Thiruvananthapuram: The final hearing on the sentencing of Rajendran (40), convicted in the murder of Vineetha, concluded on Monday at the Thiruvananthapuram Additional Sessions Court-VII. Judge Prasoon Mohan will pronounce the sentence on April 24.

Rajendran, a native of Vellamadam Rajiv Nagar in Thovalai, Kanyakumari district, Tamil Nadu, was earlier found guilty under multiple sections of the IPC, including murder (Section 302), robbery with attempt to cause death (Section 397), destruction of evidence (Section 201), and criminal trespass (Section 447).

Vineetha (38), a resident of Charuvallikkonam, Karippur in Nedumangad, was employed at an ornamental plant shop in Ambalamukku, near Peroorkkada. On February 2, 2022, she was stabbed to death by Rajendran, who attempted to snatch her 4.5-sovereign gold chain in broad daylight.

According to the prosecution, Rajendran was on parole at the time of the crime and had come to work at a hotel in the area. Investigations revealed a disturbing pattern: Rajendran, who dabbled in online stock trading, resorted to murder when he ran out of money. He had previously killed Customs officer Subbaiah, his wife Vasanthi, and their 13-year-old daughter Abhishree in Tamil Nadu in a similarly gruesome manner.

The prosecution, led by Special Public Prosecutor M Salahuddin, described the murders as cold-blooded and diabolic, urging the court to consider the case as falling under the 'rarest of the rare' category. The court had sought multiple reports, including one from the District Collector, which unanimously warned against any leniency. These reports stated that Rajendran poses a continuing threat to society and lacks potential for reformation.

Rajendran, when questioned by the court, expressed no remorse and insisted he had done nothing wrong. He claimed he needed to take care of his 70-year-old mother. However, the prosecution highlighted his criminal history, calling him a serial killer who targets women and poses a grave danger to public safety.

Arguing that a life sentence would be inadequate, the prosecution demanded capital punishment. The defence, meanwhile, appealed for leniency, citing the convict’s age.