SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 736

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
Sibu @ Thumpi, S/O Purushan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 1406 OF 2019, CRL.A NO. 1165 OF 2019, CRL.A NO. 1174 OF 2019, CRL.A NO. 1405 OF 2019
Decided on : 30-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : VIVEK NAIR P, C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)(K/864/1994), UTHARA A.S(K/514/2019), ANANDA PADMANABHAN(K/597/2017), VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON(K/001627/2019), MAHESH CHANDRAN(K001557/2019), ADV SRI.T.U.SUJITH KUMAR, SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR, SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL, K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN, N.P.ASHA(K/1605/2003)
For the Respondent: ALEX M THOMBRA, SR PP

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment underscores the principle that the reliability of eyewitness testimony is crucial in criminal cases, particularly when the witnesses are chance witnesses, and that any significant inconsistencies or delays in reporting can lead to reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - HOMICIDE AND CONSPIRACY - IPC SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 149, 120(B), 302 - The court analyzed the applicability of various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning unlawful assembly, rioting, conspiracy, and murder. It emphasized the need for reliable eyewitness testimony, particularly from chance witnesses, and highlighted the importance of corroborating evidence. The court found that the prosecution's reliance on eyewitnesses was flawed due to inconsistencies and lack of credibility, leading to the conclusion that the charges against the accused were not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the fatal collision of a motorcycle with a lorry, resulting in the deaths of two youths, Johnson and Justin. The prosecution alleged that the incident was a deliberate act orchestrated by the accused due to prior enmity with the deceased. Eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the accused in the lorry before and after the incident, but their testimonies were inconsistent and raised doubts about their reliability.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be unreliable due to significant inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and the suspicious circumstances surrounding their presence at the scene. The court concluded that the evidence did not support the charges of conspiracy and murder against the accused.

Issues: The primary issues revolved around the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, the presence of the accused at the scene, and whether the prosecution had established the charges of murder and conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evidence of chance witnesses must be scrutinized carefully, especially when their presence at the scene is questionable. It reiterated that unexplained delays in reporting incidents and inconsistencies in witness statements can undermine the prosecution's case.

Final Decision: The appeals by the accused were allowed, the conviction and sentence under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 120(B), and 302 were set aside, and the accused were acquitted.

JUDGMENT :

G.Girish, J.

The judgment dated 03.08.2019 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Alappuzha in S.C.No.601/2016 convicting and sentencing accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 120(B) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, is under challenge in these appeals filed by the aforesaid accused.

2. Two youths by name Johnson and Justin, while they were travelling in the motorcycle with Reg.No.KL-32 D-9428, with Justin riding the vehicle and Johnson in the pillion seat, from South to North through Thykkal-Andhakaranazhi coastal road, were hit by a lorry with Reg.No.KL-02 AN 5563, from behind at about 6:15 p.m on 13.11.2015, near St.Peter’s bus stop at the place called Chanthakkadavu, resulting in the fall of the above persons to the road and suffering fatal injuries. The offending lorry sped away towards the North without stopping. Though the above victims were taken to Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Cherthala shortly after the incident, they were declared dead by the Medical Officer who attended them.

3. PW1, the brother of deceased Johnson, was informed about the incident by a person by name Kunjumon at about 6:30 p.m on the same day. He immediately rushed to Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Cherthala and came to know about the death of his brother and the co-traveller. The local people who witnessed the incident, are said to have conveyed the information to PW1 that it was not an accident, but a deliberate act of dashing the lorry upon the motorcycle ridden by the victims. Those local people are also said to have informed PW1 that the accused Nos.1 and 2 and two other identifiable persons were there in the cabin of that lorry driven by the 3rd accused, and that the aforesaid lorry was found parked near the place of occurrence from noon onwards, obviously awaiting the arrival of the victims who were engaged in masonry work in a nearby house. It is stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 nurtured bitter enmity with deceased Johnson in connection with earlier issues in between them, and that the incident involved in this case was the outcome of a conspiracy hatched by accused Nos.1 and 2 with the other accused to eliminate Johnson.

4. Having known that the death of his brother and his colleague, was homicide perpetrated by the aforesaid five persons, PW1 went to the Pattanakkad Police Station and tendered Ext.P1 First Information Statement to PW47, the Sub Inspector of Police concerned, at about 10:00 p.m. on 13.11.2015, on the basis of which Ext.P52 First Information Report was registered in respect of the commission of offence under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 I.P.C. read with Section 149 I.P.C. In the meanwhile, the Inspector of Police, Kuthiyathodu, upon getting information about the abovesaid hit and run case, passed over instructions to PW40, a Grade S.I on patrol duty to keep a watch on the lorry which sped away from the scene of crime, after hitting down two motorcyclists. The local people also were on alert upon getting information about the aforesaid incident, which eventually resulted in the capture of the rogue lorry at a place called Karayathode, more than 10 Kms. towards the North of the scene of crime, where it was blocked by placing wooden logs in the road. There also, the aforesaid lorry had hit a private car driven by PW24 during the desperate attempt of the 3rd accused to drive away with that lorry. However, the 3rd accused, and the lorry driven by him were taken into custody by PW40.

5. PW51, the Inspector of Police, Kuthiyathodu, took over the investigation and swung into action. The arrest of the 3rd accused was recorded on 14.11.2015, and he was remanded to judicial custody. Inquest and autopsy of the bodies were done as usual. Upon getting information that the accused No.6 had harboured and given shelter to accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 at his house in the night of 13.11.2015, the Investigating Officer booked him for the commission of offence under Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code.

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top