Kerala High Court Acquits Two in 2008 Murder Case, Citing 'Wholly Unreliable' Sole Eyewitness and Glaring Contradictions

Ernakulam, Kerala – The Kerala High Court, in a significant judgment delivered on June 19, 2025, acquitted M.P. Prajin @ Prajith (Accused No. 2) and M. Vijith @ Kuttan (Accused No. 3) in a 2008 murder case, overturning their life sentences. The division bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar , found the testimony of the sole eyewitness (PW1) to be "wholly unreliable" and riddled with material contradictions, rendering the prosecution's case unsustainable.

The appeal (CRL.A NO. 246 OF 2018) challenged the December 21, 2017 judgment of the Additional Sessions Court - III, Thalassery, which had convicted the appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and wrongful restraint under Section 341 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Prosecution's Case and Trial Court Verdict

The prosecution alleged that on January 12, 2008, at around 10:15 p.m., near Meenkunnu junction, the deceased Dhanesh , an activist of CPI(M) and DYFI Unit President, was attacked and murdered by several accused, alleged to be RSS/BJP workers, due to political rivalry. Dhanesh was riding a motorbike with PW1, Madakkara Prajeesh, as the pillion rider. The prosecution claimed that accused No.1, Swaroop (who absconded), stabbed Dhanesh in the neck, while accused Nos. 2 and 3 (the appellants) caught the motorcycle, and accused No.3 also hit the deceased with a wooden rafter.

The trial court, based primarily on PW1's testimony, convicted accused Nos. 2 and 3, sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder and one month for wrongful restraint. Accused Nos. 4 to 9 were acquitted, and all accused were found not guilty of criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC).

Appellants' Challenge: Unreliable Eyewitness and Inconsistencies

The appellants, represented by Adv. S. Rajeev , argued that the trial court's judgment was patently illegal. The core of their argument was the unreliability of PW1, the sole eyewitness. They contended: * PW1's testimony was inconsistent, exaggerated, and not credible. * Significant discrepancies existed in PW1's account regarding the identity of assailants, weapons used, and the manner of the crime between his First Information Statement (FIS), his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and his court testimony. * Ocular evidence was inconsistent with medical evidence. * Material witnesses from the locality were not examined, and there was no proof of sufficient light at the scene of the crime.

The State, represented by Spl. G.P. Smt. Ambika Devi S, maintained that PW1's testimony was credible and that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence.

High Court's Scrutiny: The Unraveling of PW1's Testimony

The High Court meticulously re-evaluated the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW1.

FIS vs. Section 161 Statement: A Tale of Two Narratives

The Court noted stark contradictions in PW1's accounts. * In his FIS (Ext.P1), PW1 named 12 assailants, stating that one Vijayan @ Sreelesh inflicted a fatal blow on the deceased's neck with a hatchet, and others attacked with swords. * However, in his subsequent statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., PW1 named a different set of 9 assailants. Only three names from the FIS – Swaroop (A1), Prajin (A2), and Vijith (A3) – were repeated. The alleged main assailant Sreelesh from the FIS was entirely omitted. * During the trial, PW1 testified that A1 Swaroop stabbed the deceased with a knife dagger upon A3's direction.

The Court observed, "Out of the 12 names stated in Ext. P1 FIS, only the names of three persons were stated in 161 statement... What happened to the other nine assailants, whose names and father’s names were vividly stated by the witness in his FI Statement is unexplained by the prosecution."

The judgment highlighted numerous specific contradictions (marked as Exts.D1 to D4) in PW1's statements to the police versus his deposition in court. The Court concluded:

"On going through the evidence of PW1, we are of the considered view that the evidence let in by PW1 is wholly unreliable, and therefore, conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of a solitary and uncorroborated testimony of PW1." (Para 66)

Ocular vs. Medical Evidence: A Critical Mismatch

The Court found a significant inconsistency between PW1's account of the attack and the medical evidence. PW1 testified that A1 Swaroop stabbed the deceased on the left chest. However, the postmortem report (Ext.P5) conducted by PW10, Dr. Gopalakrishna Pillai , indicated the fatal injury (Injury No.1) was an "incised stab wound... involving the left side of front of neck and upper part of chest," with a depth of 12 cm, severing major blood vessels. The doctor opined death was due to "stab injury of the neck and chest."

Citing Mani Ram and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh , the Court emphasized that it is unsafe to sustain a conviction if medical evidence conflicts with the evidence of a sole eyewitness.

Legal Principles on Sole Eyewitness Evidence

The High Court extensively discussed established legal principles regarding the testimony of a sole eyewitness, referencing landmark Supreme Court judgments including: * Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras : Quality over quantity of evidence; testimony can be wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or neither. * Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) : Conviction on a sole eyewitness is possible if wholly reliable; if doubts exist, corroboration is needed. * Joseph v. State of Kerala : Unsafe to convict on a solitary eyewitness conflicting with other evidence. * Narendrasinh Keshubai Zala v. State of Gujarat : Suspicion, however great, is no substitute for proof.

The Court placed PW1's testimony in the "wholly unreliable" category.

Other Lapses in Prosecution Story

The High Court also pointed out other deficiencies:

* Non-examination of material witnesses: Despite several houses being near the place of occurrence (as per Ext.P23 site plan), none of the residents were examined.

* Lack of evidence on lighting: The incident occurred at 10:15 p.m., and the prosecution failed to prove sufficient lighting for identification, relying only on a torchlight mentioned by PW1.

Judgment and Acquittal

Concluding its re-assessment, the High Court stated:

"On such evaluation, we are of the firm view that the evidence let in by PW1, the solitary eyewitness, is wholly unreliable... The omissions and contradictions, which we have discussed in detail in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, would cast serious doubts in the prosecution story. Moreover, the ocular evidence of PW1 is in conflict with the medical evidence. The non-examination of the material witnesses is another serious lapse on the side of the prosecution." (Paras 74-75)

The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court's conviction was deemed erroneous for ignoring vital contradictions and the inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence.

Consequently, the Criminal Appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside, and the appellants, M.P. Prajin @ Prajith and M. Vijith @ Kuttan , were acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.