Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the criminal appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, which had upheld the conviction of several accused in a case of political violence resulting in the deaths of two individuals. The case arose from a violent incident during a hartal called by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/Vishva Hindu Parishad (RSS/VHP) on March 1, 2002, which escalated into a deadly confrontation with members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)). The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence, affirmed the findings of the High Court and upheld the convictions.

The prosecution alleged that a group of eleven individuals associated with RSS/VHP had sought refuge near the Meloor river after political tensions led to clashes between the two groups. During the night, a mob armed with weapons attacked the group. While most managed to escape, Sunil and Sujeesh were fatally assaulted. The bodies were later recovered, and post-mortem reports confirmed multiple injuries caused by sharp weapons. Following the incident, an FIR was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 302 read with Section 149, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

The Trial Court convicted several accused individuals while acquitting one. On appeal, the High Court acquitted some others, confirming the conviction of a smaller group. The appellants, whose convictions were upheld, contested the findings, arguing procedural lapses, inconsistencies in evidence, and alleged false implication due to political rivalry.

The Supreme Court examined the appellants' assertions, commencing with the purported inconsistencies in the First Information Report (FIR). The appellants argued that the FIR was ante-timed and manipulated to implicate them falsely. The Court observed that procedural lapses in the registration of the FIR, while concerning, do not automatically invalidate the prosecution’s case if other evidence sufficiently establishes the accused's guilt. "Procedural irregularities cannot negate substantive evidence, particularly when corroborative testimony supports the prosecution's narrative," the Court stated.

The Court then examined the eyewitness testimonies, particularly those of PW1, PW2, and PW4, who were present at the scene. While minor inconsistencies were noted, the Court held that these did not undermine the reliability of their accounts. It observed that "a mere variance in statements does not suffice to discredit a witness unless such contradictions go to the root of the matter." The testimonies were consistent on material aspects, including the identification of the accused and the sequence of events. The Court found the witnesses' accounts credible and corroborated by other evidence, rejecting the defense's claim of political bias. "The existence of political rivalry does not render testimony inadmissible if it is otherwise credible and corroborated," it stated.

The medical evidence presented by the prosecution further substantiated its case. Post-mortem reports confirmed that the victims sustained multiple injuries to vital organs, leading to death by hemorrhage and shock. "The findings in the post-mortem reports align with the narrative of a violent attack, corroborating the prosecution's version," the Court observed. These injuries were consistent with the weapons described by the witnesses, including an axe and a chopper, which were recovered based on disclosure statements recorded during the investigation.

The appellants also challenged the recoveries, claiming the weapons were planted. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the recoveries were supported by disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the recovered items were consistent with the injuries described in the post-mortem reports. "The recoveries, being corroborative of the prosecution's case, cannot be disregarded on speculative grounds," the judgment noted.

On the charge under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the appellants argued that possession of explosives was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found this contention unpersuasive, stating that "the act of throwing a bomb during the attack negates any lawful possession and supports the conviction under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act." The Court upheld the High Court's findings in this regard.

The appellants relied on the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) to argue that inconsistencies in evidence warranted acquittal. The Court observed that this principle does not apply in Indian criminal jurisprudence. It stated that "Indian law requires separating credible evidence from unreliable portions, and the entire prosecution case cannot be discarded due to minor flaws or discrepancies." The Court observed the need for carefully examining the evidence, stating that the prosecution's case cannot be dismissed solely due to minor inconsistencies or discrepancies.

The defense also contended that the political rivalry between the parties raised the possibility of false implication. The Court acknowledged the animosity but stated that this alone was insufficient to discredit consistent and corroborated evidence. "The testimonies of witnesses familiar with the accused, when corroborated by other evidence, remain admissible and reliable," it held. The Court found that the witnesses' accounts of the attack, including the identification of the accused and the weapons used, were detailed and credible, supported by medical reports and recoveries.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, holding that the evidence on record conclusively established the guilt of the appellants. The Court observed, "The prosecution's case is supported by consistent eyewitness testimonies, corroborative medical evidence, and credible recoveries, leaving no room for reasonable doubt." It dismissed the appeal, upholding the convictions and sentences under the IPC and the Explosive Substances Act.

Case Title: Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan & Ors. vs. State of Kerala
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2013
Bench Composition: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

[View/Download order]