Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on January 29, 2025 acquitted a BJP worker, who was alleged to have stabbed to death, a CPI-M supporter an accused in the murder case of his elder brother in Kerala, in view of material omissions of prosecution witness testimonies.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan allowed an appeal filed by Vinobhai and set aside the Kerala High Court's judgment of September 7, 2016 which had confirmed the October 9, 2012 judgment and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda (Trial Court).

The prosecution alleged the appellant on December 31, 2010, at about 11:45 am stabbed Ramakrishnan (deceased) with a knife, resulting into grievous injuries and subsequent to his death.

The appellant's counsel submitted the case was based on testimony of two alleged eyewitnesses namely, Shaju and Suresh but there were material omissions in their version. He also said that another witness, Thressiamma did not support the prosecution.

The state counsel submitted that even assuming that there are few omissions and contradictions in the testimony of two prosecution witnesses, but those are not material. Therefore, the entire story of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved.

He also pointed out that the recovery of the weapon of the offence and bloodstained clothes was made at the instance of the appellant.

Examining the evidence of prosecution witness Shaju, the court noted, he had admitted in cross examination that he along with the deceased were co-accused in the murder case of the appellant’s brother.

The court noted apart from the fact that his statements to the effect that he was standing at a distance of fifteen feet from the scene of occurrence and that two to three stabs were given by the appellant on the back of the deceased are omissions, he did not complain to the Police.

The witness said, he informed one Sumesh over the phone, but the said Sumesh has not been examined as a witness. He knew the deceased. He admitted that the Maryada Bridge, where he dropped the appellant, is one and a half kilometres from the scene of the offence. After dropping the appellant, he went towards his house. The appellant did not immediately come back. He did not make any attempt to take the deceased to the hospital. "This conduct of prosecution witness is very unnatural. Therefore, his version does not inspire confidence," the bench said.

Coming to another eye witness, the court noted he also did not go to the Police. He accepted that he did not inform anybody about the incident as he was afraid. The omissions in his testimony are material and relevant, and which amounted to contradiction in view of the explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The court noted the statement made by both the eyewitnesses that the appellant inflicted two to three stab wounds on the back of the deceased with a knife are omissions; The version of witness that he was standing at a distance of fifteen feet from the scene of occurrence is also an omission.

"Though other persons were present at the time of the incident, the said witnesses have not been examined," the bench said.

In this case, there are material omissions which amount to contradiction, the bench said.

"Coupled with the material omissions, if we consider the conduct of both the witnesses, their version does not inspire confidence. Once evidence of these two witnesses is disbelieved, the only remaining evidence against the appellant is of the recovery of the knife at his instance," the bench said.

Referring to Manoj Kumar Soni Vs State of MP (2023), the court said it was implausible to rely upon such disclosure statement.

"Therefore, in our view, the appellant's guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt," the bench said, acquitting the accused who has undergone incarceration for more than 12 years.

 

Case Title (Download Judgment): Vinobhai Vs State of Kerala