Kerala High Court Overturns Culpable Homicide Conviction, Emphasizing Unreliable Witness Testimony and Lack of Corroboration - 2025-04-07

Kerala High Court Overturns Culpable Homicide Conviction, Citing Unreliable Witness Testimony

Ernakulam, Kerala – In a significant judgment delivered on March 18, 2025, the High Court of Kerala, comprising Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and Jobin Sebastian , overturned the conviction of an accused in a culpable homicide case. The court, in Crl. Appeal No. 1483 of 2018 , allowed the appeal of Ajith , who was initially convicted by the Additional District Court, Irinjalakuda, under Sections 304 Part I and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Simultaneously, the court dismissed Crl. Appeal (V) No. 8 of 2019 , filed by Shoma , the victim's wife, challenging the acquittal of two other accused in the same case.

Case Background: Textile Business Losses and Family Dispute

The case originated from Crime No. 2774/2015 of Kodungallur Police Station, Thrissur. The prosecution alleged that Ajith , along with two other accused (brother and brother-in-law of the deceased, Amal ), were involved in the death of Amal . The incident stemmed from a family dispute related to financial losses from a textile business run by Amal , his brother (2nd accused), and their father, and the subsequent utilization of Amal ’s wife's gold ornaments to settle debts and marriage expenses.

According to the prosecution, on November 6, 2015, following a disagreement over the sale of family property, Ajith , allegedly acting with common intention alongside the 2nd and 3rd accused, assaulted Amal . It was claimed Ajith stabbed Amal with a knife, while the 2nd accused used a scissors-like weapon. The incident, which occurred at Amal ’s family house, led to Amal 's death. Ajith was convicted by the trial court for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and voluntarily causing hurt, while the 2nd and 3rd accused were acquitted.

Arguments on Appeal: Reliability of Witnesses Questioned

Representing Ajith , Advocate P.K. Varghese argued that the trial court erred in relying on the testimonies of PW1 (brother-in-law of the deceased) and PW5 (cousin of PW1), whom he termed as "interested witnesses" with unreliable and contradictory statements. Advocate Rajiv Nambisan , appearing for the victim, contended that the acquittal of the 2nd and 3rd accused was unjustified, emphasizing the testimony of PW1 and PW5 as injured witnesses and highlighting the alleged common intention of all accused.

Court's Analysis: Scrutinizing Witness Testimony and Evidence

Justices Suresh Kumar and Sebastian meticulously analyzed the evidence, focusing on the credibility of PW1 and PW5. The court noted significant contradictions and omissions in PW1's initial First Information Statement (FIS) and subsequent testimonies. A crucial point was the discrepancy concerning when and where the 1st accused sustained facial injuries – PW6 (father of the deceased) testified it happened in an earlier phase of the altercation, contradicting PW1 and PW5’s version.

The judgment highlighted a critical contradiction in PW1's testimony regarding who used which weapon. PW1 initially stated that the 1st accused used scissors, but later corrected it to a knife, and attributed scissors to the 2nd accused. The court observed:

> "It is patently evident that the testimony of PW1 regarding the overt acts attributed to the accused culminating in the death of the deceased is contradictory with his version in Ext.P1 FIS. Though PW1 had admitted such a contradiction he gave an explanation that such a contradictory statement happened to be given to the Police as he was in a perplexed mood after the incident. However, we cannot accept the said explanation as such. The contradictory statement given by PW1 is not with respect to the minute details of a case but rather regarding the material aspect of the incident."

Furthermore, the court found that PW1 and PW5’s version of events, particularly their arrival at the scene and finding Amal already injured, was contradicted by the independent testimony of PW4, a neighbor. PW4's testimony suggested that Amal was with him when PW1 and PW5 arrived and that they initiated the altercation by vandalizing the house's windows.

The court also pointed out that crucial details, such as the 3rd accused restraining Amal , the 1st accused biting Amal , and Amal hitting the 1st accused with a glass tumbler, were notably absent in PW1’s initial FIS. These omissions, coupled with the contradictions and inconsistencies, significantly undermined the reliability of PW1 and PW5 as "sterling witnesses."

Lack of Corroboration and Hostile Witness Testimony

While PW6, the deceased's father, was declared hostile, the court found aspects of his testimony credible, particularly regarding the sequence of events and the injuries sustained by the 1st accused prior to the fatal incident. The court stated:

> "Moreover, there is no impropriety or illegality in acting on the evidence of a hostile witness if it appears to be convincing and reliable. By a series of judicial pronouncements, it is well settled that there is no need to eschew the entire evidence of a hostile witness from consideration. On the other hand, the court can very well sift grain from the chaff and can act upon those parts of the evidence which appear to be reliable."

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to provide convincingly reliable and corroborated evidence to prove the charges against Ajith and to overturn the acquittal of the 2nd and 3rd accused.

Final Verdict: Conviction Set Aside, Acquittal Upheld

Based on the assessment of evidence, particularly the unreliable witness testimonies and lack of sufficient corroboration, the Kerala High Court allowed Crl. Appeal No. 1483/2018, setting aside Ajith ’s conviction and sentence. Consequently, Crl. Appeal (V) No. 8/2019, challenging the acquittal of the 2nd and 3rd accused, was dismissed. The judgment underscores the critical importance of credible witness testimony and robust corroboration in criminal trials, particularly in cases relying heavily on eyewitness accounts.