Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction Based on Credible Eyewitness Testimony Despite Recovery Lapses
Pranav B Prem
In a recent judgment delivered by the Kerala High Court, the court upheld the conviction of the appellants based on the credible ocular testimony of the injured and eyewitnesses, despite alleged lapses in the recovery process. "The conviction based on the ocular evidence of the injured and the eyewitness cannot be taken away, if at all, the recovery was not proved properly", the court held
Case Background
The incident occurred on September 1, 1998, at 6 a.m., when 12 accused persons armed with swords, choppers, and iron rods allegedly trespassed into the house of PW1 (the complainant) and inflicted severe injuries on him and his sons (PWs 2 and 3). The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 452, and 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC. This appeal was filed by eight accused, challenging the judgment primarily on grounds of inadequate recovery evidence.
Key Issue
The core question was whether a conviction based on direct evidence from injured and eyewitnesses could stand firm when the recovery of weapons used in the crime was not properly established.
Court's Analysis
-
The court placed significant emphasis on the direct testimonies of PWs 1 to 4, especially the injured witnesses. Their accounts were deemed consistent and trustworthy, corroborated by medical evidence, including wound certificates detailing severe injuries caused by sharp weapons.
-
Precedents Supporting Convictions Without Recovery Evidence:
- The court referred to Masalti v. State of U.P. (1965) and Parshuram v. State of M.P. (2023), reiterating that conviction can be based on direct evidence of injured witnesses, even in the absence of weapon recovery.
- In State through the Inspector of Police v. Laly @ Manikandan (2022), the Supreme Court upheld that recovery lapses do not negate the credibility of eyewitness testimony.
-
PW4, the wife of PW1 and mother of PWs 2 and 3, was present during the incident. The court classified her as a natural witness and dismissed the defense's attempt to label her as an "interested witness" since her testimony was unbiased and aligned with the facts.
-
While independent witnesses did not support the prosecution, the court attributed this to fear of retaliation by the accused, noted as habitual offenders. This hostility did not diminish the strength of the injured witnesses' accounts.
-
Evidence of a pre-meditated group attack with deadly weapons reinforced the court's decision to uphold the conviction. The actions of the accused demonstrated a clear intent to inflict fatal injuries, making them vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC.
The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Further since the Appellant No.4 had passed away during the appeal proceedings, the High Court directed that the trial court can straight away issue distress warrant aganist him, to realise the fine amount, from his assets if any held by his legal heirs.
Cause Title: Aji v/s State of Kerala
Case No: Crl A No. 2009 of 2007
Date: December-16-2024
Bench: Justice Sophy Thomas
[Read/Download order]
