Krishnakumar vs State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2026

​

​TATE OF KERALA​
S
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,​
​
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI – 682 031​
​

SRI. RAJEEV K. SR.PP​
​

THIS​ ​
​ CRIMINAL​ ​
APPEAL​ ​
HAVING​ ​
COME​ ​
UP​ ​
FOR​ ​
ADMISSION​ ​
ON​
30.06.2026, THE COURT ON 14.07.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:​
​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​3​

​ UDGMENT​
J
​Dated this the 14th day of July, 2026​

​K. V. Jayakumar, J.​

​This​ ​criminal​ ​appeal​ ​is​​preferred​​impugning​​the​​judgment​​of​​the​​Additional​

​Sessions​ ​Court-III,​ ​Alappuzha,​ ​in​ ​S.C.​ ​No.215​ ​of​ ​2012.​ ​The​ ​appellants​ ​stood​ ​for​

​trial​​for​​the​​offences​​punishable​​under​​Sections​​341​​and​​302​​r/w​​34​​of​​the​​Indian​

​Penal Code.​

​2.​ ​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​found​​accused​​Nos.1​​and​​3​​guilty​​of​​the​

​offences​​under​​Sections​​341,​​302​​r/w​​34​​of​​IPC,​ ​convicted​​and​​sentenced​​them​​to​

​undergo​ ​imprisonment​ ​for​ ​life​ ​and​ ​to​ ​pay​ ​a​ ​fine​ ​of​ ​Rs.2,00,000/-​ ​each​ ​and​ ​in​

​default​​of​​payment​​of​​fine,​​to​​undergo​​rigorous​​imprisonment​​for​​three​​years​​each​

​for​ ​the​ ​offence​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​302​ ​r/w​ ​34​ ​of​ ​IPC.​ ​They​ ​were​ ​also​ ​sentenced​ ​to​

​undergo​​simple​​imprisonment​​for​​one​​week​​each​​for​​the​​offence​​under​​section​​341​

​r/w 34 of the IPC.​

​Prosecution case​

​3.​ ​The​ ​prosecution​ ​case,​ ​in​ ​brief,​ ​is​ ​that​ ​on​ ​10.04.1999,​ ​the​​deceased​

​Shajimon​​went​​to​​the​​fruit​​stall​​at​​Ambalapuzha​​run​​by​​PW7​​and​​purchased​​some​

​dates​​from​​his​​shop.​ ​According​​to​​the​​prosecution,​​even​​though​​the​​deceased​​had​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​4​

​paid​​the​​price​​of​​the​​dates​​purchased,​​PW7​​mistakenly​​demanded​​the​​price​​of​​the​

​dates​​from​​him​​again,​​which​​led​​to​​an​​altercation​​between​​them.​ ​The​​prosecution​

​further​ ​alleges​ ​that,​ ​at​ ​that​ ​time,​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​Nos.​ ​1​ ​and​ ​3,​ ​standing​ ​nearby,​

​intervened​ ​and​ ​ordered​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​to​ ​pay​ ​the​ ​price​ ​of​ ​dates​ ​to​ ​PW7.​ ​The​

​prosecution​​further​​alleges​​that​​there​​was​​an​​altercation​​between​​the​​accused​​Nos.​

​1​​to​​3​​and​​the​​Shajimon​​at​​that​​time.​ ​Due​​to​​the​​intervention​​of​​some​​local​​people​

​who​​gathered​​at​​the​​scene​​of​​occurrence,​​the​​matter​​was​​settled​​amicably.​ ​But​​at​

​that​ ​time,​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​accused​ ​warned​ ​the​​deceased​​Shajimon​​that​​they​​would​​come​

​back after a short while and left the place.​

​4.​ ​The​​prosecution​​further​​alleges​​that​​at​​about​​3​​a.m.,​​on​​11.04.1999,​

​while​ ​the​ ​ceremonial​ ​procession​ ​of​ ​Ambalapuzha​ ​temple​ ​reached​ ​in​ ​front​ ​of​

​Manakkattupalli​ ​Illam,​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​Nos.​​1​​to​​3​​approached​​Shajimon​​and​​A2​​and​

​A3​ ​caught​ ​hold​ ​of​ ​his​ ​hands.​ ​In​​the​​meanwhile,​​the​​1st​​accused​​took​​MO3​​knife​

​from​​the​​loin​​of​​his​​dhoti​​and​​inflicted​​stab​​injuries​​on​​the​​chest​​and​​other​​parts​​of​

​the​​body​​of​​Shajimon.​​In​​the​​meantime,​​the​​2nd​​accused​​took​​MO4​​knife​​from​​the​

​loin​ ​of​ ​his​ ​dhoti​ ​and​ ​inflicted​ ​stab​ ​injuries​ ​on​ ​the​ ​back​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased​

​Shajimon.​​PW1,​​the​​father​​of​​the​​injured,​​along​​with​​PWs​​2​​and​​3,​​took​​the​​injured​

​Shajimon​​to​​the​​Medical​​College​​Hospital,​​Alappuzha.​​Shajimon​​succumbed​​to​​the​

​injuries​ ​while​ ​undergoing​ ​treatment​ ​at​ ​Medical​ ​College​ ​Hospital,​ ​Alappuzha,​ ​on​

​16.04.1999.​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​5​

​Registration of FIR and the Investigation​

​5.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​Ext.​ ​P1​ ​the​ ​FIS​ ​lodged​ ​by​ ​PW1​ ​(Kumaru),​ ​PW25​

​(K.R.​ ​Anirudhan),​ ​the​ ​Sub​ ​Inspector​ ​of​ ​Police,​ ​Ambalapuzha​ ​Police​ ​Station,​

​registered Ext.P7 FIR on 11.04.1999.​

​6.​ ​PW25​ ​took​ ​up​ ​the​ ​investigation​ ​on​ ​that​ ​day​ ​itself.​ ​Thereafter,​ ​he​

​proceeded​ ​to​ ​the​ ​place​ ​of​ ​occurrence​ ​at​ ​2.30​ ​p.m.​ ​and​ ​prepared​ ​Ext.P2​ ​Scene​

​mahazar​ ​of​ ​the​ ​place​ ​of​ ​occurrence​ ​in​ ​the​ ​presence​ ​of​ ​the​ ​witnesses.​ ​He,​

​thereafter,​​questioned​​certain​​witnesses.​​He​​filed​​Ext.P8​​report​​to​​add​​section​​307​

​of​ ​IPC,​ ​and​ ​to​ ​delete​ ​section​ ​308​ ​of​ ​IPC,​ ​and​ ​to​ ​proceed​ ​with​ ​the​ ​investigation.​

​PW25​ ​seized​ ​the​ ​dresses​ ​worn​ ​by​ ​the​ ​deceased,​ ​MO1​ ​(Dhoti)​ ​and​ ​MO2​ ​(Shirt),​

​after​ ​preparing​ ​Ext.P3​ ​seizure​ ​Mahazar.​ ​He​ ​conducted​ ​a​​search​​in​​the​​houses​​of​

​Accused​​Nos.​​1​​and​​2​​after​​preparing​​Exts.​​P9​​and​​P10​​search​​memos.​​Thereafter,​

​he​ ​prepared​ ​Exts.​ ​P11​ ​and​ ​P12​ ​search​ ​lists.​ ​CW37​ ​(C.V.​ ​Sali)​ ​conducted​ ​further​

​investigation.​ ​After​ ​completing​ ​the​ ​investigation,​ ​he​ ​laid​ ​the​ ​charge​ ​sheet​ ​before​

​the jurisdictional magistrate.​

​7.​ ​CW37​ ​passed​ ​away​ ​before​ ​the​ ​commencement​ ​of​ ​the​ ​trial.​ ​PW29​

​(Vidhyadhara​ ​Kumar),​ ​who​ ​accompanied​ ​CW37​ ​during​ ​the​ ​investigation​ ​and​ ​was​

​acquainted​ ​with​ ​the​ ​signature​ ​of​ ​CW37,​ ​was​ ​examined​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​the​ ​facts​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​6​

​pertaining​​to​​the​​investigation.​​According​​to​​him,​​on​​17.04.1999,​​CW37​​conducted​

​the​ ​inquest​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​and​ ​prepared​ ​Ext.​ ​P15​ ​inquest​ ​report.​ ​On​​the​​same​

​day,​ ​Ext.​ ​P16​ ​report​ ​adding​ ​Section​ ​302​ ​of​ ​IPC​ ​was​ ​filed.​ ​PW29​​further​​deposed​

​that​ ​CW37​ ​arrested​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​Nos.​ ​1​ ​to​ ​3​ ​at​ ​around​ ​5.00​ ​am​ ​on​ ​19.04.1999​

​after​ ​preparing​​Ext.​​P17​​arrest​​memo​​and​​Exts.​​P18​​to​​20​​custody​​memos.​​PW29​

​has​ ​recorded​ ​the​ ​confession​ ​statement​ ​of​​the​​accused​​in​​his​​handwriting.​​On​​the​

​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​information​ ​given​ ​by​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​No.1,​ ​and​ ​as​ ​led​ ​by​ ​the​ ​accused,​

​MO3​ ​knife​ ​was​ ​recovered​ ​after​ ​preparing​ ​Ext.​ ​P4​ ​mahazar.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​

​information​ ​given​ ​by​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​No.2,​ ​and​ ​as​ ​led​ ​by​ ​him,​ ​MO4​ ​knife​ ​was​

​recovered​ ​after​ ​preparing​ ​Ext.​ ​P6​ ​mahazar.​ ​Thereafter,​ ​CW37​ ​prepared​ ​Ext.P21​

​Property​ ​list​ ​and​ ​Ext.​ ​P23​ ​forwarding​ ​note.​ ​After​ ​completing​ ​the​ ​investigation​

​charge sheet was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate.​

​Proceedings in the trial court​

​8.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Magistrate,​ ​after​ ​completing​ ​the​ ​preliminary​ ​steps,​

​committed​ ​the​ ​case​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​of​ ​Session,​ ​Alappuzha.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​

​Judge​ ​made​ ​over​ ​the​ ​case​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Additional​ ​Sessions​ ​Court-III,​ ​Alappuzha.​ ​The​

​learned​ ​Additional​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​framed​ ​the​ ​charge​ ​after​ ​hearing​ ​both​ ​sides.​

​When​ ​the​ ​charge​ ​was​ ​read​ ​over​ ​and​ ​explained​ ​to​​the​​accused,​​they​​pleaded​​not​

​guilty​​and​​claimed​​to​​be​​tried.​​The​​accused​​denied​​the​​incriminating​​circumstances​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​7​

​put to them and maintained the stand of innocence.​

​9.​ ​In​​order​​to​​prove​​the​​charge​​against​​the​​accused,​​PWs.​​1​​to​​29​​were​

​examined,​​and​​Exts.​​P1​​to​​P24​​were​​marked.​ ​MOs.1​​to​​4​​were​​also​​identified​​and​

​marked.​ ​After​ ​the​ ​close​ ​of​ ​the​​prosecution​​evidence,​​the​​accused​​were​​examined​

​under​ ​Section​ ​313(1)(b)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Code​ ​of​ ​Criminal​ ​Procedure.​ ​They​ ​denied​ ​the​

​incriminating​ ​circumstances​ ​levelled​ ​against​ ​them​ ​and​ ​pleaded​ ​innocence.​ ​No​

​evidence​​was​​adduced​​from​​the​​side​​of​​defence.​​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge,​​after​

​a​ ​full-fledged​ ​trial,​ ​convicted​ ​and​ ​sentenced​ ​the​ ​appellant/accused​ ​as​ ​aforesaid.​

​Impugning​ ​the​ ​findings​​of​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge,​​the​​accused​​preferred​​this​

​appeal.​

​The contentions of the appellants​

​10.​ ​Sri.​​B.​​Raman​​Pillai,​​the​​learned​​Senior​​Counsel​​for​​the​​appellants,​​as​

​instructed​ ​by​ ​Sri.​ ​M.​ ​Sunil​ ​Kumar,​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​judgment​ ​of​ ​the​

​learned Sessions Judge is patently illegal and unsustainable.​

​11.​ ​The​​learned​​counsel​​submitted​​that​​all​​the​​material​​witnesses​​turned​

​hostile​ ​to​​the​​prosecution​​in​​this​​case.​​Even​​the​​father​​of​​the​​deceased,​​PW1,​​did​

​not​ ​support​ ​the​ ​prosecution​​narrative.​ ​The​​learned​​counsel​​would​​further​​submit​

​that​​the​​available​​evidence​​on​​record​​is​​deficient​​to​​sustain​​a​​conviction​​against​​the​

​appellants/accused.​ ​The​​learned​​counsel​​would​​further​​submit​​that​​the​​trial​​court​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​8​

​ought​​to​​have​​found​​that​​the​​contents​​of​​Ext.P1​​F.I.Statement​​could​​be​​used​​only​

​for​ ​contradicting​ ​PW1,​ ​the​ ​maker.​ ​Instead,​​the​​trial​​court​​has​​wrongly​​construed​

​the​ ​contents​ ​of​ ​Ext.P1​ ​Statement​ ​as​ ​a​ ​dying​ ​declaration,​ ​forgetting​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that​

​the same was denied by PW1.​

​12.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​would​ ​then​ ​point​ ​out​ ​that​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​court​ ​has​

​illegally​ ​considered​ ​the​ ​statements​ ​of​ ​the​ ​witnesses​ ​recorded​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​161​

​Cr.P.C.​ ​as​ ​gospel​ ​truth​ ​when​ ​they​ ​denied​ ​the​ ​same​ ​while​ ​giving​ ​evidence​ ​in​ ​the​

​box.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​further​​submitted​​that​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​

​put​​certain​​questions​​to​​the​​witnesses​​and​​elicited​​some​​answers.​ ​Relying​​on​​the​

​answers​​given​​by​​the​​witnesses,​​the​​trial​​court​​has​​arrived​​at​​a​​conclusion​​that​​the​

​previous​​statements​​of​​the​​witnesses​​are​​true.​ ​The​​course​​adopted​​by​​the​​learned​

​Sessions Judge is erroneous as it flouts the settled legal principles.​

​13.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​argued​ ​that​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​Judge​ ​has​ ​referred​ ​to​

​certain​ ​judgments​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Apex​​Court​​and​​applied​​them​​to​​the​​facts​​of​​the​​instant​

​case​ ​without​ ​properly​ ​ascertaining​ ​the​ ​factual​ ​matrix​ ​of​ ​this​ ​case.​ ​The​ ​learned​

​Senior​​Counsel​​would​​further​​submit​​that​​the​​conclusion​​arrived​​at​​by​​the​​learned​

​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​is​ ​without​ ​any​ ​legal​ ​evidence,​ ​but​ ​on​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​surmises,​

​conjectures,​ ​assumptions,​ ​and​ ​presumptions.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​

​discarded​​the​​fact​​that​​the​​prosecution​​case​​is​​built​​on​​direct​​evidence,​​and​​found​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​9​

​that​ ​the​ ​chain​ ​of​ ​circumstances​ ​pointing​ ​to​ ​the​ ​guilt​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​is​ ​complete​

​and​ ​fully​ ​established.​ ​The​ ​said​ ​approach​ ​of​ ​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​is​​illegal​

​and improper.​

​14.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​would​ ​further​ ​submit​ ​that​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​court​ ​has​

​wrongly​​placed​​the​​burden​​on​​the​​shoulders​​of​​the​​accused,​​ignoring​​the​​statutory​

​provisions and cardinal principles of law.​

​15.​ ​The​​learned​​counsel​​pointed​​out​​that​​the​​offence​​was​​alleged​​to​​have​

​taken​​place​​on​​11.04.1999​​and​​the​​trial​​was​​conducted​​after​​the​​lapse​​of​​about​​12​

​years.​ ​The​ ​investigating​​office,​​CW37,​​was​​not​​examined​​by​​the​​prosecution.​​It​​is​

​further​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​a​ ​case​ ​where​​none​​of​​the​​ocular​​witnesses​​supported​

​the​ ​prosecution’s​ ​version.​ ​PW29,​ ​who​ ​merely​ ​accompanied​ ​the​ ​Investigating​

​Officer​ ​during​ ​the​ ​investigation,​ ​was​ ​examined​ ​to​ ​mark​ ​the​ ​documents.​ ​The​

​learned​ ​counsel​ ​argued​ ​that​ ​the​ ​non-examination​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer,​

​considering​​the​​peculiar​​facts​​and​​circumstances​​of​​the​​case,​​is​​fatal​​to​​the​​case​​of​

​the prosecution.​

​16.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Counsel​ ​has​ ​pointed​ ​out​ ​that​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​court​ ​failed​ ​to​

​proceed​​with​​the​​trial​​in​​a​​fair​​and​​transparent​​manner​​and​​instead​​proceeded​​with​

​the​​trial​​with​​a​​presumption​​of​​guilt​​of​​the​​accused​​from​​the​​very​​beginning​​of​​the​

​trial,​​which​​is​​impermissible​​in​​law.​​It​​is​​submitted​​that​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​10​

​has​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​take​ ​into​ ​consideration​ ​the​ ​various​ ​omissions,​ ​discrepancies,​ ​and​

​inconsistencies​​in​​the​​evidence​​adduced​​by​​the​​prosecution,​​which​​materially​​affect​

​the credibility and reliability of the prosecution case.​

​17.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​further​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​

​Judge​ ​has​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​consider​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​has​ ​not​ ​adduced​ ​any​

​material​ ​evidence​ ​to​ ​link​ ​or​ ​connect​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​with​ ​the​ ​alleged​ ​crime.​ ​It​ ​is​

​further​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​alleged​ ​confession​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​was​​not​​proved​​in​

​accordance with law.​

​18.​ ​According​​to​​the​​learned​​senior​​counsel,​​the​​prosecution​​has​​failed​​to​

​prove​​the​​charge​​beyond​​reasonable​​doubt.​ ​It​​is​​submitted​​that​​the​​prosecution​

​has​ ​no​ ​definite,​ ​concrete,​ ​and​ ​consistent​ ​case​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​identity​ ​of​ ​the​

​accused​ ​persons,​ ​the​ ​weapons​ ​allegedly​ ​used​ ​in​ ​the​ ​incident,​​and​​the​​manner​​in​

​which the crime was committed.​

​The contentions of the Prosecution.​

​19.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​other​ ​hand,​ ​Sri.​ ​Rajeev​ ​K,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Senior​ ​Public​

​Prosecutor,​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​has​ ​succeeded​ ​in​ ​proving​ ​the​ ​charge​

​against​ ​the​ ​appellants​ ​beyond​ ​any​ ​reasonable​​doubt.​ ​The​​trial​​court​​appreciated​

​the​ ​evidence​ ​in​ ​the​ ​correct​ ​perspective​ ​and​ ​arrived​ ​at​ ​a​ ​proper​ ​conclusion.​ ​The​

​learned​ ​Public​ ​Prosecutor​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​that​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​hostile​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​11​

​witnesses​ ​can​ ​be​ ​relied​ ​on​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​to​ ​sustain​ ​the​ ​conviction​ ​against​ ​the​

​appellant. Therefore, no interference, whatsoever, is warranted in this matter.​

​The evidence let in by the prosecution​

​20.​ ​In​​the​​instant​​Case,​​PWs.​​1​​to​​14,​​PW22​​and​​PW23​​turned​​hostile​​to​

​the prosecution.​

​21.​ ​PW1​ ​(Kumaru)​ ​is​ ​the​ ​father​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​Shajimon.​ ​He​ ​stated​

​that​ ​he​ ​does​ ​not​ ​remember​ ​the​ ​date​​of​​death​​of​​his​​son.​ ​His​​death​​occurred​​on​

​the​ ​day​ ​of​ ​’Aarattu’​ ​in​ ​connection​ ​with​ ​the​ ​festival​ ​of​ ​Ambalapuzha​ ​Sree​ ​Krishna​

​Swamy​ ​Temple.​ ​He​ ​further​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​at​ ​about​ ​3:00​ ​a.m.​ ​on​ ​that​ ​fateful​ ​day,​

​somebody​​came​​to​​his​​house​​and​​told​​him​​that​​his​​son​​got​​injured​​and​​was​​taken​

​to​​Medical​​College​​Hospital,​​Alappuzha.​ ​On​​getting​​this​​information,​​he​​rushed​​to​

​the​​hospital​​in​​an​​autorickshaw.​ ​When​​he​​reached​​there,​​his​​son​​was​​taken​​to​​the​

​operation​ ​theatre.​ ​After​​conducting​​the​​surgery,​​his​​son​​was​​shifted​​to​​the​​ward.​

​Thereafter,​ ​he​​did​​not​​speak.​ ​He​​deposed​​that​​his​​son​​succumbed​​to​​the​​injuries​

​seven​​days​​after​​the​​incident,​​while​​undergoing​​treatment.​ ​He​​came​​to​​know​​that​

​there​​was​​an​​altercation​​and​​consequently,​​his​​son​​got​​injured.​ ​He​​does​​not​​know​

​how​​the​​incident​​occurred.​ ​He​​put​​his​​signature​​on​​a​​paper​​brought​​by​​the​​police.​

​He admitted his signature in Ext.P1 FIS.​

​22.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​him,​ ​he​ ​did​ ​not​ ​state​ ​anything​ ​to​​the​​police​​about​​the​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​12​

​alleged​ ​incident.​ ​Since​ ​he​ ​did​ ​not​ ​support​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​case,​ ​permission​ ​was​

​granted​​to​​the​​Prosecutor​​to​​put​​leading​​questions​​to​​the​​witness.​ ​The​​case​​diary​

​contradictions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​witness​ ​were​ ​brought​ ​on​ ​record​ ​by​ ​the​ ​prosecution.​ ​He​

​denied​ ​the​ ​suggestion​ ​that​​his​​son​​told​​him​​that​​one​​Kannan​​and​​another​​person​

​caught​ ​hold​ ​of​ ​him​ ​and​ ​Luttappi​ ​Shaji​ ​stabbed​ ​him.​ ​The​ ​stand​ ​of​ ​the​ ​witness​

​during​ ​the​ ​examination​ ​was​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​no​ ​occasion​ ​to​ ​see​ ​the​ ​injured​

​immediately​ ​after​ ​the​​incident​​at​​the​​place​​of​​occurrence,​​and​​his​​son​​did​​not​​tell​

​him anything about the incident.​

​23.​ ​PW2​​(Shaji)​​is​​an​​eyewitness​​to​​the​​incident.​ ​He​​testified​​that​​he​​has​

​not​ ​seen​ ​the​ ​alleged​ ​incident.​ ​As​​PW2​​did​​not​​support​​the​​prosecution​​case,​​the​

​Prosecutor​​was​​permitted​​to​​put​​leading​​questions​​to​​him​​under​​Section​​154​​of​​the​

​Indian​ ​Evidence​ ​Act.​ ​He​ ​denied​ ​that​ ​he​ ​gave​​a​​previous​​statement​​to​​the​​police​

​on​ ​11.04.1999.​ ​Though​ ​the​ ​case​ ​diary​ ​contradictions​ ​were​ ​brought​ ​on​ ​record​​by​

​the Prosecutor, it was not seen marked.​

​24.​ ​PW3​ ​(Asokan)​ ​is​ ​an​ ​auto​ ​driver​ ​by​ ​profession.​ ​He​ ​denied​ ​having​

​seen​ ​the​ ​incident.​ ​He​ ​would​ ​further​ ​say​ ​that​ ​he​ ​did​ ​not​ ​give​ ​statement​ ​to​ ​the​

​police.​

​25.​ ​PW4​​(Sunil​​Kumar)​​is​​another​​occurrence​​witness​​to​​the​​incident.​ ​He​

​is​​a​​coolie​​worker.​ ​He​​would​​say​​that​​the​​deceased​​and​​his​​father​​were​​not​​known​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​13​

​to​ ​him.​ ​He​ ​did​ ​not​ ​go​ ​to​ ​the​ ​’Aarattu’​ ​ulsavam​ ​of​ ​Sree​ ​Krishna​ ​Swamy​ ​Temple,​

​Alappuzha,​ ​in​ ​1999.​ ​He​ ​is​ ​not​ ​aware​ ​whether​ ​a​ ​person​ ​died​ ​in​ ​1999​​during​​the​

​festival​​of​​Sree​​Krishna​​Swamy​​Temple.​ ​According​​to​​him,​​he​​came​​to​​know​​about​

​the murder when he got a summons from the police one month back.​

​26.​ ​PW5​ ​(Sajimon)​ ​was​​an​​autorickshaw​​driver​​by​​profession​​during​​the​

​relevant​ ​period.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​not​ ​seen​ ​the​ ​incident​​that​​resulted​​in​​the​

​death​ ​of​ ​Shajimon.​ ​He​ ​would​ ​further​ ​say​ ​that​ ​he​ ​does​ ​not​ ​know​ ​the​ ​accused​

​Nos.1 to 3. He added that he saw the accused for the first time in the court.​

​27.​ ​PW6​​(Ashokan)​​is​​an​​autorickshaw​​driver​​by​​profession.​ ​He​​deposed​

​that​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​Shajimon​ ​was​ ​also​ ​an​ ​autorickshaw​ ​driver.​ ​He​​participated​​in​

​the​ ​cremation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​him,​ ​the​ ​incident​ ​occurred​ ​on​ ​the​

​’Aarattu’​ ​day​ ​of​ ​the​ ​festival​​of​​the​​Ambalapuzha​​temple.​ ​He​​heard​​that​​Shajimon​

​died​ ​in​ ​an​ ​altercation​ ​which​ ​occurred​ ​in​ ​connection​ ​with​ ​the​ ​’Aarattu​

​Ezhunnallippu’.​ ​He​​would​​also​​say​​that​​he​​saw​​the​​accused​​for​​the​​first​​time​​in​​the​

​court. He denied to have seen the incident.​

​28.​ ​PW7​ ​(Abdul​ ​Nizar),​ ​the​ ​owner​ ​of​ ​the​​fruit​​shop,​​who​​was​​examined​

​to​​prove​​the​​motive​​for​​the​​crime​​and​​the​​alleged​​altercation​​that​​happened​​on​​the​

​previous​ ​night​ ​of​ ​the​ ​incident.​ ​PW7​ ​was​ ​also​ ​not​ ​a​ ​loyal​ ​witness.​ ​He​ ​stated​​that​

​the​ ​deceased​ ​Shajimon​ ​and​ ​his​ ​father,​ ​PW1,​ ​are​ ​not​ ​known​ ​to​ ​him.​ ​He​ ​further​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​14​

​deposed​ ​that​ ​no​ ​altercation​ ​had​ ​happened​ ​between​ ​Shajimon​ ​and​ ​him,​ ​and​ ​the​

​consequential brawl between the said Shajimon and the accused.​

​29.​ ​PW8​ ​(Ashokan),​ ​the​ ​owner​ ​of​ ​a​ ​hotel​ ​situated​ ​near​ ​the​ ​place​ ​of​

​occurrence,​​and​​PW9​​(Narayanan​​Kutty),​​the​​owner​​of​​the​​MILMA​​booth​​located​​in​

​the​​vicinity​​of​​the​​place​​of​​occurrence,​​were​​also​​turned​​hostile​​to​​the​​prosecution.​

​Both​​witnesses​​deposed​​that​​they​​did​​not​​know​​anything​​about​​the​​incident.​​They​

​further​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​were​ ​not​​known​​to​​them​​and​​that​​they​​had​​seen​

​them​ ​for​ ​the​ ​first​ ​time​ ​in​ ​the​ ​court.​ ​PW10​ ​(Sreedevi),​ ​the​ ​wife​ ​of​ ​PW9,​ ​was​

​examined​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​that​ ​she​ ​witnessed​ ​someone​ ​taking​ ​the​ ​injured​ ​in​ ​an​

​autorickshaw. She did not support the case of the prosecution.​

​30.​ ​Likewise,​​PW11​​and​​PW12,​​the​​nearby​​shop​​owners,​​and​​PW13,​​who​

​had​ ​allegedly​ ​seen​ ​the​ ​transportation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​injured​ ​to​ ​the​ ​hospital,​ ​were​ ​also​

​deviated from their previous statements while giving evidence in court.​

​31.​ ​PW14​ ​(Manoj),​ ​an​ ​autorickshaw​ ​driver,​ ​who​ ​was​​examined​​to​​prove​

​the​ ​transportation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​injured​ ​to​ ​the​ ​hospital.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​did​ ​not​ ​support​ ​the​

​prosecution story.​

​32.​ ​PW15​ ​(Madhu)​ ​is​ ​the​ ​tempo​ ​driver​​in​​which​​the​​deceased​​Shajimon​

​was​ ​taken​ ​to​ ​Medical​ ​College​ ​Hospital,​ ​Alappuzha.​ ​He​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​he​ ​took​ ​the​

​one injured to MCH, Alappuzha, but he did not know who the injured person was.​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​15​

​33.​ ​PW16​​(Venukuttan)​​and​​PW26​​(Venugopal)​​were​​the​​attestors​​to​​Ext.​

​P2,​ ​scene​ ​mahazar.​​They​​admitted​​their​​signatures​​in​​Ext.​​P2.​​According​​to​​them,​

​they​​put​​their​​signatures​​on​​a​​white​​paper​​as​​directed​​by​​the​​police.​ ​They​​further​

​deposed​ ​that​ ​they​ ​had​ ​no​​prior​​acquaintance​​with​​the​​accused​​and​​saw​​them​​for​

​the first time in the dock.​

​34.​ ​PW17​​(Madhukuttan)​​and​​PW21​​(Harikuttan)​​are​​attestors​​to​​Ext.​​P3​

​Seizure​ ​mahazar​ ​for​ ​the​ ​recovery​ ​of​ ​MO1​ ​and​ ​MO2,​ ​the​ ​dresses​ ​worn​ ​by​ ​the​

​deceased​​Shajimon.​​They​​stated​​that​​the​​deceased​​Shajimon,​​was​​known​​to​​them.​

​They​​admitted​​their​​signatures​​in​​Ext.P3,​​the​​mahazar​​prepared​​for​​the​​seizure​​of​

​the dresses of the deceased, and identified MO1 (Dothi) and MO2 (Shirt).​

​35.​ ​PW18​ ​(Ratheesh)​ ​is​ ​a​ ​relative​ ​of​​the​​deceased.​​He​​deposed​​that​​he​

​handed​​over​​to​​the​​police​​the​​dresses​​(MO1​​and​​MO2)​​that​​the​​deceased​​wore​​at​

​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​the​ ​occurrence.​ ​He​ ​further​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​dresses​ ​were​ ​obtained​

​from​ ​the​ ​hospital.​ ​He​ ​identified​ ​MO1​ ​and​ ​MO2​ ​but​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​he​ ​does​ ​not​

​remember​ ​accurately​ ​whether​ ​the​​dress​​shown​​to​​him​​was​​the​​same​​dress​​which​

​was​ ​handed​ ​over​ ​by​ ​him.​ ​He​ ​further​ ​stated​ ​he​ ​did​ ​not​ ​know​ ​who​ ​stabbed​ ​the​

​deceased Shajimon.​

​36.​ ​PW19​​(Bijumon)​​was​​the​​attester​​to​​Ext.​​P4​​seizure​​mahazar​​through​

​which​​the​​police​​seized​​MO3​​knife​​at​​the​​instance​​of​​the​​1st​​accused.​ ​He​​deposed​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​16​

​that​ ​he​ ​knew​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​Shajimon,​ ​who​ ​died​ ​in​ ​a​ ​brawl​ ​during​ ​the​ ​Arattu​

​festival​​of​​Ambalapuzha​​Sree​​Krishna​​Swamy​​Temple.​​He​​admitted​​his​​signature​​in​

​Ext.​ ​P4​ ​recovery​ ​mahazar​ ​for​ ​MO3​ ​(knife).​ ​He​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​signed​ ​the​

​document​​at​​the​​Ambalapuzha​​Police​​Station.​​He​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​not​​witnessed​

​the​​recovery​​of​​the​​weapon​​at​​the​​instance​​of​​the​​accused​​in​​the​​presence​​of​​the​

​police.​

​37.​ ​PW22​ ​(Jayaraj)​ ​and​ ​PW23​ ​(Praveen)​ ​are​ ​the​ ​witnesses​ ​to​ ​Ext.​ ​P6​

​recovery​​mahazar​​through​​which​​the​​Investigating​​Officer​​seized​​the​​MO4​​knife​​at​

​the instance of accused No.2. They did not support the prosecution.​

​38.​ ​PW20​ ​(Dr.​ ​Kailasnath)​ ​was​ ​the​ ​doctor​ ​who​ ​examined​ ​the​ ​deceased​

​Shajimon​ ​at​ ​the​ ​Medical​ ​College​ ​Hospital,​ ​Alappuzha,​ ​and​ ​issued​ ​Ext.​ ​P5​ ​wound​

​certificate.​

​39.​ ​PW27​ ​(Dr.​ ​Abraham​ ​Daniel)​ ​was​ ​the​ ​Asst.​ ​Professor​ ​of​ ​Forensic​

​Medicine​ ​at​ ​Medical​ ​College​ ​Hospital,​ ​Alappuzha,​​who​​conducted​​the​​postmortem​

​examination​​of​​the​​deceased​​Shajimon​​and​​issued​​Ext.​​P13​​postmortem​​certificate.​

​He​​noted​​as​​many​​as​​9​​ante​​mortem​​injuries​​on​​the​​body​​of​​the​​deceased.​ ​He​​has​

​noted the following ante mortem injuries:​

​1.​ ​”Sutured​​incised​​wound​​21cm​​perpendicularly​​placed​​on​​the​​left​​side​
​of​​front​​of​​abdomen​​1​​cm​​outer​​to​​midline.​​Its​​upper​​end​​was​​1cm​
​below​​lower​​end​​of​​sternum​​and​​lower​​end​​at​​the​​level​​of​​umbilicus.​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​17​

​The wound enterd the abdominal cavity. (Surgical)​

​2.​ ​Sutured​ ​incised​ ​wound​ ​11cm​​horizontally​​placed​​on​​the​​left​​side​​of​
​front​ ​of​ ​abdomen.​ ​Its​ ​outer​ ​end​ ​was​​8cm​​away​​from​​left​​nipple​​at​
​the​​4’o​​clock​​position.​​The​​inner​​end​​merged​​with​​the​​upper​​end​​of​
​injury No.1 (Surgically modified original injury)​

​3.​ ​Incised​ ​wound​ ​1.5cm​ ​oblique​ ​on​ ​the​ ​left​ ​side​​of​​front​​of​​abdomen​
​11cm​ ​away​ ​from​ ​umblicus​ ​in​ ​the​ ​2’o​ ​clock​ ​position.​ ​The​ ​wound​
​entered​​the​​abdominal​​cavity.​​(Surgical​​drainage​​wound)​​In​​side​​the​
​abdominal​​cavity​​small​​intestine​​showed​​a​​sutured​​wound​​4cm​​long​
​270cm. away from its origin.​

​4.​ ​Four​​small​​sutured​​wounds​​skin​​deep​​(size​​vary​​from​​1.5cm​​to​​3cm)​
​over​ ​an​ ​area​ ​7x6cm​​on​​the​​front​​of​​left​​forearm​​9cm​​below​​elbow.​
​The margins of the wound appeared clean cut.​

​5.​ ​Two​​small​​sutured​​wounds​​skin​​deep​​(size​​vary​​from​​0.5cm​​to​​2cm)​
​over​ ​an​ ​area​ ​2x2cm​ ​on​​the​​back​​of​​left​​forearm​​4cm​​below​​elbow.​
​Margins of wound appeared cleancut.​

​6.​ ​Linear​​abrasion​​5cm​​oblique​​on​​the​​back​​of​​left​​forearm​​14cm​​below​
​elbow.​

​7.​ ​Abrasion 1.5x1cm on the front of left elbow​

​8.​ ​Sutured​ ​wound​ ​2.5cm​ ​long​ ​skin​ ​deep​ ​on​ ​the​ ​left​ ​side​ ​of​ ​back​ ​of​
​trunk​ ​7cm​ ​below​ ​lower​ ​end​​of​​scapula.​​Margin​​of​​wound​​appeared​
​clean cut​

​9.​ ​Abrasion​ ​2×0.8cm​ ​on​ ​the​ ​left​ ​side​ ​of​ ​back​ ​of​ ​trunk​ ​at​ ​the​ ​level​ ​of​
​lower end of scapula”​

​40.​ ​PW27​ ​opined​ ​that​ ​the​ ​cause​ ​of​ ​death​​was​​the​​stab​​injury​​sustained​

​to​​the​​abdomen.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​​injury​​No.2​​was​​a​​fatal​​one.​​The​​injury​​can​

​be​ ​caused​ ​by​ ​a​ ​knife​ ​and​ ​also​ ​by​ ​a​ ​sharp-edged​ ​weapon.​ ​He​​further​​stated​​that​

​injury​ ​No.​ ​2​ ​can​ ​be​ ​caused​ ​by​ ​stabbing​ ​with​ ​the​ ​knife​ ​produced​​in​​this​​case.​​He​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​18​

​further​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​injury​ ​No.​ ​2​ ​was​ ​sufficient​ ​in​ ​the​ ​ordinary​ ​course​ ​to​ ​cause​

​death.​

​41.​ ​PW29​ ​(Vidhyadhara​ ​Kumar)​ ​was​ ​the​ ​constable,​ ​Ambalapuzha​ ​Police​

​Station,​​who​​accompanied​​CW37​​in​​the​​investigation​​and​​was​​acquainted​​with​​the​

​handwriting​ ​of​ ​CW37.​ ​PW29​​deposed​​that​​he​​is​​acquainted​​with​​the​​signature​​of​

​CW37.​​He​​recorded​​Ext.P1​​FIS​​of​​PW1.​​He​​recorded​​the​​body​​note​​of​​the​​deceased​

​Shajimon.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​him,​ ​he​ ​was​ ​present​ ​when​ ​CW37​ ​examined​ ​the​ ​material​

​witnesses.​ ​Ext.​ ​P9​ ​and​ ​Ext.P10​ ​search​ ​memos​ ​were​ ​prepared​ ​by​ ​him,​ ​and​ ​he​

​accompanied​ ​PW25​ ​in​ ​the​ ​search.​ ​Thereafter,​​Exts.P11​​and​​P12​​search​​lists​​were​

​prepared​​in​​his​​handwriting.​​On​​11.04.1999,​​when​​PW18​​handed​​over​​the​​dresses​

​of​ ​the​ ​deceased,​ ​he​ ​was​ ​present​ ​and​ ​he​ ​prepared​ ​Ext.​​P3​​mahazar​​and​​he​​is​​an​

​attestor​ ​to​ ​the​ ​same.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​identified​ ​MOs.​ ​1​ ​and​ ​2.​ ​Ext.​ ​P8​ ​section​ ​adding​

​report​ ​was​ ​also​ ​recorded​ ​in​ ​his​​handwriting.​​He​​accompanied​​CW37​​to​​the​​scene​

​of​​the​​occurrence.​​PW29​​further​​deposed​​that​​Ext.P15​​inquest​​report​​was​​prepared​

​in​ ​his​ ​handwriting​ ​and​ ​he​ ​accompanied​ ​CW37​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​the​ ​inquest.​ ​He​

​stated​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​also​ ​present​​at​​the​​time​​of​​the​​arrest​​of​​Accused​​Nos.​​1​​to​​3.​

​He identified the accused in the dock.​

​Judicial Evaluation​

​42.​ ​The​​first​​question​​to​​be​​decided​​is​​whether​​the​​death​​of​​Shajimon​​is​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​19​

​a​​homicide​​or​​not.​ ​PW27,​​Dr.​​Abraham​​Daniel,​​who​​conducted​​the​​autopsy​​of​​the​

​body​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased,​ ​noted​ ​as​​many​​as​ ​9​​ante​​mortem​​injuries​​on​​the​​body​​of​

​the​ ​deceased.​ ​He​ ​opined​ ​that​ ​injury​ ​No.2,​ ​the​ ​stab​ ​on​ ​the​ ​abdomen,​ ​was​ ​the​

​cause​ ​of​ ​death.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​Dr.​ ​Abraham​ ​Daniel,​ ​the​ ​injuries​ ​noted​ ​in​ ​the​

​postmortem​​certificate​​are​​sufficient​​in​​the​​ordinary​​course​​to​​cause​​the​​death​​of​​a​

​person.​ ​In​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​categorical​ ​and​ ​unequivocal​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​Dr.​ ​Abraham​

​Daniel, we are of the view that the death of Shajimon is a homicide.​

​43.​ ​Now,​​the​​crucial​​questions​​that​​arose​​before​​us​​are​​who​​inflicted​​the​

​stab​ ​injuries​ ​on​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​and​ ​whether​ ​there​ ​is​ ​any​ ​evidence​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​the​

​involvement of the appellants in the alleged crime.​

​44.​ ​Now​ ​we​​shall​​proceed​​to​​evaluate​​the​​evidence​​adduced​​in​​the​​case​

​in​ ​the​ ​light​ ​of​ ​the​​submissions​​advanced​​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​​for​​the​​appellant​

​and​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Public​ ​Prosecutor​ ​to​ ​ascertain​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​has​

​succeeded in proving the charge against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.​

​45.​ ​The​​learned​​counsel​​has​​pointed​​out​​that​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​

​has​ ​convicted​ ​and​​sentenced​​the​​accused​​on​​the​​basis​​of​​the​​statement​​recorded​

​under​ ​Section​ ​161​ ​of​ ​the​​Code​​of​​Criminal​​Procedure​​and​​not​​on​​the​​basis​​of​​the​

​substantive​ ​evidence​ ​adduced​ ​before​ ​the​ ​court.​ ​The​ ​procedure​ ​adopted​ ​by​ ​the​

​learned Sessions Judge is illegal and impermissible.​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​20​

​46.​ ​In​ ​Tahsildar​ ​Singh​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​U.P​​1​,​ ​ ​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​held​​that,​​.​​a​

​statement​ ​recorded​ ​by​ ​the​ ​police​ ​during​ ​an​ ​investigation​ ​is​ ​not​ ​substantive​

​evidence​ ​and​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​used​ ​for​ ​any​ ​purpose​ ​except​ ​to​ ​contradict​ ​the​ ​witness.​

​The relevant Paragraphs of​​Tahsildar Singh​​(Supra)​​are extracted hereunder:​

​”15.​ ​As​ ​the​ ​words​ ​in​ ​the​ ​section​ ​declare​ ​the​ ​intention​ ​of​ ​the​
l​egislature,​ ​we​ ​shall​ ​now​ ​proceed​ ​to​ ​construe​ ​the​ ​section​ ​giving​ ​the​
​words used therein their natural and ordinary sense.​

​ 6.​ ​The​ ​object​ ​of​ ​the​ ​main​ ​section​ ​as​ ​the​ ​history​ ​of​ ​its​​legislation​

​shows​ ​and​ ​the​ ​decided​ ​cases​ ​indicate​ ​is​ ​to​ ​impose​ ​a​ ​general​ ​bar​
​against​​the​​use​​of​​statement​​made​​before​​the​​police​​and​​the​​enacting​
​clause​​in​​clear​​terms​​says​​that​​no​​statement​​made​​by​​any​​person​​to​​a​
​police​ ​officer​ ​or​ ​any​ ​record​ ​thereof,​ ​or​ ​any​​part​​of​​such​​statement​​or​
​record,​ ​be​ ​used​ ​for​ ​any​ ​purpose.​ ​The​ ​words​ ​are​ ​clear​ ​and​
​unambiguous.​ ​The​ ​proviso​ ​engrafts​ ​an​ ​exception​ ​on​ ​the​ ​general​
​prohibition​ ​and​ ​that​ ​is,​ ​the​ ​said​ ​statement​ ​in​ ​writing​​may​​be​​used​​to​
​contradict​​a​​witness​​in​​the​​manner​​provided​​by​​S.145​​of​​the​​Evidence​
​Act.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​already​ ​noticed​​from​​the​​history​​of​​the​​section​​that​​the​
​enacting​ ​clause​ ​was​ ​mainly​ ​intended​ ​to​ ​protect​ ​the​ ​interests​ ​of​
​accused.​ ​At​ ​the​ ​state​ ​of​ ​investigation,​ ​statements​ ​of​ ​witnesses​ ​are​
​taken​ ​in​ ​a​ ​haphazard​ ​manner.​ ​The​ ​police​ ​officer​ ​in​ ​the​ ​course​ ​of​ ​his​
​investigation​​finds​​himself​​more​​often​​in​​the​​midst​​of​​an​​excited​​crowd​
​and​ ​babel​ ​of​ ​voices​ ​raised​ ​all​ ​round.​ ​In​ ​such​ ​an​ ​atmosphere,​ ​unlike​
​that​ ​in​ ​a​ ​Court​ ​of​ ​Law,​ ​he​ ​is​ ​expected​ ​to​ ​hear​ ​the​ ​statements​ ​of​
​witnesses​ ​and​ ​record​ ​separately​ ​the​ ​statement​ ​of​ ​each​ ​one​ ​of​​them.​
​Generally​ ​he​​records​​only​​a​​summary​​of​​the​​statements​​which​​appear​
​to​ ​him​ ​to​ ​be​ ​relevant.​ ​These​ ​statements​ ​are,​ ​therefore,​ ​only​ ​a​
​summary​​of​​what​​a​​witness​​says​​and​​very​​often​​perfunctory.​​Indeed,​​in​
​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​aforesaid​ ​facts,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​statutory​ ​prohibition​ ​against​
​police​ ​officers​ ​taking​ ​the​ ​signature​ ​of​ ​the​ ​person​ ​making​ ​the​
​statement,​​indicating​​thereby​​that​​the​​statement​​is​​not​​intended​​to​​be​
​binding​ ​on​ ​the​ ​witness​ ​or​ ​an​ ​assurance​ ​by​ ​him​ ​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​a​ ​correct​
​statement.​

​ 7.​​At​​the​​same​​time,​​it​​being​​the​​earliest​​record​​of​​the​​statement​​of​

​a​ ​witness​ ​soon​ ​after​ ​the​ ​incident,​ ​any​ ​contradiction​ ​found​ ​therein​
​1​
​1959 SCC OnLine SC 17​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​21​

​ ould​​be​​of​​immense​​help​​to​​an​​accused​​to​​discredit​​the​​testimony​​of​
w
​a​ ​witness​ ​making​ ​the​ ​statement.​ ​The​ ​Section​ ​was,​ ​therefore,​
​conceived​ ​in​ ​an​ ​attempt​ ​to​ ​find​ ​a​ ​happy​ ​’via​ ​media’,​​namely,​​while​​it​
​enacts​ ​an​ ​absolute​ ​bar​ ​against​ ​the​ ​statement​ ​made​ ​before​ ​a​ ​police​
​officer​​being​​used​​for​​any​​purpose​​whatsoever,​​it​​enables​​the​​accused​
​to​ ​rely​ ​upon​ ​it​ ​for​ ​a​ ​limited​ ​purpose​​of​​contradicting​​a​​witness​​in​​the​
​manner​​provided​​by​​S.145​​of​​the​​Evidence​​Act​​by​​drawing​​his​​attention​
​to​​parts​​of​​the​​statement​​intended​​for​​contradiction.​​It​​cannot​​be​​used​
​for​​corroboration​​of​​a​​prosecution​​or​​a​​defence​​witness​​or​​even​​a​​Court​
​witness.​ ​Nor​ ​can​ ​it​ ​be​ ​used​ ​for​ ​contradicting​ ​a​ ​defence​ ​or​ ​a​ ​Court​
​witness.​​Shortly​​stated,​​there​​is​​a​​general​​bar​​against​​its​​use​​subject​​to​
​a​ ​limited​ ​exception​ ​in​ ​the​ ​interest​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused,​ ​and​ ​the​​exception​
​cannot obviously be used to cross the bar”.​

​47.​ ​In​​R.​​Shaji​​v.​​State​​of​​Kerala​​2​​,​​the​​Apex​​Court​​held​​that​​evidence​

​given​ ​in​ ​a​ ​court​ ​under​ ​oath​ ​has​ ​great​ ​sanctity,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​why​ ​the​ ​same​ ​is​ ​called​

​substantive​ ​evidence.​ ​Statements​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​161​ ​Cr.P.C.​ ​can​ ​be​​used​​only​​for​

​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​contradiction,​ ​and​ ​statements​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​164​ ​Cr.P.C.​ ​can​ ​be​

​used for both corroboration and contradiction.​

​48.​ ​In​​Parvat​​Singh​​v.​​State​​of​​M.P.​​3​​,​​the​​Apex​​Court​​reiterated​​that,​

​as​ ​per​ ​the​ ​settled​ ​proposition​ ​of​ ​law,​ ​a​ ​statement​ ​recorded​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​161​

​Cr.P.C.​​is​​inadmissible​​in​​evidence​​and​​cannot​​be​​relied​​upon​​or​​used​​to​​convict​​the​

​accused.​ ​As​ ​per​ ​the​ ​settled​ ​proposition​ ​of​ ​law,​ ​the​ ​statement​ ​recorded​ ​under​

​Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only to prove the contradictions and/or omissions.​

​49.​ ​In​ ​Renuka​ ​Prasad​ ​v.​ ​State​​4​​,​ ​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​held​ ​that​ ​the​

​2​
(​ ​2013) 14 SCC 266​
​3​
​(2020) 4 SCC 33​
​4​
​2025 SCC OnLine SC 1074​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​22​

​statements​ ​made​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officers​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​motive,​ ​conspiracy​

​and​​preparation​​comes​​out​​as​​the​​prosecution​​story,​​as​​discernible​​from​​the​​S.161​

​statements​ ​of​ ​various​ ​witnesses​ ​who​ ​were​ ​questioned​ ​by​ ​the​ ​police​ ​during​

​investigation;​ ​which​ ​statements​ ​are​ ​wholly​ ​inadmissible​​under​​S.162​​of​​the​​CrPC.​

​Merely​ ​because​ ​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officers​ ​spoke​ ​of​ ​such​ ​statements​ ​having​​been​

​made​ ​by​ ​the​ ​witnesses​ ​during​ ​investigation,​ ​does​ ​not​ ​give​ ​them​ ​any​ ​credibility,​

​enabling​ ​acceptance,​ ​unless​ ​the​ ​witnesses​ ​themselves​ ​spoke​ ​of​ ​such​ ​motive​ ​or​

​acts​ ​of​ ​commission​ ​or​ ​omission​ ​or​ ​instances​ ​from​ ​which​ ​conspiracy​ ​could​ ​be​

​inferred​ ​as​ ​also​ ​the​ ​preparation,​ ​established​ ​beyond​ ​reasonable​ ​doubt.​ ​We​ ​are​

​unable​ ​to​ ​find​ ​either​ ​the​ ​motive,​ ​the​ ​conspiracy​ ​or​ ​the​ ​preparation​ ​or​ ​even​ ​the​

​crime​ ​itself​ ​to​ ​have​ ​been​ ​established​ ​in​ ​Court,​ ​at​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​through​​the​​witnesses​

​examined​ ​before​ ​Court.​ ​The​ ​relevant​ ​paragraphs​ ​of​ ​Renuka​ ​Prasad​ ​(Supra),​

​read as follows:​

​”17.​ ​The​ ​High​ ​Court​ ​has​ ​placed​ ​heavy​ ​reliance​ ​on​ ​the​
t​estimonies​​of​​PW’s​​83,​​84​​and​​87,​​the​​IOs,​​with​​the​​assertion​​that​​they​
​were​ ​unshaken​ ​in​ ​cross-examination​ ​and​ ​reliance​ ​was​ ​placed​ ​on​ ​the​
​affirmation​​of​​the​​statements​​made​​by​​the​​witnesses​​under​​Section​​161,​
​which​​the​​witnesses​​did​​not​​speak​​themselves​​in​​the​​box,​​at​​the​​trial.​​We​
​cannot​ ​but​ ​observe​ ​that,​ ​though​ ​reliance​ ​is​ ​said​ ​to​ ​be​ ​placed​ ​on​ ​the​
​testimony​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IOs’​​this​​would​​in​​fact​​be​​a​​reliance​​placed​​on​​Section​
​161​​statements​​as​​spoken​​of​​by​​the​​IOs​​which​​is​​egregiously​​wrong.​​The​
​High​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​paragraph​ ​85​ ​speaks​ ​of​ ​the​ ​affirmation​ ​of​ ​statements​
​given​ ​by​ ​witnesses​ ​examined​ ​by​ ​PW87​ ​and​ ​records​ ​that​ ​though​ ​these​
​were​ ​denied​ ​by​ ​the​ ​witnesses,​ ​a​ ​reading​ ​of​ ​the​ ​cross-examination​ ​of​
​PW87​ ​indicates​ ​that​ ​she​ ​had​ ​not​ ​been​ ​discredited​ ​and​​the​​suggestions​
​made​ ​to​ ​her​​in​​cross​​were​​denied.​​The​​reliance​​placed​​on​​the​​so​​called​
​voluntary​ ​statements​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​and​ ​the​ ​statements​ ​made​ ​under​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​23​

​ ection​ ​161​ ​as​ ​recorded​ ​by​ ​PW87,​ ​based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​decisions​ ​afore-cited​
S
​cannot be countenanced.​

​***********************​

​26.​ ​The​ ​statements​ ​made​ ​by​ ​the​ ​IOs​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​motive,​
c​ onspiracy​ ​and​ ​preparation​ ​comes​ ​out​ ​as​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​story,​ ​as​
​discernible​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Section​ ​161​ ​statements​ ​of​ ​various​ ​witnesses​ ​who​
​were​ ​questioned​ ​by​ ​the​ ​police​ ​during​ ​investigation;​ ​which​ ​statements​
​are​​wholly​​inadmissible​​under​​Section​​162​​of​​the​​Cr.​​P.C.​​Merely​​because​
​the​ ​IOs​ ​spoke​ ​of​ ​such​ ​statements​ ​having​ ​been​ ​made​ ​by​​the​​witnesses​
​during​ ​investigation,​ ​does​ ​not​ ​give​ ​them​ ​any​ ​credibility,​ ​enabling​
​acceptance,​ ​unless​ ​the​ ​witnesses​ ​themselves​ ​spoke​ ​of​ ​such​ ​motive​ ​or​
​acts​​of​​commission​​or​​omission​​or​​instances​​from​​which​​conspiracy​​could​
​be​ ​inferred​ ​as​ ​also​ ​the​ ​preparation,​ ​established​ ​beyond​ ​reasonable​
​doubt.​ ​We​ ​are​ ​unable​ ​to​ ​find​ ​either​ ​the​ ​motive,​ ​the​ ​conspiracy​ ​or​ ​the​
​preparation​​or​​even​​the​​crime​​itself​​to​​have​​been​​established​​in​​Court,​​at​
​the​ ​trial​ ​through​ ​the​ ​witnesses​ ​examined​ ​before​ ​Court.​ ​The​ ​witnesses​
​had​ ​turned​ ​hostile,​ ​for​ ​reasons​ ​best​ ​known​ ​to​ ​themselves.​ ​The​ ​only​
​inference​ ​possible,​ ​on​ ​the​ ​witnesses​ ​turning​ ​hostile​ ​is​ ​that​ ​either​ ​they​
​have​​been​​persuaded​​for​​reasons​​unknown​​or​​coerced​​into​​resiling​​from​
​the​​statements​​made​​under​​Section​​161​​or​​that​​they​​had​​not​​made​​such​
​statements​​before​​police​​officers.​​Merely​​because​​the​​story​​came​​out​​of​
​the​​mouth​​of​​the​​IO,​​it​​cannot​​be​​believed​​and​​a​​legal​​sanctity​​given​​to​
​it,​ ​higher​ ​than​ ​that​ ​provided​ ​to​ ​Section​ ​161​ ​statements​ ​under​ ​Section​
​162 of the Cr. P.C. “​

​50.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​instant​ ​case,​ ​all​ ​the​ ​material​ ​witnesses​ ​turned​ ​hostile​ ​to​ ​the​

​prosecution.​ ​However,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​had​ ​relied​ ​on​ ​the​ ​161​

​statements​​of​​the​​witnesses​​to​​form​​the​​basis​​for​​conviction.​ ​The​​learned​​Sessions​

​Judge​​has​​flouted​​the​​elementary​​and​​fundamental​​principles​​of​​law​​while​​arriving​

​at the conclusion as to the guilt of the accused.​

​51.​ ​The​ ​second​ ​contention​ ​of​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​appellants​ ​is​

​that​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​used​​the​​contents​​of​​Ext.P1​​F.I.​​Statement​​as​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​24​

​evidence.​ ​PW1,​ ​the​ ​maker​ ​of​ ​the​ ​F.I.​ ​Statement,​ ​while​ ​on​ ​box,​ ​denied​ ​that​ ​he​

​gave​ ​a​ ​statement​ ​to​ ​police​ ​narrating​ ​the​ ​facts​ ​leading​ ​to​ ​the​ ​death​ ​of​ ​his​ ​son.​

​According​ ​to​ ​PW1,​ ​the​ ​father​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased,​ ​he​ ​simply​ ​put​ ​his​ ​signature​ ​on​ ​a​

​white​​paper​​as​​instructed​​by​​the​​police.​ ​He​​further​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​not​​seen​​his​

​son​ ​at​​the​​place​​of​​occurrence,​​immediately​​after​​the​​incident.​ ​According​​to​​him,​

​he​ ​directly​ ​went​ ​to​ ​Medical​ ​College​ ​Hospital,​ ​Alappuzha,​ ​where​ ​his​ ​son​ ​was​

​admitted​​and​​treated.​ ​The​​deceased​​Shajimon​​never​​spoke​​to​​him​​about​​how​​the​

​incident occurred or the names of the persons who inflicted injuries on him.​

​52.​ ​But​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​considered​​the​​F.I.​​Statement​​of​

​PW1​ ​as​ ​substantive​ ​evidence​ ​and​​it​​was​​treated​​as​​a​​dying​​declaration​​to​​convict​

​the accused.​

​53.​ ​Yet​ ​another​ ​argument​ ​advanced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​

​appellants​ ​is​ ​that​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​court​ ​ought​ ​not​ ​have​ ​accepted​ ​the​ ​testimonies​ ​of​ ​the​

​hostile​ ​witnesses​ ​to​ ​form​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​for​ ​conviction.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​has​

​pointed​ ​out​ ​that​ ​all​ ​the​ ​witnesses​ ​have​ ​completely​ ​resiled​ ​from​ ​their​ ​previous​

​statements,​​and​​there​​is​​nothing​​on​​record​​to​​arrive​​at​​a​​finding​​as​​to​​the​​guilt​​of​

​the​​accused.​ ​However,​​the​​trial​​court​​has​​put​​some​​questions​​to​​the​​witnesses​​and​

​concluded​ ​that​ ​the​ ​witnesses​ ​are​ ​lying.​ ​The​ ​trial​ ​court​ ​took​ ​the​​view​​that​​those​

​parts​ ​of​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​the​ ​hostile​ ​witnesses​ ​that​ ​support​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​case​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​25​

​can be relied on to sustain the conviction.​

​54.​ ​Before​​proceeding​​further,​​it​​would​​be​​apposite​​to​​refer​​to​​the​​settled​

​legal position regarding the evidentiary value of the testimony of a hostile witness.​

​55.​ ​In​ ​Bhagwan​ ​Singh​​v.​​State​​of​​Haryana​​5​,​ ​​the​​Apex​​held​​that​​the​

​court​ ​gave​ ​permission​ ​to​ ​the​ ​prosecutor​ ​to​ ​cross-examine​ ​his​ ​own​ ​witness,​ ​thus​

​characterising​​him​​as,​​what​​is​​described​​as​​a​​hostile​​witness,​​does​​not​​completely​

​efface​ ​his​ ​evidence.​ ​The​ ​evidence​ ​remains​ ​admissible​ ​in​ ​the​ ​trial​​and​​there​​is​​no​

​legal​​bar​​to​​base​​a​​conviction​​upon​​his​​testimony​​if​​corroborated​​by​​other​​reliable​

​evidence.​

​56.​ ​In​​Khujji​​v.​​State​​of​​M.P.​​6​​,​​a​​three-judge​​bench​​of​​the​​Apex​​Court,​

​placing​​reliance​​on​​Bhagwan​​Singh​​(Supra),​​Rabindra​​Kumar​​Dey​​v.​​State​​of​

​Orissa​​7​ ​and​​Syad​​Akbar​​v.​​State​​of​​Karnataka​​8​ ​reiterated​​that​​the​​evidence​​of​

​a​ ​prosecution​ ​witness​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​rejected​ ​in​​toto​​merely​​because​​the​​prosecution​

​chose​ ​to​ ​treat​ ​him​ ​as​ ​hostile​ ​and​ ​cross-examined​ ​him.​ ​The​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​such​

​witnesses​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​treated​ ​as​ ​effaced​ ​or​ ​washed​ ​off​ ​the​ ​record​ ​altogether,​ ​but​

​the​​same​​can​​be​​accepted​​to​​the​​extent​​their​​version​​is​​found​​to​​be​​dependable​​on​

​a careful scrutiny thereof.​

​5​
(​ 1976) 1 SCC 389​
​6​
​(1991) 3 SCC 627​
​7​
​(1976) 4 SCC 233​
​8​
​(1980) 1 SCC 30​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​26​

​57.​ ​The​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Koli​ ​Lakhmanbhai​ ​Chanabhai​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​

​Gujarat​​9​,​ ​ ​also​ ​reiterated​ ​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​settled​ ​law​ ​that​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​a​ ​hostile​​witness​

​can​​also​​be​​relied​​upon​​to​​the​​extent​​to​​which​​it​​supports​​the​​prosecution​​version.​

​Evidence​ ​of​ ​such​ ​witness​ ​cannot​ ​be​​treated​​as​​washed​​off​​the​​record.​​It​​remains​

​admissible​ ​in​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​and​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​legal​ ​bar​ ​to​ ​base​ ​his​ ​conviction​ ​upon​ ​his​

​testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.​

​58.​ ​The​ ​law​ ​is​ ​well​​settled​​that​​the​​testimony​​of​​a​​hostile​​witness​​is​​not​

​to​ ​be​ ​discarded​ ​in​ ​toto​ ​merely​ ​because​ ​the​ ​witness​ ​has​ ​been​ ​declared​ ​hostile.​

​Such​​evidence​​remains​​admissible​​and​​may​​be​​accepted​​to​​the​​extent​​it​​is​​found​​to​

​be​ ​trustworthy​ ​and​ ​corroborated​ ​by​​other​​reliable​​evidence,​​either​​to​​support​​the​

​prosecution or to benefit the accused.​

​59.​ ​Bearing​​in​​mind​​the​​law​​regarding​​the​​evidentiary​​value​​of​​the​​hostile​

​witness,​ ​we​​have​​carefully​​examined​​the​​evidence​​on​​record.​ ​However,​​we​​are​​of​

​the​​considered​​opinion​​that​​all​​the​​material​​witnesses,​​PWs.​​1​​to​​14,​​gave​​evidence​

​negating​​the​​involvement​​and​​the​​role​​of​​the​​accused​​in​​the​​crime.​ ​Their​​evidence​

​was​ ​in​ ​total​ ​variance​ ​with​ ​their​ ​previous​ ​statement.​ ​The​ ​dicta​ ​laid​ ​down​ ​in​ ​the​

​above-referred​ ​cases​ ​are​ ​applicable​ ​only​ ​in​ ​cases​ ​wherein​ ​the​ ​witnesses​ ​partly​

​supported​​the​​prosecution​​and​​partly​​supported​​the​​accused.​ ​In​​the​​instant​​case,​

​their​​evidence​​was​​totally​​against​​the​​prosecution.​ ​In​​such​​circumstances,​​there​​is​

​9​
​(1999) 8 SCC 624​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​27​

​no question of placing reliance on their evidence to form the basis for conviction.​

​60.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​urged​​that​​the​​trial​​court​​had​

​failed​ ​to​ ​note​ ​that​ ​the​ ​burden​ ​is​ ​on​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​the​ ​case​ ​beyond​

​reasonable​ ​doubt.​ ​In​ ​Kali​ ​Ram​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​H.P​​.​1​0​​,​ ​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​placing​

​reliance​ ​on​ ​Shivaji​ ​Sahabrao​ ​Bobade​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Maharashtra​​11​ ​observed​

​that​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​cardinal​ ​principles​ ​which​ ​has​ ​always​ ​to​ ​be​ ​kept​ ​in​ ​view​ ​in​ ​our​

​system​​of​​administration​​of​​justice​​for​​criminal​​cases​​is​​that​​a​​person​​arraigned​​as​

​an​​accused​​is​​presumed​​to​​be​​innocent​​unless​​that​​presumption​​is​​rebutted​​by​​the​

​prosecution​​by​​production​​of​​evidence​​as​​may​​show​​him​​to​​be​​guilty​​of​​the​​offence​

​with​ ​which​ ​he​​is​​charged.​​The​​burden​​of​​proving​​the​​guilt​​of​​the​​accused​​is​​upon​

​the​ ​prosecution​ ​and​ ​unless​ ​it​ ​relieves​ ​itself​ ​of​ ​that​ ​burden,​ ​the​ ​courts​ ​cannot​

​record​ ​a​ ​finding​ ​of​ ​the​ ​guilt​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused.​ ​There​ ​are​ ​certain​ ​cases​ ​in​ ​which​

​statutory​ ​presumptions​ ​arise​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​guilt​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused,​ ​but​ ​the​ ​burden​

​even​​in​​those​​cases​​is​​upon​​the​​prosecution​​to​​prove​​the​​existence​​of​​facts​​which​

​have​ ​to​ ​be​ ​present​ ​before​ ​the​ ​presumption​ ​can​ ​be​ ​drawn.​ ​Once​ ​those​ ​facts​ ​are​

​shown​ ​by​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​to​ ​exist,​​the​​Court​​can​​raise​​the​​statutory​​presumption​

​and​​it​​would,​​in​​such​​an​​event,​​be​​for​​the​​accused​​to​​rebut​​the​​presumption.​​The​

​onus,​ ​even​ ​in​ ​such​ ​cases,​ ​upon​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​is​ ​not​​as​​heavy​​as​​is​​normally​​upon​

​the​ ​prosecution​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​the​ ​guilt​​of​​the​​accused.​​If​​some​​material​​is​​brought​​on​
​10​
​(1973) 2 SCC 808​
​11​
​(1973) 2 SCC 793​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​28​

​the​​record​​consistent​​with​​the​​innocence​​of​​the​​accused,​​which​​may​​reasonably​​be​

​true,​ ​even​ ​though​ ​it​ ​is​ ​not​ ​positively​ ​proved​ ​to​ ​be​ ​true,​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​would​ ​be​

​entitled to acquittal.​

​61.​ ​However,​ ​the​ ​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​ignored​​and​​discarded​​the​

​elementary​​and​​fundamental​​principle​​followed​​in​​this​​country​​that​​the​​prosecution​

​has​​to​​allege​​and​​prove​​the​​charge​​against​​the​​accused​​beyond​​reasonable​​doubt.​

​Instead,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​went​ ​on​ ​to​ ​hold​ ​that​​it​​is​​the​​burden​​of​​the​

​accused​​to​​prove​​how​​their​​name​​appears​​in​​the​​FIS​​and​​FIR.​ ​In​​other​​words,​​the​

​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​has​ ​wrongly​ ​fixed​ ​the​ ​burden​ ​on​ ​the​ ​shoulders​ ​of​ ​the​

​accused, which is illegal and impermissible.​

​62.​ ​Yet​​another​​point​​urged​​by​​the​​counsel​​for​​the​​appellant​​is​​that​​the​

​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​arrived​​at​​the​​conclusion​​of​​guilt​​of​​the​​appellant​​on​

​the​​basis​​of​​surmises,​​conjecture,​​and​​assumptions​​rather​​than​​the​​legal​​evidence​

​adduced by the prosecution.​

​63.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​a​ ​fundamental​ ​principle​ ​of​ ​criminal​ ​law​ ​that​ ​mere​ ​suspicion,​

​irrespective​ ​of​​its​​degree,​​cannot​​constitute​​or​​substitute​​for​​proof.​​This​​doctrine​

​has​ ​been​ ​consistently​ ​reaffirmed​ ​through​ ​a​ ​series​ ​of​ ​judicial​ ​precedents,​

​establishing​ ​that​ ​proof​ ​must​ ​be​ ​grounded​ ​in​ ​admissible​ ​evidence​​demonstrating​

​guilt​ ​beyond​ ​a​ ​reasonable​ ​doubt,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​suspicion​ ​alone​ ​is​ ​insufficient​ ​to​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​29​

​sustain​​a​​conviction.​​[See​​Narasappa​​v.​​State​​of​​Karnataka​​12​​,​ ​Anil​​v.​​State​

​of​ ​Maharashtra​​13​​,​ ​Sangili​ ​@​ ​Sanganathan​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Tamil​ ​Nadu​​14​​,​

​Digamber​ ​Vaishnav​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Chhattisgarh​​15​​,​ ​Raja​ ​Naykar​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​

​Chhattisgarh​​16​​,​​and​ ​Renuka Prasad​​(Supra).]​

​64.​ ​In​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Chhattisgarh​ ​v.​ ​Ashok​ ​Bhoi​​17​​,​ ​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court​

​observed​ ​that​ ​it​​is​​true​​that​​Justice​​cannot​​be​​made​​sterile​​on​​the​​plea​​that​​it​​is​

​better​ ​to​ ​let​ ​hundred​ ​guilty​ ​escape​ ​than​ ​punish​ ​an​ ​innocent.​ ​Letting​ ​the​ ​guilty​

​escape​​on​​fanciful​​doubts​​is​​not​​doing​​justice​​according​​to​​the​​law.​​However,​​it​​is​

​also well settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.​

​65.​ ​After​ ​a​ ​careful​ ​and​ ​meticulous​ ​analysis​ ​of​ ​evidence​ ​on​ ​record,​ ​we​

​are​ ​of​ ​the​ ​considered​ ​opinion​ ​that​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​has​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​the​

​charge​​against​​the​​accused​​beyond​​reasonable​​doubt.​​No​​evidence​​is​​forthcoming​

​to​​prove​​that​​the​​accused​​were​​present​​at​​the​​scene​​of​​the​​occurrence​​and​​they​

​inflicted​​the​​stab​​injuries​​on​​the​​deceased.​ ​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​also​

​initiated​ ​proceedings​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​344​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Code​ ​of​ ​Criminal​ ​Procedure​

​against​ ​PW1,​ ​holding​ ​that​ ​he​ ​knowingly​ ​gave​ ​false​ ​evidence​ ​in​ ​a​ ​court​ ​of​ ​law.​

​Considering​ ​the​ ​facts​ ​and​ ​circumstances​ ​of​ ​this​ ​case,​ ​we​ ​feel​ ​that​ ​the​ ​learned​

​12​
(​ 2007) 10 SCC 770​
​13​
​(2013) 12 SCC 441​
​14​
​2014 (10) SCC 264​
​15​
​(2019) 4 SCC 522​
​16​
​(​2024) 3 SCC 481​
​17​
​2​025 KHC OnLine 6220​
2026:KER:51481​
​

​Crl. A. No. 140 of 2019​
​30​

​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​was​ ​not​ ​justified​ ​in​ ​invoking​ ​its​ ​powers​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​344​ ​of​

​Cr.P.C.​ ​Therefore,​ ​the​​initiation​​of​​proceedings​​by​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​is​

​hereby set aside and quashed.​

​In the result,​

​(i)​ ​Criminal Appeal No.140/2019 is allowed.​

​(ii)​ ​The​ ​impugned​ ​judgment​ ​of​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Additional​ ​Sessions​

​Court-III, Alappuzha, in S.C. No.215 of 2012 is set aside.​

​(iii)​ ​The​ ​appellants/accused​ ​are​ ​acquitted​ ​and​ ​they​ ​are​ ​set​ ​at​ ​liberty​

​forthwith, if their custody is not required for any other case.​

​(iv)​​The bail bond, if any, executed by the accused stand cancelled.​

​(v)​ ​Fine, if any, paid by them shall be refunded.​

​ d/-​​ ​
S
​​ ​RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,​
​ ​JUDGE​
​ ​

​ d/-​
S
​ ​K.V. JAYAKUMAR,​
​ ​JUDGE​

​Jvt/msp​

Source link