Kerala High Court Overturns Murder Conviction, Cites Unreliable Sole Eyewitness

Ernakulam, Kerala – June 25, 2025 – The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, has acquitted five individuals previously convicted for a 2008 murder, primarily due to the "unnatural and untrustworthy" testimony of the sole eyewitness. The division bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar , set aside the 2019 judgment of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thalassery, which had found M. Kalesh , P.K. Shyjesh @ Shyju , K.C. Vineesh (appellants in Crl.A 1068/2019), Akhilesh @ Akhil, and Bijesh @ Manushyakuttan (appellants in Crl.A 1088/2019) guilty under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 302 (murder).

Background of the Case: Political Enmity and a Brutal Attack

The prosecution's case stemmed from an incident on March 7, 2008, where Surendran was brutally murdered in his home. The accused, alleged to be activists of the CPI(M) political party, were said to have acted out of political enmity, as the deceased was a sympathizer of the BJP/RSS. The region was reportedly tense due to ongoing political clashes.

The prosecution alleged that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like bill hooks, trespassed into Surendran 's house ("Souparnika"), and attacked him, inflicting fatal injuries. PW8, Soumini, the wife of the deceased, was presented as the sole eyewitness to the crime. The Thalassery Police registered Crime No.188/2008, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed.

The Additional Sessions Court-III, Thalassery, in S.C. No.334 of 2011, convicted accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 for offences including murder (Section 302 r/w 149 IPC), house trespass (Section 450 IPC), and unlawful assembly (Sections 143, 147 IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder along with fines. Accused Nos. 2 and 7 were acquitted by the trial court.

Arguments Before the High Court

Appellants' Stance: PW8's Testimony Fatally Flawed

Senior Counsel Sri. P. Vijayabhanu, representing the appellants, argued that the trial court's conviction was "patently illegal and unsustainable." The core of the defence's argument was the unreliability of PW8, Soumini. Key contentions included: * PW8's evidence was "wholly unreliable and unworthy of credence." * Serious doubts were raised about PW8's actual presence at the scene of the crime. * Her testimony was inconsistent, exaggerated, embellished, and contained significant improvements from her initial statements to the police. * Her conduct, as described by her, was unnatural for a person witnessing her husband's brutal murder (e.g., not informing relatives, not inquiring about the hospital, not attempting first aid). * The testimony of PW2 (ASI Sudhakaran), who first reached the scene, and PW9 (a neighbour) did not convincingly corroborate PW8's presence at the time of the incident, with PW2 admitting he mentioned a woman's presence for the first time in court.

Prosecution's Defence: PW8 Credible and Corroborated

The learned Public Prosecutor, Smt. T.V. Neema, countered that the prosecution had successfully proven the charges. The State argued: * PW8's testimony was "natural, truthful and wholly reliable." * Her version was sufficiently corroborated by PW2 and PW9. * The conviction could be based on a sole eyewitness if their testimony is credible, emphasizing the quality of evidence over quantity. * The trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence.

The Court's Scrutiny of Eyewitness Testimony

The High Court meticulously re-evaluated the evidence, focusing on the credibility of PW8, the sole eyewitness.

Legal Principles on Sole Eyewitness

Justice K. V. Jayakumar , authoring the judgment, extensively reviewed the legal position on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, referencing Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act and landmark Supreme Court rulings, including:

* Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras : Classifying oral testimony into wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, or neither.

* Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) : Conviction can be based on a single wholly reliable eyewitness.

* Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand : Need for corroboration if a single witness is "neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable."

* Narendrasinh Keshubai Zala v. State of Gujarat : "Suspicion, however great it may be, is no substitute of proof," and "Unnatural conduct and unexplained circumstances can be a ground for disbelieving the witness."

PW8's Conduct Deemed Unnatural

The Court found PW8's conduct, as narrated by her, to be highly unnatural. The judgment noted:

"Her version that she has not intimated her children about the incident, not enquired to which hospital her husband was taken and not ventured to give any first aid to the injured to save his life is absolutely unnatural. The omissions and discrepancies in the evidence of PW8 appears to be relevant, material and significant which casts serious doubts in the trustworthiness and credibility of PW8." (Para 62)

The Court observed, "Had she been there at the place of occurrence, she would have done something to save the life of her seriously injured husband. It appears that her version is against the ordinary course of human conduct." (Para 56)

Inconsistencies and Omissions in PW8's Account

The judgment highlighted numerous improvements, exaggerations, and contradictions in PW8's testimony compared to her earlier statements to the police. For instance, her claims about informing a neighbour (Usha) who then called the police, or seeing people in a nearby abandoned house, were introduced for the first time in court. The court also noted the lack of evidence supporting her claim of owning five cows, as no cattle shed or presence of cattle was noted in the site plan or by other witnesses.

The Court further pointed to the testimony of PW2 (ASI Sudhakaran), who reached the crime scene. PW2 "categorically admitted that he has not mentioned in Ext.P2(a) FIS as to the presence of a person or persons inside or outside the house. He would admit that, he stated about the presence of a woman (PW8) for the first time in the Court..." (Para 63). This significantly weakened the corroboration of PW8's presence.

Corroborative Evidence Found Lacking

The testimony of PW9, Varun Kumar, a neighbour who claimed to have seen the accused fleeing and later PW8 at the house, was also found to be unreliable due to contradictions with his previous statements.

The Court concluded that the prosecution's case hinged almost entirely on PW8:

"The entire prosecution narrative revolves upon the evidence of the sole eye witness PW8 (Soumini), who is none other than the wife of the deceased. The trial court found the appellants/accused guilty of the charge mainly on the evidence of PW8. Her version appears to be not reliable, absolutely unnatural and untrustworthy. The evidence adduced by PW8 is against the ordinary course of human conduct. Her presence at the scene of occurrence is very much doubtful." (Para 66)

Final Verdict: Acquittal for All Appellants

Finding the evidence of the sole eyewitness (PW8) deficient and unreliable, and lacking credible corroboration, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court stated:

"In the absence of corroboration on material particulars, the conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of the testimony of sole eyewitness, in our view. The evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the complicity of the appellants are deficient, in our view. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside." (Para 66)

Consequently, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1088/2019 and 1068/2019 were allowed, the conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thalassery, were overturned, and all appellants were acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty. Any fines paid are to be refunded.