Kiran Raj

The Kerala High Court has acquitted an individual previously convicted under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly causing the death of a woman by pushing her into a pond. The conviction, which had been issued by the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kozhikode, was set aside due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case stemmed from an incident on December 15, 3:45 PM, 2013, involving the death of Geetha, the wife of Sukumaran. The prosecution alleged that Geetha had been spreading rumours regarding an alleged affair between her husband and the wife of the accused. The accused, angered by these allegations, allegedly confronted Geetha at a pond where she was washing clothes. During the confrontation, the accused was said to have hit her on her left shoulder and body with a stick, slapped her, and then pushed her into the pond, resulting in her death by drowning.

The initial police report, Crime No. 1256 of 2013, was filed under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C., indicating an unnatural death with no clear attribution of criminal liability. The initial perception in the locality was that Geetha had drowned due to an accident. However, subsequent investigation led to the accused’s arrest on December 20, 2013.

The prosecution presented 12 witnesses and relied heavily on the testimony of PW2, Maimoona, an alleged eyewitness, along with forensic and circumstantial evidence. The defense, on the other hand, argued that the case was fabricated and pointed out significant delays in the registration of witness statements. The accused maintained that he was falsely implicated due to personal animosities and claimed that Geetha's death was a suicide resulting from her personal struggles, including her husband's alcoholism and the hardships of raising their disabled children.

The High Court examined the credibility of PW2’s testimony, noting inconsistencies in her statements. The bench stated:

“A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by the counsel and, out of nervousness, may mix up facts or get confused regarding the sequence of events.”

The court found several contradictions in PW2’s testimony. Initially, she claimed that she had seen the accused strike the deceased with a stick and push her into the pond. However, her statement to the magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. varied in critical details. She had given differing accounts of her proximity to the crime scene, the sequence of events, and the presence of other individuals at the site. Her failure to raise an alarm or immediately report the crime to the authorities also cast doubt on the reliability of her testimony.

The medical evidence further complicated the prosecution’s case. The post-mortem report noted only a minor abrasion on Geetha’s left leg but no significant injuries that would indicate a physical altercation before drowning. The absence of trauma consistent with an assault undermined the prosecution's claim that she had been attacked before being pushed into the water.

The court also observed discrepancies in the seizure of material evidence. Items such as MOs 4 to 7 (clothing and accessories purportedly belonging to the victim) were found at the scene only during the second round of police investigation on December 20, 2013. This was despite an earlier scene investigation on December 17, 2013, which failed to mention these objects. The court remarked that such inconsistencies indicated possible evidence manipulation.

The bench concluded: “The entire prosecution case revolves around the evidence tendered by PW2, who is projected as an eyewitness. A conviction can only be sustained if the witness is of ‘sterling’ quality, meaning their version must be unassailable and free from contradictions. However, the testimony of PW2 is riddled with inconsistencies, embellishments, and unnatural conduct.”

Given the substantial inconsistencies in the witness testimony, lack of corroborative forensic evidence, and possible evidentiary manipulation, the High Court stated that the prosecution failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The High Court in its judgement stated:

“The finding of guilt, conviction, and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code in S.C. No.20 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kozhikode, is set aside, and he is acquitted of all charges.”

The accused was ordered to be released immediately unless required in connection with any other case. Additionally, the victim’s appeal (Crl.A (V) No.164 of 2018), which sought an enhancement of the conviction under Section 302 IPC, was dismissed.

Case Title: Balan Nair @ Damodaran Vaidyar v. State of Kerala

Case Number: CRL.A No.856/2017 & CRL.A (V) No.164/2018

Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan

[Read/Download order]