IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Mohammed Iqbal @ Ikku S/o.Abdul Khader - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
Crl.Appeal Nos.704 and 1133 of 2018
Decided on : 11-02-2025
JUDGMENT :
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
Criminal Appeal No.704/2018 is filed by the 1st accused and Criminal Appeal No.1133/2018 is filed by the 2nd accused, challenging their conviction and sentence imposed under Sections 120B and 302 IPC in S.C.No.111/2011 by the Special Court (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam.
The Prosecution Case:
2. The accused, five in number, entered into a criminal conspiracy to exterminate deceased Balakrishnan, who had married the daughter of the 5th accused Abubacker Haji without the consent of their family. Abubacker Haji was opposed to the marriage of his daughter Rasina with the deceased Balakrishnan and he was of the view that it brought dishonour to his family and community at large. Abubacker Haji decided to eliminate Balakrishnan once and for all and he engaged the first accused for the same. The first accused befriended Balakrishnan and with the help of the approver Abdul Hameed, got in touch with the second accused, who agreed to help the first accused for monetary consideration. Accordingly, at 10.30 pm on 18.09.2001, the first and second accused committed murder of the said Balakrishnan by stabbing him with a knife on his neck and body inside a Maruti car bearing registration No.CTA-2697 at the public road near Muhiyudheen Masjid, Pulikkunnu, Kasaragod. The third accused was one of the conspirators, who had arranged a party on 1.08.2001, which was attended by the first accused wherein the third accused assured all help to him. The fourth accused harboured the first accused in his house on the night of 18.09.2001 and thereafter, helped him to escape to Mangalore. Hence, the prosecution alleged that the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 302 IPC and Section 212 of IPC.
Proceedings in the Trial Court:
3. From the side of the prosecution, PWs1 to 65 were marked and Exts.P1 to 104 and MO1 to MO12 were marked. From the side of the accused, D1 to D18 were marked through the prosecution witnesses. Exts.C1 and C1(b) were also marked as court exhibits. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in evidence and contended that they were innocent. From the side of the accused, DW1 to DW8 were examined and Exts.D19 and D20 were marked. The Trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, found that the first and the second accused guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 120B r/w 302 IPC and convicted them thereunder. It also found that accused Nos.3 to 5 were not guilty of the offences alleged against them and they were acquitted. The Trial Court sentenced the 1st and 2nd accused to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 120B IPC and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 IPC. In case of default, the accused were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
A compendium of the prosecution evidence:
4. PW1 is the person who lodged Exts.P1 FIS. He deposed that, while he was working as Imam in Muhiyudheen Masjid, on 18.09.2001 at about 10.30 pm, he heard repeated cries and when he opened the door, he saw a person soaked in blood coming running. That person cried for help and requested him to take him to a hospital. He called the persons residing nearby, and one Shamsu, Asharaf, Ayyappan, Muhammed Kutti and Sakeer Husain came there. When he asked the victim as to who had stabbed him, he told him it was his friend Iqbal. The President and Secretary of the Mosque, who had come there, informed the Police and the Police came there. The victim fell down on the veranda and he was taken to the hospital in an ambulance. He identified his signature in Ext.P1 and stated that there was light available in the place from the electric tube. In his cross examination, he stated that the Police, who were present at the time of lifting the victim to the ambulance, were talking to him and th
Bhupan v. State of M.P. (2002) 2 SCC 556
K. Babu v. State of Kerala 2023 6 KLT 96
Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 17 SCC 273
Muthuswamy v. State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 4
Rakesh & another v. State of U.P.& another (AIR 2021 SC 3233)
Sharad Birdhichand Sarada v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116)
Soni v. State of Utter Pradesh (1982) 3 SCC 368(1)
State of Karnataka v. K.Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715
State of Maharashtra v. Syed Umar Sayed Abbas (2016) 4 SCC 735
Vijayan v. State (1999) 4 SCC 36
The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence linking the accused to the murder, leading to the reversal of their conviction.
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons by facilitating worthwhile evidence. [Para 236]
Eyewitness testimony is credible and sufficient for conviction in murder cases, even without a test identification parade, and minor inconsistencies in the first information statement do not undermin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliability of the evidence of the material witnesses and the intention of the accused persons in causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordin....
The conviction based on unreliable witness testimony and unproven motive and conspiracy led to the overturning of the judgment, highlighting the necessity for credible evidence in criminal cases.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain linking the accused to the crime, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
The prosecution's failure to establish reliable eyewitness identification and conspiratorial actions led to the acquittal of all appellants due to reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the accused must be acquitted.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a clear and complete chain of proof establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not merely conjecture.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.