Read Time: 15 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on January 6, 2025, emphasised that the accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by the prosecuting agency as the benefit of defective investigation will not inure to the accused persons on that ground alone.

"It is well within the domain of the courts to consider the rest of the evidence which the prosecution has gathered such as statement of the eyewitnesses, medical report etc," a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale said.

Court dismissed an appeal filed by four CPI(M) members against the Kerala High Court's judgment, upholding their conviction and life term awarded for killing two RSS workers in 2002.

Appellants Edakkandi Dineshan alias P Dineshan and others contended since there were contradictions in the version of the witnesses, the entire story of the prosecution was false.

In this regard, the bench said, "The principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ does not apply to the Indian criminal jurisprudence and only because there are some contradictions which in the opinion of this court are not even that material, the entire story of the prosecution cannot be discarded as false. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. In a given case, it is also open to the Court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted where there are a number of accused persons, like in the present case."

As per the factual matrix of the case, the accused members of CPI(M) attacked the RSS members after they had a call for hartal on March 1, 2002. Armed with weapons like axe, dagger, and chopper, they killed two RSS members Sunil and Sujeesh. A charge sheet was filed against 15 persons and the trial court in 2006 convicted all of them under Section 143, 147, 506 (ii), and 302 r/w. 149 of IPC.

The High Court by its elaborate judgment in 2011 convicted five persons and acquitted others. Five convicted filed appeals before the Supreme Court but one of them died during the proceedings.

The appellants contended there were major interpolations in the FIR, lodged belatedly. They claimed the prosecution had tried to implicate innocent persons, which could be seen from testimonies of eyewitnesses.

They said it was improbable human conduct for the eyewitnesses to keep standing when a bomb was being thrown at them rather than fleeing from the spot and that recovery of bomb was not made in a proper manner.

The state counsel, on the opposite, submitted the High Court had rightly convicted the accused persons.

Making analysis of the case, the bench said, "Crime creates a sense of societal fear and it affects adversely the societal conscience. It is inequitable and unjust if such a situation is allowed to perpetuate and continue in the society. In every civilised society, the purpose of criminal administrative system is to protect individual dignity and to restore societal stability and order and to create faith and cohesion in the society."

The bench said that the courts in the discharge of their duties are tasked with balancing of interests of the accused on one hand and the state/society on the other.

In the case, the court noted that admittedly there was a long-standing political rivalry between RSS and CPI.

As stated by PW1, he and 11 others were earlier a part of CPI and they had defected and joined RSS and hence there were estranged relations between the two groups. Admittedly, a call of Hartal was given by one organisation, which was opposed by another political party, leading to a clash between the followers of these two parties. Ultimately, two persons lost their lives as a result of this incident, the bench noted. 

With regard to contention about material contradiction, the bench said, "Though there is a variance in the statements of the witnesses, it is minor and not of such a nature which would drive their testimony untrustworthy. This court finds the deposition of witnesses PW1, 2 and 4 to be honest, truthful, and trustworthy. Hence, the observations made by the High Court in this regard are well reasoned."

The court stressed that either a partial, untrue version of one of the witnesses or an exaggerated version of a witness may not be a sole reason to discard the entire prosecution case which is otherwise supported by clinching evidence such as truthful version of the witnesses, medical evidence, recovery of the weapons etc.

The bench rejected the contention of the appellants, saying merely because the dead body of Sujeesh was found at a place little away from the place of body of other victim Sunil, it could not be the sole and decisive factor to discard the entire case of prosecution.

"We are unable to accept the submissions of the counsel for the reason that the evidence of eye witnesses clearly reveal that this mob of 11 persons being apprehensive of their life rushed towards the river," the bench said.

The court pointed out that it was disclosed in the version of witnesses that members of one group took shelter near a shed in bushy area.

In this process, it is quite natural that all the members may not find a suitable place for hiding at a particular spot or one spot. This being the situation, it was also natural and possible that Sujeesh might have rushed to another spot to hide and save himself and as such his body was found away from the dead body of another victim Sunil. The violent mob of accused persons led a deadly attack on the members of the mob and was successful in killing two members of the mob, the court noted.

It held that a cumulative reading of the entire evidence on record suggested that the investigation had not taken place in a proper and disciplined manner.

As the version of eyewitnesses in specifically naming the appellants had been consistent throughout the trial, the bench said, "We find that there is enough corroboration to drive home the guilt of the accused persons. When the testimony of PW1 Jitesh, PW 2 and PW4 is seen cumulatively, their versions can be seen to be corroborating each other. All of them being eyewitnesses, what is material to be seen is their stand is consistent when they said that it was A2 who was responsible for inflicting blows on both the deceased."

The court further said that though the unfortunate incident took place at midnight around 1 am, it was a full moon night, and as such, it was not pitch dark. The specific role attributed by the prosecution witnesses cannot be challenged on extraneous grounds, it opined.

"Admittedly, there was an enmity between the witnesses as they were from different political groups. Moreover, it can be seen from the record that the Accused and the witnesses were well acquainted with each other as PW1, PW 2 and PW4 had defected from the CPI and had joined RSS. The witnesses could have tried to implicate anyone had they wished to take advantage of their past acquaintance and recent rivalry," the bench said.

Case Title: Edakkandi Dineshan @ P Dineshan & Ors Vs State of Kerala