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

2026 Supreme(Ker) 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., K.V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ.
Babu C.G. S/o Gopalan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 740 of 2020
Decided On : 12-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : V. Vijitha
For the Respondent: Neema T.V.

A fair trial must guarantee competent legal representation and adherence to procedural law, failure of which invalidates conviction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 324 - Offences resulting in conviction - The accused was convicted for murder and attempted murder; sentenced to life imprisonment and fine. The trial court failed to ensure fair representation for the accused which prejudiced his defense. The appeal challenged the legality of the trial procedures and record-keeping. (Paras 1-100)

(B) Fair Trial Rights - The accused's right to a competent legal aid was not upheld, violating Article 21 of the Constitution. The manner of trial was non-compliant with the requirements for recording evidence in the presence of the accused. (Paras 21, 57-62)

(C) Denial of Fair Trial - The lengthy trial process extended over several years without adequate legal representation for the accused constituted a significant denial of justice under constitutional guarantees. (Paras 68-100)

Facts of the case:
The accused was involved in a fatal stabbing incident during a public event, leading to various eyewitness testimonies against him and subsequent convictions from multiple court levels. The trial spanned over seven years, with significant illegalities noted in representation and evidence recording.

Findings of Court:
The accused's conviction was overturned due to procedural lapses resulting in the denial of a fair trial, leading to the quashing of the previous judgment.

Issues: The main issues were the legality of the trial due to inadequate legal representation and the procedural adherence to fair trial standards.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that failure to provide competent legal aid constitutes a breach of the accused's constitutional rights, and that all evidence should be taken in the presence of the accused.

Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside, and the accused was released.

Table of Content
1. incident and arrest details (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. defense's argument of trial unfairness (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. prosecution's rebuttal on evidence (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
4. eyewitness accounts of the incident (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. inquiry into fair trial issues (Para 22 , 62)
6. constitutional safeguards for fair trial (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
7. court's analysis on procedural rights (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
8. judgment and directions for trial (Para 99 , 100 , 101)

JUDGMENT :

K.V. JAYAKUMAR, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the sole accused in S.C. No.267/2012 of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kottayam. The appellant stood for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for the sake of brevity).

2. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 302 IPC and imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. In default of payment of the fine, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302 IPC.

The prosecution case

3. The prosecution allegation, in brief, is that, on 18.09.2011 at about 8.45 p.m., the accused, Babu C.G., was playing cards at the rubber plantation, on the eastern side of the stage, wherein the Onam Celebration of Royal King Arts and Sports Club, Kunnelpeedika was performed. PW2, Devarajan, obstructed the game and due to this animosity, the accused attacked PW2. The prosecution further alleges that, on seeing the incident, the deceased Vijeesh intervened and attempted to save PW2 (Devarajan). In the meantime, the accused stabbed the deceased on his right shoulder joint causing a deep injury. The accused had also threatened the persons gathered by brandishing MO-1 knife. The prosecution further alleges that when PW3, Kiran Raju, attempted to catch MO-1 knife, the accused had also stabbed him on his left wrist and inflicted a stab injury on the right shoulder of PW4, K. K. Soman. Even though the deceased was taken to the hospital, his life could not be saved.

Registration of Crime and Investigation

4. PW1, Rajesh, a cousin of the deceased, lodged Ext.P1 FIS before the SI of Police, Pampadi Police Station at about 7.15 a.m., on 19.09.2011. On the basis of Ext.P1 FIS, PW28, S. Pratheep, S.I. of Police registered Crime No.473 of 2011 under Sections 324 and 302 of IPC. PW28 has also registered a counter case as Crime No. 474 of 2011 alleging that PW1, Rajesh, attacked the accused.

5. PW29, Saju Varghese, the Circle Inspector of Police, Pampadi Police Station took up the investigation on that day itself. He prepared Ext.P4 Inquest Report from the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. He visited the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses and scientific assistants and prepared Ext.P5 scene mahazar. As per Ext.P5 scene mahazar, MO-1, a blood-stained knife was seized. He also seized MO-3 sandal and MO-7 saffron dhoti.

6. PW29 questioned the material witnesses, completed the investigation and filed the final report under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. He also conducted the investigation of the counter case, i.e., Crime No. 474 of 2011 and laid the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323 and 324 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. In that case, PW1 - Rajesh, PW2 - Devarajan, PW3 - Kiran Raju, PW4 - Soman, PW6 - Vijayan, and PW8 - Rajeesh are the accused.

The Proceedings before the Trial Court

7. After completing the initial steps, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kottayam. The learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam, made over the case to the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kottayam. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge after hearing both sides. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. PWs. 1 to 6 wer

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