Supreme Court Orders Death Penalty in Vishnupriya Murder Case: Details Unveiled

The reason for doing this is uncontrollable hatred against the victim. The Supreme Court earlier orders death sentence to the accused in such cases Public Prosecutor K. Presented by Ajith Kumar. Death penalty can be given based on circumstantial evidence in case of brutal murder without eye witnesses.

Vishnupriya, Shyamjith, when people gathered at the house where the murder took place |

Thalassery: In the case of killing Kannachankandi Vishnupriya (23) of Panur Vallayi by slitting her throat inside the house, the accused A. of Manantheri. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Shyamjit. The prosecution maintained that the killing of Vishnu Priya was heinous and even after the murder, her body was mutilated.

The reason for doing this is uncontrollable hatred against the victim. The Supreme Court earlier orders death sentence to the accused in such cases Public Prosecutor K. Presented by Ajith Kumar. Death penalty can be given based on circumstantial evidence in case of brutal murder without eye witnesses.

The accused, who returned to Manantheri from Bālaigh after committing the murder, was serving rice from his father’s hotel. This is not what a normal person can do.

Even if the accused is sentenced to life imprisonment, there will be no change of mind. If the accused does not receive the death penalty, society will look at the legal system with suspicion. The prosecution also argued that it would send a wrong message to society. The prosecution also drew the court’s attention to the fact that the accused had said that if he was sentenced to life imprisonment, he would be released after 14 years.

The defense opposed the death penalty based on circumstantial evidence. S. defense counsel should consider the age of the accused and that he is not accused in criminal cases. Praveen said in an online argument.

The respondent claimed that he was the breadwinner of the family which consisted of his father, mother and sister. For the respondent, Adv. Abhilash Mathur was also present. Police Inspector Panur MP Azad arrested the accused.

A double-edged knife was used to kill

Accused Shyamjith used double edged knife, hammer and dagger to kill Vishnu Priya. The prosecution claims that Shyamjit made the knife double-edged. Materials for making knives were recovered from the house. After the murder, the weapons were put in a bag and kept in the driveway in front of the house.

The bag was filled with stones to keep it low in the water. Various tools were found in the house. Weapons were made by watching YouTube. Two days before the incident, the accused bought a hammer and a glove from a shop in Koothuparm.

CCTV of these purchases. The film was produced in court by the prosecution during the trial. The motorcycle used by the accused on the day of the incident was brought to the court hall during the trial. Witnesses identified the vehicle. CCTV The footage was also shown on a large screen in the court.

Nodal officers of three mobile companies were questioned. The police determined that the incident took place on October 22, 2022, between 10 am and 12 am. Based on the phone records and the statements of the residents, it was found to be after 11.47. Till 11.47 Vishnupriya was talking to his friend Vipinraj.

After that Vipinraj called Vishnupriya but he did not pick up. Vipinraj texted several times but got no response. On the day of the incident, the accused mobile phone went to Vishnupriya’s house in Mananteri. At the time of the incident, the location of the accused’s phone was Manantheri.

On the day of the incident in the afternoon, the accused Shyamjit was going to Panur on his bicycle and returning to Vallaii side on CCTV. Photos recovered. When Vishnupriya and her friend went to Kozhikode, the accused followed her and threatened her. The phone records of the previous conversation between Vishnu Priya and the accused were produced in court as evidence. The trial of the case began before it was completed a year after the incident. There were 73 witnesses in the case. The prosecution re-examined three forensic experts as witnesses.