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) 818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ.
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
ANILKUMAR @ JACKY S/O SIVATHANU PILLAI – Respondent
D.S.R. No. 2 of 2017, Crl. Appeal Nos. 497, 552, 645, 676, 693, 796, 1307 of 2016
Decided On : 06-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.U. NAZAR.
For the Respondent: P. VIJAYA BHANU, MITHA SUDHINDRAN, V.C. SARATH, B. RAMAN PILLAI, R. ANIL, M. SUNILKUMAR.

The testimony of an approver must be corroborated by reliable evidence to sustain a conviction; uncorroborated evidence is insufficient for a guilty verdict.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 449, 323, 302, 294(b), 201, 364 read with Section 149 - Criminal conspiracy and murder - Accused convicted based on approver's testimony, which was found unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration - Trial court's reliance on uncorroborated evidence led to erroneous conviction. (Paras 1, 12, 25, 46)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of approver - Requires corroboration in material particulars to be reliable - Court must scrutinize the credibility of the approver's evidence before accepting it. (Paras 15, 17, 46)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 306 - Grant of pardon to an accomplice - Must be based on reliable evidence and not mere apprehensions of the investigating officer. (Paras 10, 22, 46)

Facts of the case:
The case involved a conspiracy to murder Santhosh Kumar, with multiple accused involved in the planning and execution of the crime. The trial court convicted several accused based on the testimony of an approver, who later turned hostile.

Findings of Court:
The court found the approver's testimony unreliable and lacking corroboration, leading to the conclusion that the trial court's conviction was unsustainable.

Issues: The main issues included the reliability of the approver's testimony and the sufficiency of evidence to support the charges against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the approver's evidence did not satisfy the reliability test and lacked corroboration, rendering the convictions invalid.

Result: Convictions set aside and appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

1. These Criminal Appeals and DSR arise from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge -I, Thiruvananthapuram in Sessions Case No. 1121 of 2008. The trial court found A3 and A12 not guilty of the charges alleged against them, but found A1, A2, A5, A7, A8, A9 and A10 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 449, 323, 302, 294(b), 201, 364 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as to 'IPC']. In connection with the offences punishable under Section 120B read with 302 IPC, A1 and A7 were sentenced to death, whereas A2, A5, A8, A9 and A10 were sentenced to life imprisonment. Separate sentences of imprisonment and fine were also imposed on all the above accused for the other offences they were convicted for. A4 turned approver, A6 died during the investigation of the case and A11 absconded.

The Prosecution Case:

2. Angered by the news that Santhosh Kumar @ Jet Santhosh was having an adulterous relationship with his wife A3 Usha, A5 Suresh Kumar @ Sura along with A3 Usha and A1 Anilkumar @ Jacky, who was also on inimical terms with Santhosh Kumar, entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder him. In implementation of the said conspiracy, A5 Suresh Kumar and his brother A6 Anil Kumar @ Motta Ani invited the deceased to their house on 22.11.2004, using the help of A3 Usha, and he reached there by around 4 pm. After a brief conversation, A5 Suresh Kumar took the deceased in his autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL 01 T 7795 to the Prince Hair Dressing Salon belonging to PW2 Sudhakaran for a haircut. Thereafter, A5 Suresh Kumar and A6 Anil Kumar went to Thaliyal and waited near the statue of Smt. Indira Gandhi for the other conspirators whom A6 Anil Kumar had informed of their arrival there.

3. On getting the said information, A1 Anilkumar, A2 Binukumar, A7 Ajithkumar @ Soju, A8 Shaji @ Kochi Shaji, A9 Biju @ Bijukuttan, A10 C.L.Kishore, A11 Shaju and A12 Boby reached Thaliyal in a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 01 AD 6143, arranged by A11 Shaju and A12 Boby and driven by A4 Nazarudeen. They then formed an unlawful assembly armed with weapons and proceeded towards the Prince Hair Dressing Salon and on reaching there, A7 Ajithkumar entered the salon and on seeing the deceased there, he confirmed the latter’s presence to the others in the vehicle. Immediately thereafter, all of the accused except A4 Nazarudeen committed rioting and stormed into the Salon where the deceased was getting his haircut. After assaulting PW2 Sudhakaran the owner of the Salon, they manhandled and forcefully took the deceased into the vehicle by threatening onlookers with a chopper. They then kidnapped the deceased and drove away from the place after pulling away A4 Nazarudeen from the driver seat of the vehicle and getting A10 Kishore to drive the vehicle as per the directions of A6 Anil Kumar. A12 Boby rode a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL 01 AC 4921 in front of the Tata Sumo vehicle and they sped away to Alantharakkonam Harijan Colony where A8 Shaji and A9 Biju were staying. On the way to the Colony, the victim was tortured by those in the vehicle except A4 Nazarudeen and A10 Kishore. He was then pushed out of the vehicle near the house of A8 Shaji and was again tortured in the compound. A2 Binukumar also inflicted a severe wound on the victim's head. When A8 Shaji's mother intervened, the accused pushed the victim into the car and drove away towards Valiyottukonam cemetery where they again pushed the victim out of the car and laid him on the ground. All the accused except A4 Nazarudeen continued to torture the victim there. Thereafter, A1 Anilkumar obtained a chopper from A7 Ajithkumar, through A9 Biju, and on A6 Anil Kumar holding the left leg of the deceased, and A7 Ajithkumar holding his left hand, A1 Anilkumar hacked the right leg of the deceased above the knee and his right hand above the elbow joint and gave the severed portions

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