Nenmara double murder: Court says rehabilitation of victims' children is state's duty

THE Palakkad Additional District and Sessions Court’s judgement in the Nenmara double murder case has drawn significant attention for its direction to rehabilitate the orphaned children of the victims. Citing that the case was among the “rarest of rare”, the lone convict, Chenthamara (61), was awarded the death penalty on Monday, June 20.

The court, while awarding a death penalty to Chenthamara in the murder of Sudhakaran (58) and his mother Lakshmi Amma (75) in 2025, also directed a compensation payment of Rs 20 lakh to Athulya and Akhila, the orphaned daughters of Sudhakaran. 

In 2019, Chenthamara murdered Sudhakaran’s wife, Sajitha, under the belief that she played a role in his wife and daughter separating from him. He was awarded double life imprisonment for Sajitha’s murder.

Citing that the death of parents and the paternal grandmother left Sudhakaran and Sajitha’s daughters orphaned, Judge Kenneth George said that they must be compensated as a rehabilitative measure. In the event of non-payment, the court said that Chenthamara will have to undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment for three years each for the murders of Sudhakaran and Lakshmi Amma.

The court further directed the District Legal Services Authority to ensure that the children receive compensation and that they are rehabilitated. In case the amount cannot be recovered from Chenthamara, the court said that the state must step in and pay. 

The court went on to criticise the lack of adequate witness protection, leading to the twin murders, and said that at least one of Sudhakaran’s daughters must be given a government job.

Senior lawyer and rights activist Sandhya Raju told TNM that the direction for rehabilitation is a welcome move. 

“According to the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced the Indian Penal Code, a fine in criminal cases is mandatory. The IPC provided for fines, but some of them were optional, giving a limited scope for victim rehabilitation in criminal jurisprudence. The new provision strengthens the system from a victim’s rights perspective by making fines mandatory. But the BNS lays down a minimum mandatory amount to be paid. We usually think only of retribution in criminal law, not of its economic cost. Now that the fine is a statutory guarantee, it is a welcome step,” she explained.

Under BNS Section 395 (3), the new law also empowers a judge to impose a sentence without a fine and order an independent authority to make sure that the convict pays compensation to victims. Such compensation is uncapped and depends on the financial and social background of the victims and the nature of the crime.

In the present twin murder case, the Palakkad Additional District and Sessions Court said, “is not merely a tale of death, but of alleged revenge, brutality, and irreversible loss.”

What transpired in Nenmara

The accused Chenthamara was a resident of Nenmara village. He had a deep-seated enmity against his neighbours under the belief that they were responsible for the disruption of his marital relationship and the consequent separation from his wife and daughter. 

On August 31, 2019, he murdered one of his neighbours, namely Sajitha. That case was pending trial when Chenthamara was released on bail with a condition prohibiting him from entering the limits of Nenmara Grama Panchayat. The prosecution alleged that he violated those conditions by returning to reside in Boyan Colony, adjacent to the victims' residence.

On the morning of January 27, 2025, between approximately 9.58 am and 10.08 am, Sajitha’s husband, Sudhakaran, was riding his motorcycle near his house when Chenthamara allegedly intercepted him and repeatedly hacked him with a chopper, causing instantaneous death. Lakshmi Amma, Sudhakaran’s septuagenarian mother, who reached the scene moments later, was similarly attacked and succumbed to multiple chop injuries.

Court’s conclusion

The court came to a verdict based on circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chenthamara nurtured deep resentment against the family. The earlier murder of Sajitha was the first manifestation of that vendetta, while the present murders were the continuation of the same course of revenge.

While on bail for Sajitha’s murder, Chenthamara had been expressly prohibited from entering Nenmara Panchayat. Despite this, he returned to live near the victims' house. Multiple residents complained to the police regarding his presence and the threats he allegedly posed. The court treated this conduct as an important circumstance demonstrating deliberate disregard of judicial orders and continued hostility toward the victims.

Two shopkeepers, from whom Chenthamara purchased choppers, used to kill Sudhakaran and his mother, identified the weapons before the court. Residents and neighbours testified that Chenthamara had vowed to kill Sudhakaran and testified to the same.

The court considered this a clear motive and preparation to execute the murders.

On the day of the twin murders, the choppers used to hack the victims were recovered from Chenthamara’s residence, and they had DNA traces of him, as well as Sudhakaran and Lakshmi Amma.

The court said that this scientifically corroborates the prosecution’s case. “...In the present case, the accused swooped down upon the victims in a barbaric manner. The nonchalant audacity of the assailant, who walked away after extinguishing innocent lives, calls for deterrent chastisement. This Court is satisfied that it is a fit case where nothing short of capital punishment for the offence under Section 103 of the BNS, 2023, would meet the ends of justice,” the court observed.

The court convicted Chenthamara on two counts of murder and sentenced him to death. It also said that Sudhakaran’s children, who now have no family, must be given a Rs 10 lakh fine for each murder, making it a total compensation of Rs 20 lakh.

Compensation

“Section 395 of the BNSS, 2023, empowers the Court to award compensation to victims. Section 396 further provides for recommendations regarding victim compensation. In pursuance of this provision, the state government, in coordination with the Central government, has formulated a scheme under which either the District Legal Services Authority or the State Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, shall determine the quantum of compensation to be awarded. Accordingly, the daughters of the deceased, being the direct victims of the tragic occurrence, are entitled to such compensation and rehabilitative measures as envisaged under the statutory framework,” the judgement read.

The judgement further said that since there was a clear lack of action from the police while Chenthamara was out on bail, issuing threats to Sudhakaran, they must be held accountable. 

“In these circumstances, the responsibility of the state does not end with the prosecution and sentencing of the offender. To ensure a measure of stability and steady income, it is incumbent upon the government to extend rehabilitative support. This obligation includes providing suitable employment to the daughter of deceased Sudhakaran (PW21 Akhila),

thereby enabling her to sustain herself and to care for her sister,” the judgement read.

Sandhya Raju said that usually, claiming fines or compensation in a criminal trial is considered taboo, and when people are stigmatised for going to court as it is, such a statutory provision lifts that burden off them.

“Now, compensation has become a right, and that ensures some sense of security and dignity for the survivors of violent crimes,” she said.