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

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., K.V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ.
Kumar K.P., S/o. Purushothaman – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala, Ernakulam – Respondent 
Crl. A. No. 1086 of 2019, Crl. A. No. 1177 of 2019, Crl. A. No. 1328 of 2019, Crl. A. No. 1331 of 2019
Decided On : 18-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. P.K. Varghese, Shri. M.T. Sameer, Shri. Dhanesh V. Madhavan, Shri. Jerry Mathew, Sri. K.R. Arun Krishnan, Smt. Namitha K.S., Shri. Athul P., Smt. Devika K.R.
For The Respondent: Smt. Neema T. V., Senior Public Prosecutor, Sri. Vivek Venugopal.

Presence in an unlawful assembly suffices for liability, affirming that minor discrepancies in testimonies do not negate the prosecution's case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 27 of the Arms Act - Convictions under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, and 341 IPC upheld after trial establishing unlawful assembly and murder - Conviction based on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborating evidence. (Paras 2-4, 24-30, 48-85)

(B) Evidence - Appreciation of evidence by trial court - Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not discredit overall reliability - Court emphasizes that quality of evidence is paramount, not quantity. (Paras 60-64)

(C) Motive - Evidence shows pre-existing animosity between deceased and accused, providing context for the crime - Marital relationship and background of parties clarified. (Paras 4, 30, 48)

Facts of the case:
Accused formed an unlawful assembly to avenge prior animosities against the deceased, resulting in his murder on May 19, 2005. Eyewitnesses identified the accused as perpetrators of the attack.

Findings of Court:
Trial court rightly convicted all accused based on the evidence presented; there was sufficient corroboration that identified the accused as part of the unlawful assembly.

Issues: Whether discrepancies in witness testimony affect credibility and if absence of certain evidence undermines the prosecution case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere presence in an unlawful assembly can warrant liability under Section 149 IPC, regardless of specific actions during the commission of the crime.

Result: Appeals dismissed and convictions upheld.

Table of Content
1. appellants are accused of serious crimes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. detailed account of accusation against appellants. (Para 4 , 5)
3. investigation details and evidence collection. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. charges framed based on evidence presented. (Para 11 , 12)
5. defense presents arguments against prosecution. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 26)
6. prosecution argues the reliability of eyewitness accounts. (Para 24 , 25)
7. eyewitness testimonies detail the incident. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
8. witnesses support the prosecution's narrative. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
9. medical evidence supports prosecution's claims. (Para 39 , 42)
10. evaluation of witness credibility. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
11. addressing contradictions in witness testimonies. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 61)
12. importance of quality of evidence over quantity. (Para 60 , 63)
13. legal principles governing unlawful assembly. (Para 79 , 80 , 81)
14. conclusion upholding lower court's decision. (Para 85)

JUDGMENT :

K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J.

These criminal appeals are preferred impugning the common judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Court, North Paravur, dated 21.08.2019 in S.C. No.412/2012. The appellants in Crl. Appeal No.1328 of 2019 are the accused Nos.1 and 2. The appellant in Crl. Appeal No.1331/2019 is the accused No.3. The appellants in Crl. Appeal No.1177/2019 are the accused Nos.4 and 5. Accused No.6 is the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.1086/2019.

2. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 6 faced the trial before the Additional District and Sessions Court, North Paravur for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for the sake of brevity, ‘IPC’) and under Section 27 of the Arms Act .

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them. Accused Nos.1 to 6 were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each with a default clause. They were also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for various terms under Sections 143 , 147, 148 and 341 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act .

Prosecution case

4. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were inimical towards the deceased, Abhilash, since he attempted to commit the murder of accused No.2, Krishnakumar @ Munambam Krishnan, by hurling a country bomb. The prosecution further alleges that in order to wreak vengeance against the deceased Abhilash, the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object, armed with deadly weapons like sword stick, iron rods etc. and on 19.05.2005 at about 8.35 pm, they followed Abhilash who was riding a motor cycle along with PW2 (Gilda Mendez) as a pillion rider. Further, the accused chased the motorcycle in an Ambassador car and when they reached 200 meters away from Perumpadanna bridge on Paravur – Cherai public road, they overtook and intercepted the motorcycle. In the meantime, the deceased Abhilash fell down. The accused Nos.1 to 6 attacked the deceased with swords and iron rods and caused severe injuries.

5. The prosecution further alleges that the 1st accused inflicted a cut injury with a sword on the back side of the neck and accused Nos.2 and 3 inflicted injuries on the leg of the deceased. The other accused also attacked the deceased with a sword stick and iron rod. The deceased breathed his last on the way to the hospital.

Registration of the crime and investigation

6. PW17 (M.K. Binukumar) registered Ext.P1(a)-FIR at 9.15 pm on 19.05.2005 on the basis of Ext.P1-FIS lodged by PW1 (Misha K.D.). PW18 (R. Salim) took up the investigation on 20.05.2005. On that day, he conducted an inquest of the body of the deceased and prepared the Ext.P3 Inquest report. He seized MOs.6 and 7, the dresses worn by the deceased.

7. Thereafter, at 11.45 am, he prepared Ext.P4 scene mahazar

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