Kerala High Court Confirms Life Sentence Of Six Assailants In Munambam Abhilash Murder Case

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 18) confirmed the finding of guilt and sentence of life imprisonment granted to the six assailants in the Munambam Abhilash murder case. Abhilash, a CPI(M) activist hailing from Munambam, was murdered on the night of May 19 2005 by the appellants, who were workers of BJP using swords, iron rods, etc.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed that the prosecution succeeded in proving the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It observed:

"We have carefully and meticulously evaluated the evidence on record, both oral and documentary and considered the rival submissions. On such evaluation, reassessment, weighing and testing of the evidence on record, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings of the learned Sessions Judge as to the guilt, and conviction. The prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. We are in agreement with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. The appeals are devoid of any merit and only to be dismissed, in our considered view."

The appellants were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution allegation was that the murder was committed to take vengeance against the deceased for throwing a bomb at the second accused, Krishnakumar @ Munambam Krishnakumar. They chased the motorbike ridden by the deceased and his fiancee (PW2) in a car, intercepted them and attacked the deceased, causing around 29 ante-mortem injuries. As a result, the deceased died of the injuries inflicted on his neck.

Though the defence had highlighted certain contradictions in the versions of the PWs 1 and 2, the Court felt that these were minor and irrelevant for determining the case. It was the opinion that minor omissions and contradictions are bound to occur since the evidence in the case was recorded after a lapse of 13 years since the incident.

It observed:

"PWs. 1 and 2 were subjected to lengthy and thorough cross examination by the defence side. Therefore, the witnesses are liable to get confused regarding the sequence of events. We find that their versions are natural and truthful. The minor contradictions and omissions pointed out by the learned counsels for the appellants never cut the root of the prosecution story."

A contention was raised by the appellants that the wound certificate did not name the assailants, even though they were previously known to PW2. This was claimed to be fatal to the prosecution's case. However, the Court refused to accept the same since PW2 herself was admitted to the hospital that day and discharged only on the next day.

Another contention that the appellants urged was that the car and motorbike involved in the incident were not produced in the court and identified through witnesses. But the Court noted that the investigating officer who had seized these and prepared mahazars had given evidence before the trial court and therefore, mere non-identification of the vehicles in the Court would not, by itself, poke a hole in the prosecution's story.

The other arguments raised by the appellants were also found by the Court to be non-satisfactory to make the prosecution's version doubtful. Thus, it dismissed the appeals and confirmed the sentence granted to the appellants.

Case No: Crl.A No. 1086 of 2019 and connected cases

Case Title: Kumar K.P. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 583

Counsel for the appellants: P.K. Varghese, M.T. Sameer, Dhanesh V. Madhavan, Jerry Mathew, K.R. Arun Krishnan, Namitha K.S., Athul P., Devika K.R., P.S. Sreedharan Pillai, T.K. Sandeep, Arjun Sreedhar, Arun Krishna Dhan, Alex Abraham, P. Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.), Sruthy N. Bhat, M. Sunilkumar, Sujesh Menon V.B., T. Anil Kumar, Thomas Abraham (Nilackappillil), S. Lakshmi Sankar, R. Anil, V.T. Raghunath

Counsel for the respondents: Neema T.V. - Senior Public Prosecutor, Vivek Venugopal - R2

Click to Read/Download Judgment