980) which limits the discretion of the court in
awarding capital punishment. Death as the highest
punishment. Death as the highest punishment was
removed from a general rule to be awarded only in ordinary
circumstances and that too after recording the special
reason for invoking the highest punishment, which in no
circumstances was followed by its execution. Cannot be
refunded.

9. The phrase rare of the rarest is yet to be defined, while the
concern for human life, the norms of a civilized society,
and the need to reform the offender have attracted the
attention of courts. The death penalty is based on the
action of the offender rather than the crime. The principle
of proportionality of punishment to crime, victim, and
offender is the foremost concern of the courts.

10. MINOR SENTENCED IN AMURDERCASE
Children are the future of every nation, so they have to be
carefully evaluated before they are awarded major
punishments such as the death penalty and life imprisonment
for heinous crimes. Punishment should be based on the
principles of the law of evidence. Justice Lokur, who is the
chairman of the Supreme Court Juvenile Committee, observed
that: Everyone held that the death penalty cannot be awarded
to juvenile convicts in every case relating to heinous crimes
like rape and murder. He said that every person who is about 17
years of age or close to 18 years cannot be given death sentence
just because they have committed a heinous crime, proper
inference must be obtained after going through all the
evidence which pertains to the case

11. According to the juvenile (care and protection of children
)Act 2000, the death penalty cannot be awarded to persons
below the age of 18 years at the time of the offence. The
Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 replaced that act in 2000. The
Act, which was amended, can punish persons between the
age of 16 and 18 years for committing heinous crimes such
as rape and murder.

12. The main reason for passing the bill was the Delhi rape case,
where one of the accused was 17 years old when he
committed the crime. He was tried separately by a juvenile
court and was sentenced to only three years ‘ imprisonment.
This raised a lot of controversies and mandated that the age
of juveniles who are committing heinous crimes should be
amended.

13. ABDUCTIONIN
ORDER TO
MURDER
by force
or
Whoever
compels,
deceitful
induces,
by any
means
any person
to go from any place,
is said to abduct that
person. Abducting
by use of force or any
deceitful means- The
abduction should be
done by compelling
or inducing a person
by use of force or
deceitful means.

14. SECTION 364
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such
person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be
put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with
{imprisonment for life} or rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years, shall also be liable to fine .

15. FATHERBENEDICT
VSTATEOF
KERALA
Decided on 07 April
1967
At , High Court of
Kerala
By, THE
HONOURABLE
CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
P.T. RAMAN NAYAR
& THE
HONOURABLE MR.
V
.P
.
JUSTICE
GOPALAN
NAMBIY
AR

16. The accused in this case, Father Benedict, A 37 year old
Roman Catholic Priest, has been convicted by the session
judge, Quilon, under S.364 and 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, of the abduction in order to murder, and the murder,
of a 43 year old woman by the name of Mariyakutty. He has
been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment for the
former offence, and to death for the latter. He has appealed,
while the learned Sessions Judge has submitted the
proceedings for confirmation of the sentence of death.

17. The body of an unidentified woman was found lying face
upwards at the spot marked on the road leading from
Mannamaruthi to the forest across a stream called the
Madatharuvi, an unfrequented road running by the side of a
hill through a tea plantation, and a lonely spot with no
dwelling house within a range of a hundred yards. The body
was practically naked from the waist upwards, the bodice
and the jacket which the woman was wearing having been
drawn up to the armpits so as to expose the breasts. The
throat was cut from ear to ear. There were a number of
incised wounds on the chest and abdomen, and a contusion
covering the whole of the left side of the face.

18. The body remained unidentified when it was buried. But,
from the photograph, which clearly discloses the features,
Mariyakutty mother, and her daughter, have been able to
recognize the body as hers and have deposed accordingly.
They have also referred to a scar, about the size of a rupee,
below Mariyakutty left breast. Such a scar was noticed by
the doctor, who conducted the autopsy, and is one of the
two marks of identification noted in his certificate, has
stated that the clothes, the jewels, and the umbrella, found
on or near the body belonged to her mother

19. On the night of the 15 the accused took Mariyakutty on
some pretext or other the case put forward at the trail was
that it was on the pretext that they could go somewhere
and make love in the open undisturbed to the spot where
her body was found and murdered her there by inflicting
the injuries found on her body. The motive put forward is
that the accused was in criminal intimacy with
Mariyakutty, the child joy being thus born to him , and
that for fear of blackmail or exposure the accused thought
it as well to do away with her.

20. the accused had a strong motive for the
the deceased was last seen alive with the
(a) Whether
murder?
(b) Whether
accused?
(c) Whether the bed sheet, found on the body belonged to
the accused?
(d) That from a spot pointed out by the accused was
recovered the knife, with which most of the injuries
found on the body could have been inflicted, and which
on chemical examination, was found to be stained with
human blood

21. The prosecution has failed to establish that the accused has
sufficient, or, for that matter, any motive to do away with
the deceased.
The seems to us that none of the circumstances relied upon
by the prosecution has been satisfactorily established. It is
needless to say that they add up to nothing.
There is no eye- witness to the murder, nor so far as the
evidence goes, is there any confession by the accused. It was
therefore by no means incumbent on the prosecution to
present a complete picture of the crime; it should have
sufficed for it to prove the incriminating circumstances and
to leave it to the court to decide whether they connected the
accused with the crime in such a manner as to establish his
guilt.

22. Court set aside the conviction and sentence recorded
against the accused, acquit him of the offences with which
he was charged, and direct that he be set at liberty.

23. Even though he was set free from the case, the designation
of “murder” remained on him. This gave him a lot mental
sufferings. But Fr. Benedict accepted and suffered all of
these, without complaining to any one. Later he served the
kanyakumary mission and other remote centers of the
Archdiocese. Toward the end , he was resting in the priest
home at Mudiyookara near kottayam.