Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 28599
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. B. Suresh Kumar, J
Crl.Appeal No.647 of 2018 – Appellant
Versus
Crl.Appeal No.481 of 2018 – Respondent
S.C.No.575 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.B.Raman Pillai, Sri.Vishnuprasad Nair
For the Respondents: Sri.Alex M. Thombra
Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused for murder and related charges, necessitating acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 201, 302, and 307 - Conviction of accused for murder, attempt to murder, and causing disappearance of evidence is challenged. Evidence did not conclusively prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish that the first accused intentionally rammed the vehicle into the deceased's motorcycle; benefit of doubt granted. (Paras 20-22)
(B) Criminal Law - Principles of evidence - Direct and circumstantial evidence must convincingly establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for conviction. Mere suspicion is not enough to secure a conviction. (Par 20)
(C) Acquittal - The need for corroborative evidence in verifying the testimony of the police officer, especially concerning the confession about the involvement of the accused. (Paras 21-22)
Facts of the case:
Accused were charged in a case involving a fatal road incident where the deceased was killed while riding a motorcycle. Initial investigations treated it as an accident, but a subsequent investigation led to murder charges against several accused based on conspiracy. Evidence included statements from witnesses who identified the accused but contained inconsistencies. (Paras 1-19)
Findings of Court:
The first accused was found not guilty of murder or attempted murder due to insufficient evidence connecting him to the crime. Similarly, the convictions of the sixth and seventh accused for causing the disappearance of evidence could not be sustained. (Paras 20-22)
Issues: The primary questions involved whether the prosecution proved the intent to kill, the involvement of the accused in the crime, and the credibility of witness testimonies. (Paras 19 and 21)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that reasonable doubt exists regarding the identity and intent of the first accused in committing murder or conspiracy. In absence of strong corroborative evidence, the principle of benefit of doubt applied, leading to acquittal. (Paras 20-22)
Result: Appeals allowed; convictions of accused 1, 6, and 7 set aside; they are acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by the defense (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. evaluation of evidence and prosecution's burden (Para 8 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. scrutiny of convictions for accused 6 and 7 (Para 21 , 22) |
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
These appeals arise from S.C.No.575 of 2012 on the files of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda. There were seven accused in the case, and among them, the first accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 201 , 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and accused 6 and 7 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC. The remaining accused were acquitted. Crl.Appeal No.647 of 2018 is preferred by the first accused and Crl.Appeal No.481 of 2018 is preferred by accused 6 and 7.
2. At about 5.15 a.m. on 03.09.2003, a vehicle rammed into the motorcycle ridden by one Vinayan with one Mujeeb on its pillion at Palappilly – Varandarappilly public road in Thrissur District and as a result, Vinayan died and Mujeeb sustained serious injuries. A case was registered by Varandarappilly Police based on the information furnished by Mujeeb on the same day. The local police, who investigated the case, initially came to the conclusion that it is a case of road traffic accident and submitted a final report to that effect. However, as per the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6328 of 2004, the case was re-investigated later by the Crime Branch Wing of the State Police. Although eight persons were arrayed as accused in the case in the course of re- investigation, one among them died and the final report was filed subsequently against the remaining seven accused.
3. The accusation against the accused in the final report is that the fourth accused, who was on inimical terms with the family of Vinayan, hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused 1 to 3 to commit the murder of Vinayan; that in pursuance thereof, on 03.09.2003, accused 1 to 3, in a tempo van bearing number KL-8C-4707, followed Vinayan who was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing number KL-8T/2730 to the estate where he was working, with Mujeeb on its pillion; that at about 5.15 a.m., the said temp van rammed into the motorcycle ridden by Vinayan with the intention of causing his death and thereby committed his murder and caused serious injuries to Mujeeb. It is also the accusation in the case that accused 1 to 3, thereafter hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused 4 to 8 for causing disappearance of the evidence of the crime and in pursuance thereof, the sixth accused appeared before the police and confessed that it was tempo van bearing number KLE- 8784 driven by the sixth accused that rammed into the motorcycle ridden by Vinayan and the seventh accused thereafter dismantled both the tempo vans.
4. On the accused being committed to trial, the Court of Session framed charges against them under Sections 109 , 120B, 307, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty. The evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 55 and Exts.P1 to P63 proved through them. MOs 1 to 4 are the material objects identified by the witnesses. Exts.D1 to D6 are the case diary statements of the witnesses proved at the instance of the accused. Thereupon, as noted, on an appreciation of the matters before it, the Court of Session found the first accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 201 , 307 and 302 IPC and accused 6 and 7 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. Accused 1, 6 and 7 are deeply aggrieved by their conviction and sentence in the case, hence these appeals.
5. As per order dated 05.04.2018 in Crl.M.A.No.1995 of 2018 in Crl.Appeal No.481 of 2018, this Court suspended the execution of the sentence passed against accused 6 and 7.
6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.B.Raman Pillai for the first accused and Adv.Sri.Vishnuprasad Nair for accused 6 and 7. Sri.Alex M. Thombra addressed arguments on
