20 Yrs On, Kerala High Court Acquits All Police Officers Convicted In Udayakumar Custodial Death Case

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar has overturned the convictions and held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused officers were responsible.

Udayakumar, 28, was picked up by Fort Police in Thiruvananthapuram on September 27, 2005. He was later declared dead at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The Post mortem revealed severe crush injuries to both thighs, which were determined to be the cause of death.

The prosecution case is that the death of Udayakumar was the result of custodial violence and torture inflicted under the shield of police uniform and authority, within the confines of a Police Station.

The case also exposes the manner in which senior police officers colluded with their subordinates to suppress the truth and obstruct the course of justice, it was alleged.

Following a prolonged investigation, initially by the CBCID and subsequently by the CBI, the trial was conducted before the Sessions Court. Multiple officers were arraigned on charges of murder, torture, conspiracy, and destruction of evidence.

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found guilty of murder and were sentenced to death by hanging.

The superior officers, arraigned as accused Nos. 4 to 6, were found guilty of conspiracy and of abusing their official position to fabricate records and cause the disappearance of evidence in an attempt to shield the perpetrators. They were accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo lesser terms of imprisonment.

Accused No. 2 passed away in the course of proceedings, and hence the proceedings against him were abated.

The Court pointed out that the procedure adopted by CBI in conducting investigation was in variance to the direction issued by this Court in Prabhavathiamma v State of Kerala [2008 (1) KLJ 9], Central Bureau of Investigation v Jitha Kumar and Others [2012:KER:25748] and Vinay Tyagi [(2013) 5 SCC 762] and in filing final report before a Magistrate having no jurisdiction has resulted in serious failure of justice and has violated the rights of the accused to have a fair trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court further noted that eyewitness to the occurrence, was improperly branded as an accomplice and which was later turned into approver, which is contrary to the tenets of law.

It also noted that despite the specific directions issued by the Court as to the manner in which the trial was to proceed and the evidence to be appreciated, those binding directions were disregarded, and the earlier evidence was not taken into account.

It also concluded that the procedure adopted by CBI in seeking the tender of pardon in a case which had already been committed and trial was pending, by filing an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, is ex facie illegal.

Calling the investigation by CBI tainted, it observed,

“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.”

It further observed that 'instinctive reaction' should not prejudice an accused in a criminal trial involving a serious offence of a brutal nature. “In a case where the offence alleged to have been committed is a serious one, the prosecution must provide greater assurance to the court that its case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt,” it added.

The Court thus, acquitted the accused, calling the investigation 'flawed' and 'tainted' which has led to the failure of the prosecution case.

“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.” it concluded.

Case Title: State of Kerala v Jithakumar K and Anr and Connected matters

Case No: DSR 6/ 2018 and connected matters

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker)530