Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Overturns Death Sentence in Rape-Murder Case, Cites 'Fatal Irregularity' in Trial

Ernakulam: In a significant ruling on the standards of evidence, the Kerala High Court has acquitted Parimal Sahu, a migrant worker sentenced to death for the rape and murder of his 60-year-old landlady. A division bench of Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian set aside the trial court's conviction, highlighting fundamental flaws in the prosecution's case, including the reliance on an incompetent witness and an inadmissible confession.

The court answered the Death Sentence Reference in the negative and allowed the criminal appeal filed by Sahu, ordering his immediate release.

Case Background

The prosecution alleged that on the night of March 18, 2018, Parimal Sahu, a resident of Assam, trespassed into the home of his landlady, a widow who lived with her intellectually disabled son. It was contended that he bludgeoned her with a granite stone, raped her, and subsequently murdered her. He was also accused of attempting to mislead the investigation by smearing blood on the T-shirt of the deceased's son.

In March 2021, the Additional Sessions Court in North Paravur found Sahu guilty under Sections 449 (house-trespass), 376A (rape causing death or persistent vegetative state), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC. He was sentenced to death for the offence under Section 376A IPC and life imprisonment for murder, alongside other terms.

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellant's counsel, Smt. Mitha Sudhindran, argued that the conviction was based on unreliable and inadmissible evidence. The defense challenged the competency of the sole eyewitness, the victim's son (PW4), the admissibility of an alleged extra-judicial confession made to doctors, and the credibility of the recovery of the murder weapon.

The Special Public Prosecutor, Smt. Ambika Devi, contended that the circumstantial evidence, including the eyewitness testimony, medical evidence of bite marks, recovery of the weapon, and the accused's conduct, formed a complete chain pointing unequivocally to his guilt.

High Court's Scrutiny of Evidence

The High Court meticulously dissected the prosecution's evidence, finding it insufficient to sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Competence of the Sole Eyewitness (PW4)

The cornerstone of the prosecution's case was the testimony of PW4, the victim's son. The court noted that PW4, though biologically 35, was certified to have an IQ of 47 and the mental age of a seven-and-a-half-year-old child. The bench found a "fatal irregularity" in the trial court's failure to conduct a voir dire test (preliminary examination) to determine PW4's competence to testify under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The judgment observed:

"In these circumstances, the failure of the trial judge to conduct a voir dire examination prior to the recording of the testimony of PW4 must be held to be a fatal irregularity... the non-conduction of voir dire examination will certainly create serious doubts regarding the competence of PW4 to depose and the reliability of his version, particularly when a vulnerable witness like PW4 is inherently susceptible to tutoring."

The court analyzed PW4's testimony, noting that while his chief examination appeared coherent, his cross-examination was riddled with "incoherent, unintelligible, and incorrect answers," which undermined his credibility and suggested he was tutored. Consequently, his entire testimony was excluded from consideration.

Inadmissible Extra-Judicial Confession

The prosecution relied heavily on alleged confessions Sahu made to two doctors (PW17 and PW20) while he was in police custody. The High Court held these confessions to be squarely hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act, which bars the admissibility of any confession made by an accused while in police custody.

"...his confession to the doctors or to any other person whilst in Police custody, is hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act and is inadmissible against the accused," the bench ruled.

Doubtful Recovery and Flawed Scientific Evidence

The court also found other crucial pieces of circumstantial evidence to be weak:

• Weapon Recovery: The granite stone (MO4) was recovered from an open, publicly accessible area within the crime scene compound where police and locals were already present. The court held that it could not be conclusively proven that the discovery was made solely based on the accused's disclosure.
• Bite Mark Analysis: The court questioned the reliability of the bite mark comparison evidence, noting procedural lapses in the chain of custody of the dental casts and the inherent unreliability of bite mark analysis as an exact science.
• Fingerprint & DNA Evidence: While the accused's fingerprint was found on a soft drink bottle in the house, the court deemed it insignificant as he was a tenant in the same compound. Critically, the scientific evidence failed to link the accused to the crime; no DNA of the accused was found in the nail clippings of the deceased, and seminal stains found on the victim were insufficient for DNA typing.

Final Verdict

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the appellant's guilt, the High Court acquitted Parimal Sahu of all charges.

The bench summarized its findings:

"The upshot of the above discussion is that the evidence of PW4... has to be excluded... the prosecution’s reliance on the alleged extrajudicial confession is also misplaced... no credence can be placed on the recovery evidence... The other circumstances projected by the prosecution have also not been proved... Likewise, the scientific evidence does not render any assistance to the prosecution..."

The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in rigorously vetting evidence, especially in capital punishment cases, and reaffirms the legal safeguards that protect an accused from being convicted on the basis of flawed or inadmissible evidence.