Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24683
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, C.S. Sudha, JJ
ANILAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 1016 2014
SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI, SRI.VIVEK.M, SRI.R.ANIL, SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR, SRI.MANU TOM, SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR, SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B., SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM NILACKAPPILLIL, SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK, SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NAIR, SRI.A.C.DEVY, SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH, SMT.SAIPOOJA
Accusations require clear identification and corroborating evidence for a conviction in criminal cases; mere presence or indirect evidence is insufficient.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Homicide - Indian Penal Code - Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 120B - The court examined the evidentiary standards required for proving guilt and the importance of identification in securing convictions, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that several accused conspired to murder the deceased due to enmity and attacked him using deadly weapons, resulting in his death. Eyewitness accounts and identifications were crucial to the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found insufficient reliable evidence to establish the guilt of accused Nos. 1, 3, and 8 beyond a reasonable doubt, especially due to flaws in witness identifications and contradictions in testimonies.
Issues: The key issues included whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of accused Nos. 1, 3, and 8 and what legal repercussions arose from any failures in identification or evidence handling.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evidence of eyewitnesses, particularly in cases lacking prior familiarity with the accused, requires corroboration and strong identification methods to uphold convictions.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeals are allowed, the conviction is set aside, and the appellants are acquitted.
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
Accused Nos.1, 3 and 8 in S.C.No.885 of 2006 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Vadakara are the appellants in these appeals, challenging their conviction and sentence in the said case. Among the appeals, Crl.Appeal No.1279 of 2013 is instituted by the first accused, Crl.Appeal No.1016 of 2014 is instituted by the third accused and Crl.Appeal No.1647 of 2013 is instituted by the eighth accused.
2. One Abdul Karim died in an occurrence which took place by about 10.30 p.m. on 11.02.2006. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the seventh accused were business partners on inimical terms; that on account of the enmity towards the deceased, the seventh accused hatched a conspiracy with the sixth accused to cause the death of Abdul Karim; that in furtherance to the said conspiracy, the sixth accused hired the services of accused Nos.1 to 3, 8 and two others namely, Subhash and Sachin to cause the death of Abdul Karim and that the aforesaid accused, as instructed by accused Nos.6 and 7, chased Abdul Karim who was going to Kozhikode from Kalpetta on the fateful day in his Qualis motor car bearing Reg.No.KL-11/S-3468 driven by one Sivan, in a TATA Sumo motor car bearing Reg.No.KL-07/A-2467 with weapons like iron rods, wooden sticks etc., intercepted the motor car in which the deceased was travelling near the ninth hairpin curve in the Adivaram- Vaithiri Ghat road, broke the glass of the back left door of the car on the side the deceased was sitting, forcibly entered inside the aforesaid motor car, took control of the same by pushing Sivan, the driver away from his seat, took the car back towards Wayanad and assaulted the deceased and the driver severely inside the car with the weapons carried by them. It is also the case of the prosecution that after sometime, they stopped the car, dragged Abdul Karim out of the car and beat him with the weapons carried by them and also kicked him on his body. It is the further case of the prosecution that thereupon, they brought back the deceased to the car, drove the car for some more time and pushed the deceased as also the driver out of the car and later abandoned the car. It is the further case of the prosecution that the driver of the car in which the deceased was travelling, somehow managed to reach the nearby junction after sometime and went to the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode with the aid and assistance of a few others and in the meanwhile, Abdul Karim succumbed to the injuries.
3. A case was registered in connection with the occurrence on 12.02.2006 by Thamarassery police on the basis of the information furnished by the driver of the car. The investigation of the case was initially conducted by the local police and later by crime branch and the final report was laid after the investigation under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 341, 363, 307 and 302 read with Sections 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code .
4. At the time of submitting the final report, all the accused could not be arrested. Consequently, the case against accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 , 11 and 6 in the final report was split up and committed for trial by two separate committal orders. The ranks of the said accused were thereupon altered by the trial court for further proceedings as accused Nos.1 to 8 respectively.
5. On the accused pleading not guilty of the charges framed against them, the prosecution examined 127 witnesses as PW1 to PW127 and proved through them as many as 217 documents as Exts.P1 to P217. Mos.1 to 89 are the material objects caused to be identified through the prosecution witnesses. Exts.D1 and D2 are the case diary statements of Pws.8 and 89 respectively and Exts.D3 to D5 are the case diary statements of PW102.
6. Among the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution, PW1 is the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling, PW10 is the witness claimed to have stated before the police that he rented out the TATA Sumo motor
