Renjith Johnson Murder: Kerala High Court Confirms Life Term For Five, Acquits Two; Test Identification Parade Not Essential Where Witness Clearly Saw Accused
Pranav B Prem
The Kerala High Court, on Thursday (27 November), upheld the conviction of five accused in the 2018 abduction and murder of Renjith Johnson, while setting aside the conviction of two others due to lack of sufficient evidence. The Court reiterated that the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) does not render the testimony of a witness inadmissible when the witness has had ample opportunity to clearly observe the accused.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian delivered the judgment. The prosecution case was that Renjith Johnson, who was living with the former wife of the first accused Manoj after she eloped with him, became the target of Manoj’s animosity. According to the prosecution, Manoj conspired with two others to eliminate Renjith after repeated failed attempts to bring his former wife back to him. On 15 August 2018, three of the accused went to Johnson’s house under the guise of purchasing pet birds and, after offering him liquor, managed to take him in a Chevrolet Beat car. From there, he was taken to Polachira, where he was brutally assaulted and succumbed to the injuries. The body was later taken to Tamil Nadu and buried along with the implements allegedly used for digging and nylon ropes said to have been used to tie the body.
Since there were no direct eyewitnesses to the murder, the case turned on circumstantial evidence. One of the central issues was whether the “last seen” testimony of Johnson’s mother could be relied upon when no TIP had been conducted. The Bench recorded that her testimony indicated that she had seen accused nos. 2, 3, and 5 at her house in broad daylight shortly before her son left with them. The Court noted that she “got sufficient opportunity to see the accused from her house” and that this was not a case of seeing unknown persons fleetingly. Referring to her identification of the accused in court, the Bench held that “the holding of a TI parade is not obligatory in all cases and a failure to hold a TI parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court.” The Court found her testimony adequate to establish that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the said accused.
The Bench further held that the evidence placed the first and fourth accused with the abductors shortly after the murder, when a witness (PW4) saw them shifting a body from one car to another. Additionally, purchase of nylon rope, spades, and a pickaxe was proved through shop witnesses and supported by CCTV and forensic evidence. The body was recovered from Tamil Nadu based on the disclosure statement of the third accused. The Court observed that the cumulative chain of circumstances — including “last seen” evidence, medical evidence establishing homicidal death, scientific evidence from the cars, recovery of the implements and the body pursuant to disclosure statements, and call detail records showing frequent contacts between accused 1 to 5 at the relevant period — left no reasonable doubt as to their involvement.
However, the Court held that the evidence did not establish the presence or participation of accused nos. 6 and 7 beyond reasonable doubt. Despite their alleged limited roles of tracking the deceased and arranging vehicles, the Bench found that there were no sufficient circumstances to prove that they had participated in the abduction or murder or in the subsequent destruction of evidence. Accordingly, it held that “as regards accused nos. 6 and 7, we do not find sufficient evidence against them to implicate them in the charge of abduction and murder of the deceased Renjith Johnson and the subsequent destruction of evidence or in the conspiracy hatched by the other accused in that regard.”
Ultimately, the High Court confirmed the conviction of accused nos. 1 to 5 under Section 302 IPC, modifying the sentence to imprisonment for life while setting aside the trial court’s stipulation that they must undergo a minimum of 25 years without remission, terming it beyond the powers of the trial court. Simultaneously, the Bench allowed the appeals of accused nos. 6 and 7 by setting aside their conviction and sentence in entirety. With these directions, the Court disposed of the criminal appeals.
Appearance
Appellant/1st Accused: Adv.Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.), Adv.Sri.Ajeesh S.Brite, Adv.Smt.Tintu Mol P.R.
Respondent/Complainant: Sri.S.U.Nazar (Special Public Prosecutor), Sri.T.R.Renjith (Public Prosecutor)
Cause Title: Manoj@ Pambu Manoj v State of Kerala and Connected Matters
Case No: Crl. A 721/ 2019 and connected Matters
Citation: 2025:KER:90973
Coram: Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Jobin Sebastian
