No Disease So Destructive as Lust: High Court of Kerala Affirms Convictions in Double Murder Case

Convictions upheld for Nino Mathew and Anu Shanthi in the Attingal double murder case, underscoring the gravity of circumstantial evidence and digital footprints.

The High Court of Kerala has upheld the convictions of Nino Mathew and Anu Shanthi in a chilling double murder case from Attingal. The judgment delivered by Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and Johnson John emphasizes the role of circumstantial evidence and digital footprints in securing convictions. This case, marked by its sensational details of an adulterous relationship leading to murder, highlights the judiciary's stance on crimes driven by lust and betrayal.

The gruesome crime occurred on April 16, 2014, in Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram, where Omana, the mother of PW1 (Lijish), and Swasthika, his 3 ½-year-old daughter, were brutally murdered. PW1 himself narrowly escaped an attack by the primary accused, Nino Mathew. The prosecution argued that the crime was a result of a conspiracy between Mathew and Anu Shanthi, who were involved in an illicit relationship, aiming to eliminate PW1's family to live together without hindrance.

Credibility of Circumstantial Evidence: The High Court meticulously evaluated the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. "The prosecution has adduced clear evidence to establish the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence," noted the bench, emphasizing the logical sequence of events linking Mathew to the crime scene before and after the murders.

Digital Footprints: A significant part of the evidence was derived from the digital communications between Mathew and Shanthi. The court remarked, "The sexually explicit photographs and messages exchanged between the first and second accused are crucial in establishing the motive and conspiracy behind the crime." This digital evidence played a pivotal role in corroborating the prosecution's narrative of a premeditated plan.

Role of Forensic Evidence: The court also relied heavily on forensic evidence to connect Mathew to the crime. Bloodstains matching the victims' blood groups were found on Mathew's clothing and the weapon recovered. The judgment stated, "The presence of the same chilly powder in the key of the car used by the first accused and the place of occurrence has a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the first accused."

Witness Testimonies: Testimonies from neighbors and other witnesses who saw Mathew near the crime scene were deemed credible. The bench observed, "The evidence of PW2 and PW3, who arrived at the crime scene immediately after hearing the cries of PW1, is reliable and consistent, establishing the presence of the accused."

The court's legal reasoning underscored the doctrine of "last seen" and the accused's inability to provide a plausible explanation for their presence and actions. "The burden will be on the first accused, in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act," the court asserted, highlighting that Mathew was the only person present in the house along with the deceased at the time of the murders.

Justice Johnson John poignantly remarked, "There is no disease so destructive as lust," reflecting the moral gravity the court attributed to the motivations behind the crime. The bench further stated, "The prosecution has succeeded in establishing beyond doubt the guilt of the accused through unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, corroborated by forensic and digital proofs."

The High Court's decision to uphold the convictions sends a strong message about the judiciary's approach to cases involving circumstantial evidence and digital forensics. By affirming the trial court's judgment, the court reinforces the legal principles guiding the evaluation of evidence and the severity of punishment in cases of heinous crimes motivated by personal vendettas and immoral relationships. This judgment is expected to serve as a significant precedent in similar future cases, underlining the importance of a meticulous and comprehensive approach in the administration of justice.

Date of Decision:   May 24, 2024