Udayakumar Custodial Death: Kerala High Court acquits two police officers sentenced to death by CBI Court TVM
Pranav B Prem
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday acquitted all police officers who had been convicted for the custodial death of 28-year-old Udayakumar in Thiruvananthapuram, setting aside the 2018 judgment of the CBI Special Court which had awarded death penalty to two policemen and imprisonment to their superior officers. A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar delivered the judgment while hearing a reference for confirmation of death sentence and appeals filed by the convicted officers. The Court held that the investigation conducted by the CBI was tainted and fundamentally flawed, resulting in the failure of the prosecution case.
Incident and Prosecution Case
On September 27, 2005, Udayakumar and his friend Suresh Kumar (PW1) were picked up by constables Jithakumar (A1) and Sreekumar (A2) of Fort Police Station. According to the prosecution, they were taken to the Circle Inspector’s office, where A1 and A2 subjected Udayakumar to brutal torture. He was forced to lie on a bench, beaten on the soles of his feet with bamboo canes, and his thighs were crushed with a GI pipe, assisted by constable Soman (A3). By night, Udayakumar was found unresponsive in the lock-up and rushed first to the General Hospital and later to the Medical College Hospital, where he was declared dead at 11:40 p.m. The post-mortem confirmed that severe crush injuries to his thighs caused his death.
Senior officers—Ajith Kumar (A4), then Sub Inspector, E.K. Sabu (A5), Circle Inspector, and ACP T.K. Haridas (A6)—were accused of conspiring to suppress the incident, fabricate false records, and destroy evidence. It was alleged that they created backdated FIRs, manipulated the General Diary entries, fabricated arrest memos and inspection reports, and coerced subordinates into false depositions.
Sessions Court Conviction
In July 2018, the Special CBI Court, Thiruvananthapuram, convicted A1 and A2 of custodial murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to death by hanging. The superior officers (A4, A5, and A6) were convicted of conspiracy and destruction of evidence under Sections 120B and 201 IPC and sentenced to lesser prison terms. A3 had died during trial and proceedings against A2 abated later.
The Sessions Court relied on testimony of several witnesses, including PW1, who was detained alongside Udayakumar, and approver witnesses—police personnel initially arraigned as accused—who later turned against their colleagues. The court also relied on recovery of incriminating objects, including a GI pipe and wooden bench stained with blood, to hold that custodial torture had been proved. During the Sessions trial, Adv. C. Prathapachandran Pillai appeared for A-1, Adv. Dileep Sathyan S. appeared for A-2, Advs. J. Jose and Bimal V.S. appeared for A-3 and A-4, and Adv. Celine Wilfred appeared for A-5.
Defence Arguments Before High Court
On appeal, the accused argued that the CBI had conducted a de facto re-investigation, contrary to this Court’s earlier directions that only “further investigation” be carried out. It was contended that witnesses who had earlier supported the defence were later arraigned as accused, tendered pardon, and coerced into turning approvers. The credibility of their testimony, given under threat and inducement, was strongly challenged. The defence also argued that the CBI filed its supplementary report before a Magistrate without jurisdiction, which vitiated the proceedings. It was contended that the approver testimonies were not corroborated by independent evidence, and that the Sessions Court wrongly relied on conjectures.
Counsel for A1 and A2 further argued that even if the allegations were accepted, there was no intention to cause death, and hence conviction for murder was unsustainable.
High Court’s Findings
The Division Bench found considerable merit in the appellants’ contentions. It observed that the CBI’s manner of investigation violated settled principles and binding directions in earlier judgments such as Prabhavathiamma v. State of Kerala (2008), and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013).
The Court held that the supplementary report filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, was without jurisdiction, since the case had already been committed to the Sessions Court in Thiruvananthapuram. This amounted to a serious legal infirmity, depriving the accused of their right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Bench was scathing in its criticism of the CBI’s methods: “The high-handed and wholly illegal procedure adopted by the CBI, of converting an eyewitness, who had no real connection with the incident, into an approver; of indiscriminately arraying all witnesses and coercing them at gunpoint into becoming approvers; of extracting their assent on the condition that they parrot the CBI’s version of events; of filing applications for tender of pardon before a Court lacking jurisdiction to entertain the same; and of laying a supplementary report before a Court equally devoid of jurisdiction, amounts to nothing short of a tainted and vitiated investigation.”
The Court also held that the Sessions Court erred in relying heavily on approver testimonies without sufficient corroboration, noting that one approver’s evidence cannot be used to corroborate another’s. It added that in serious cases involving grave allegations, the prosecution must present “greater assurance” and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which was not done here.
Finding that the convictions were based on conjecture and surmise, the High Court acquitted all surviving accused. It concluded: “We are compelled to hold that a flawed and tainted investigation has eventually led to the failure of the prosecution case involving the gruesome death of Udayakumar. The evidence adduced before the Court, if shorn of its taint and illegalities, is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence. The findings recorded in the impugned judgment holding the appellants guilty of charges framed against them are based on conjectures and surmises and hence, the same is unsustainable under law.” Accordingly, the death sentence reference was answered in the negative and the criminal appeals were allowed. The convictions and sentences imposed by the CBI Court were set aside, resulting in the acquittal of all accused officers.
Appearance
For Appellant: Shri. P.Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.), Sri.S.Rajeev, Sri.P.Martin Jose, Sri. Arun V.G
For Respondent: Spl. Public Prosecutor For Cbi, Dr. K.P.Satheesan
Cause Title: State of Kerala V. Jithakumar K and Anr and Connected matters
Case No: DSR 6/ 2018 and connected matters
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:64852
Coram: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Justice K.V. Jayakumar
