Kerala High Court Overturns Death Sentence, Cites 'Fatal Irregularity' in Witness Testimony and Faulty Evidence

KOCHI – In a significant judgment underscoring the stringent standards of proof required in capital punishment cases, the Kerala High Court has acquitted Parimal Sahu, a migrant laborer from Assam, who was sentenced to death for the 2018 rape and murder of a 60-year-old widow. The Division Bench, comprising Dr. Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian, systematically dismantled the prosecution's case, which it found to be built on a foundation of unreliable testimony, inadmissible confessions, and inconclusive scientific evidence.

The ruling in Parimal Sahu v. State of Kerala reverses a 2021 verdict by the Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur, which had found Sahu guilty under Sections 449, 376A, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court had handed down a life sentence for murder and the death penalty for the offence under Section 376A, classifying the crime as belonging to the "rarest of rare" category.

The High Court's detailed scrutiny, however, revealed critical flaws in the investigation and trial process, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment serves as a powerful judicial commentary on the handling of vulnerable witnesses, the scope of police custody, and the evidentiary value of circumstantial and scientific evidence.

The 'Fatal Irregularity' of Untested Witness Competency

At the heart of the prosecution's case was the testimony of PW4, the intellectually disabled son of the deceased and the sole purported eyewitness. The High Court identified the trial court's failure to conduct a voir dire test to assess PW4's competence as a "fatal irregularity."

A doctor who had assessed PW4 found him to have an IQ within the range of moderate mental retardation, with a corresponding mental age of approximately seven and a half years. Citing Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act and Supreme Court precedents like Agniraj & Ors. v. State , the Bench emphasized the trial judge's duty to determine if a vulnerable witness can understand questions and provide rational answers.

While acknowledging that a failure to conduct a voir dire test does not automatically discard evidence, the Court stressed that such testimony must be scrutinized with "meticulous care." Upon examination, the Bench found significant contradictions and incoherence in PW4's testimony, particularly during cross-examination.

“Moreover, the fact that PW4, who appeared to withstand chief examination without much incoherence, gave incoherent and unintelligible answers during cross-examination strongly suggests that he was a tutored witness,” the Court observed. This inconsistency led the Bench to conclude that PW4 was incompetent to depose, effectively removing the lynchpin of the prosecution's narrative.

Inadmissible Confession and the Expanding Scope of 'Custody'

The prosecution heavily relied on an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by Sahu to doctors during a medical examination following his arrest. The defense argued this was inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, as Sahu was in police custody.

The High Court concurred, adopting an expansive interpretation of "custody." It rejected the notion that the accused was not in custody simply because the police officers were standing outside the examination room.

“In the light of the recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court that have enlarged the scope of the phrase “custody” to embrace even such situations where an accused is not formally arrested, but his freedom of movement is nevertheless restrained by the police, the mere fact that the policemen who brought him to the hospital for medical examination were standing outside the examination room did not bring him outside the scope of the phrase 'person whilst in Police custody' for the purposes of S.26 of the Evidence Act,” the judgment stated.

This interpretation reinforces a crucial safeguard for the accused, preventing confessions obtained under the implicit coercion of police presence from being used as evidence, regardless of the physical immediacy of the officers.

Doubts Over Recovery of Evidence

Another critical piece of circumstantial evidence was the recovery of the alleged murder weapon—a granite stone—purportedly at the instance of the accused, as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The defense successfully argued that the recovery was highly doubtful.

The Court noted that the stone was recovered from an open, publicly accessible area within the victim's house compound, a place where police and locals had already been present. Crucially, the investigating officer did not claim the accused produced the weapon from a concealed location.

“The prior presence of the Police, as well as local people at the crime scene, is well-established and raises concerns about potential manipulations,” the Bench observed. This finding highlights a key principle of Section 27: the discovery must be a direct consequence of the information given by the accused, a standard not met when the object is found in a place easily discoverable by others.

Unreliable Scientific and Circumstantial Links

The High Court's meticulous review extended to the scientific and other circumstantial evidence, which it found unconvincing and, in some instances, supportive of the accused's innocence.

• Bite Marks: The prosecution claimed bite marks on Sahu's hand were inflicted by the victim during the struggle. However, the Court found this evidence unreliable, noting procedural lapses, such as the examination being conducted by a dentist instead of a registered medical practitioner. It also gave credence to the defense's contention that the injuries could have been caused by police torture, and pointed out that "bite mark comparison was not an exact science."
• Nail Clippings: The forensic analysis of the deceased's nail clippings did not detect any epithelial cells belonging to the accused. The Court viewed this as a significant contradiction to the prosecution's theory of a violent struggle.
• Suspicious Phone Call: The prosecution presented a phone call Sahu made to an acquaintance (PW5), asking him to tell the police they were together at the time of the incident. The Court dismissed this as an attempt to create a false alibi, reasoning that PW5 himself was not a reliable witness. Furthermore, it noted that as a migrant laborer, it was "not unnatural for him to have been apprehensive of being falsely implicated," making his panicked call understandable rather than incriminating.

Ultimately, the cumulative effect of these evidentiary failures was overwhelming. "The scientific evidence does not render any assistance to the prosecution to prove the involvement of the accused in the commission of the crime rather, it tends to help the accused in establishing his innocence," the Court concluded.

The appeal, for which legal aid was provided by The Square Circle Clinic at NALSAR, was allowed, and Parimal Sahu was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.