Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian allowed criminal appeals filed by the State and the victim's wife, setting aside the acquittal of the accused in the murder case of a political party functionary. The Court convicted five persons for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, and 120B read with Section 34 IPC, among others. The Court directed life imprisonment for the first four accused and rigorous imprisonment for the fifth, while acquitting the remaining. The judgment reversed the findings of the Sessions Court and imposed sentences after detailed consideration of the prosecution and defence evidence.

The case arose from an occurrence on 24.03.2015, in which Deepak, an office bearer of Janatha Dal United (JDU) and a ration shop owner at Pazhuvil Centre, was murdered in front of his shop. At approximately 8:30 p.m., four individuals armed with deadly weapons approached him. Two of them attacked Deepak, inflicting fatal injuries. Bystanders, including Sajeev, Stalin, and Sunil, were also injured while attempting to intervene. The attackers fled in a Maruti Omni Van.

Also Read:“Qualifications Must Be Possessed by the Date Appointed in the Rules or the Advertisement”: Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta High Court Order, Upholds Eligibility of D.El.Ed. Candidates

Sajeev, one of the injured, gave a statement to the police at the hospital, based on which an FIR was registered under Sections 324, 307, and 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Subsequent investigation revealed that the sixth accused believed Deepak was behind a prior attack on him, and in retaliation, a conspiracy was allegedly hatched by all ten accused to murder Deepak.

The prosecution charged the first five accused with direct involvement in the murder and subsequent escape. Accused 6 to 10 were implicated for conspiracy, aiding in transportation and concealment of weapons, and destruction of evidence. The case was tried as S.C. No.604 of 2015 before the Additional District Court-III, Thrissur.

Charges were framed against accused 1 to 5 under Sections 120B, 302, and 27 of the Arms Act. Accused 6 and 7 faced charges under Sections 109 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused 8 to 10 were charged under Sections 120B, 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC. All accused pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution examined 77 witnesses (PWs 1 to 77), marked 161 documents, and produced 11 material objects. Key witnesses included PWs 1 and 2, who sustained injuries and identified the assailants, the vehicle, and weapons. PW29 conducted the post-mortem and attributed Deepak’s death to incised wounds consistent with the weapons recovered. Forensic reports confirmed DNA and fingerprint matches with the second, fourth, fifth, and seventh accused. Test identification parades were conducted and affirmed the witness identifications.

The defence examined three witnesses and produced 35 documents. The Sessions Court acquitted all ten accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt. The State and Deepak’s wife filed criminal appeals under Sections 378 and 372 CrPC respectively, challenging the acquittals.

The Division Bench addressed the principles governing the appellate court’s jurisdiction over acquittals. It recorded: “There cannot be any doubt that the appellate court has the power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded and reverse such an order of acquittal in appropriate cases.” The Court further stated: “Once the trial court acquits the accused, the presumption of innocence in his favour is strengthened and reinforced.”

The Court stated that interference is permissible in the presence of substantial and compelling reasons. It recorded: “It is also settled that the appellate court ought not interfere in the orders of acquittal, unless there is gross perversity in the appreciation of evidence, or patent illegalities.” The Court also observed: “Miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of guilty persons and it is obligatory, therefore, for the appellate court to ensure that such miscarriage does not occur.”

The Court stated that errors in evaluating evidence would justify interference. It recorded: “Non-consideration of material facts and consideration of irrelevant facts are factors which would invite an interference with an order of acquittal.”

While examining the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, the Court recorded: “The offence of criminal conspiracy being one committed ordinarily in secrecy, it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence for the same.” The Court stated: “It is not necessary to prove an express agreement. On the other hand, the evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design is sufficient.” It further stated: “When the circumstances in a given case are taken together, it must be possible for the court to infer the meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing the offence.”

The Court stated that there was evidence of concerted action. It recorded: “Going by the case of the prosecution, accused 1 to 4 are the persons who caused the death of Deepak, the fifth accused is the person who drove the van in which accused 1 to 4 came to the scene of occurrence to commit the murder of Deepak and took accused 1 to 4 away from the scene after committing the murder in the same van.”

The Court examined the testimonies of PWs 1 and 2. It recorded: “The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 stands unimpeached and is corroborated by medical and scientific evidence.”

The Court recorded the roles attributed to each accused: “Accused 2 and 3 caused the death of Deepak by stabbing and hacking him with deadly weapons. Accused 1 brandished a sword to create terror, and accused 4 assaulted Stalin. Accused 5 facilitated the attack by driving the vehicle used for arrival and escape.”

In relation to whether the offence under Section 302 IPC required proof of premeditation, the Court recorded: “Even in the absence of pre-meditation, if the act of the accused results in death and is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, Section 302 IPC is attracted.” The Court concluded: “Life imprisonment is warranted even in the absence of pre-meditation.”

As regards accused 6 to 10, the Court recorded: “The prosecution failed to prove the involvement of accused 6 to 10 beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must be extended to them.”

The Division Bench, set aside the acquittal of accused 1 to 5. It recorded: “In the light of the discussion aforesaid, the criminal appeals are allowed in part. The acquittal of accused 1 to 5 is set aside. Accused 1 to 5 are found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Among them, the second accused is also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and the fourth accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.”

The Court directed that non-bailable warrants be issued for the arrest and production of the convicted persons. It stated: “Registry is directed to issue non-bailable warrants for the immediate arrest and production of accused 1 to 5 before the Court of Session. On such production, the court shall commit them to prison with a direction to the Superintendent of the prison to produce them before this Court at 10.15 a.m. on 8.4.2025 for hearing on sentence.”

After hearing the parties on the question of sentence, the Court imposed life imprisonment on all five convicted persons. It recorded: “Accused 1 to 5 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.”

Additional sentences were imposed on two of the convicts. The Court recorded: “The second accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.” It also stated: “The fourth accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.”

It was directed that the sentences imposed on the second and fourth accused shall run concurrently. The Court recorded: “The substantive sentences imposed on accused 2 and 4 shall run concurrently.”

In respect of sentencing credits, the Court recorded: “Accused 2 and 5 are entitled to the benefit of Section 467(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.”

Also Read: Person Accused of Criminal Offences Should Know That They Are Going to Jail and Not for Medical Tourism: Kerala High Court Dismisses Bail Plea Under BNSS Sickness Provison

The Court ordered that any fine amount realised shall be paid to the wife of the deceased. It stated: “The fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to the appellant in Crl.Appeal (V) No.631 of 2017, the wife of the deceased Deepak.”

The Court also issued further directions to the District Legal Services Authority. It recorded: “The District Legal Services Authority, Thrissur is also directed to take necessary steps to determine and disburse compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased Deepak, as provided under the Victim Compensation Scheme.”

The Registry was instructed to ensure compliance. The Court directed: “The Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Thrissur, forthwith, for necessary follow-up action.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri S.U. Nazar, Senior Public Prosecutor; Sri Nireesh Mathew, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri P.Vijaya Bhanu, Senior Advocate; Sri Rafiq P.M., Advocate; Sri S. Rajeev, Advocate; Sri T.K. Sandeep, Advocate; Sri Arjun Sreedhar, Advocate; Sri Arun Krishna Dhan, Advocate; Sri M. Revikrishnan, Advocate; Sri Ajeesh K. Sasi, Advocate; Smt. Sruthy N. Bhat, Advocate; Sri Rahul Sunil, Advocate; Smt. Sruthy K.K., Advocate; Sri Sohail Ahammed Harris P.P., Advocate; Smt. Nanditha S., Advocate; Sri Aaron Zacharias Benny, Advocate; Sri V. Vinay, Advocate; Sri M.S. Aneer, Advocate; Sri Sarath K.P., Advocate; Sri Anilkumar C.R., Advocate; Sri K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Advocate; Smt. Dipa V., Advocate

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Rishikesh & Others / Varsha Deepak v. Rishikesh & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:30323

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 2020 and Criminal Appeal (V) No. 631 of 2017

Full Names of the Bench: Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian

[Read/Download order]