Kerala High Court Reverses Acquittal Of Five RSS Workers In JDU Leader's Murder; Hands Down Life Imprisonment

The High Court said that the order of the trial court was vitiated by non-consideration of material facts and consideration of irrelevant facts.

“...the impugned judgment acquitting all the accused of the charges levelled against them, is vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence and consideration of irrelevant facts. In this context, it is necessary to state that acquittal of guilty persons in serious crimes on technical or flimsy grounds would erode the very foundation of the criminal justice delivery system, which strives to balance individual rights with the preservation of social order. Such outcomes not only shake the faith of the public in the courts as guardians of justice but also deprive society of the protection it seeks from the courts. Such acquittal would also send a dangerous misleading message suggesting that those responsible for grave offences can evade justice, thereby encouraging an environment of lawlessness.”

As per prosecution, Deepak was killed on 24^th March 2015 by 4 armed persons near his ration shop at Pazhuvil Centre. The police concluded that it was retaliation to some members of Socialist Janatha Dal attempting to murder one of the accused. The accused believed that Deepak was behind this attempt. The prosecution case was that 10 accused hatched the conspiracy and 5 of them were at the scene to commit the murder. A few persons who tried to intervene also got attacked.

The Sessions Court had held that there were discrepancies in the evidence given by the prosecution, including the treatment-cum-wound certificate. It had further held that the registration of FIR and forwarding it to the Magistrate was delayed deliberately for suppressing the fact that the assailants were wearing masks.

The High Court was of the view that Sessions court should not have relied on the treatment-cum-wound certificate as it was recorded in a very casual manner and its correctness should have been examined in light of surrounding facts, including witness statements.

The High Court further observed that when evidence is given by one of the injured persons itself, his statement should be given due consideration and significant evidence is required to discredit him.

“It was held by the Apex Court in Brahm Swaroop v State of U. P. that where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the occurrence, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. In the light of the said principle, we do not find any reason to reject the evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2.”

Further, the High Court disagreed with the trial court's view that there was delay in registering FIR and forwarding it to the Magistrate. It found said that as per statements on the record, the investigating officer proceeded to the place of occurrence and then to the hospital as soon as he got information about the incident and mere one-hour delay in recording the statement cannot be fatal as the injured had to be stabilized first before his statement could be recorded.

The Court said that the investigating officer was perfectly justified in registering the FIR after taking the statement of the injured witness as it was necessary to protect the interest of the accused and the prosecution.

The FIR was received in the office of the Magistrate the following morning.

The High Court held that here also there was no unjustifiable delay. It  said that merely because the FIR registered at odd hours was not forwarded to the Magistrate then and there, it cannot be held that there was non-compliance of Section 157 of CrPC.

Counsel for the Appellants: Advocates S. U. Nazar (Sr. PP); Advs Nireesh Mathew, Athul Poulose (for victim).

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Rafiq P. M., S. Rajeev, P. S. Sreedharan Pillai, T. K Sandeep, Arjun Sreedhar, Arun Krishna Dhan, Alex Abraham, P. Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.), M. Revikrishnan, Ajeesh K. Sasi, Sruthy N. Bhat, Rahul Sunil, Sruthy K. K., Sohail Ahammed Harris P. P., Nanditha S., Aaron Zacharias Benny, V. Vinay, M. S. Aneer, Sarath K. P., Anilkumar C. R., K. S. Kiran Krishnan

Case No. Crl.A 355 of 2020 & Crl.A 631 of 2017

Case Title: State of Kerala v Rishikesh and Others & Varsha Deepak v Rishikesh and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 233