Kerala High Court Acquits Murder Convict, Underlining Proof Over Suspicion
The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant ruling, acquitting a man convicted of murder and stressing that suspicion, no matter how intense, cannot be equated with proof in criminal law. This decision came during an appeal hearing where the court scrutinized the trial court's handling of evidence.
Court's Critique of Trial Court's Judgment
A division bench comprising Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and K V Jayakumar found that the trial court had convicted the accused, Abhilash, under Sections 302 (murder) and 324 (causing hurt by dangerous weapon) without properly evaluating the evidence on record. The bench explicitly stated, "The prosecution has failed to allege and prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot be considered as a substitute for proof."
The court highlighted that the trial court's verdict was based on surmises and conjectures rather than a thorough assessment of material witnesses. This failure to adhere to fundamental principles of criminal law rendered the conviction legally unsustainable.
Key Findings That Undermined the Prosecution's Case
The High Court identified several critical flaws in the prosecution's narrative:
- Delayed Witness Statements: Statements from material witnesses were recorded several days after the incident, with no plausible explanation provided by the prosecution for this delay.
- Withholding of Evidence: The prosecution failed to examine a crucial witness, casting serious doubts on their story.
- Lack of Physical Evidence: The non-seizure of blood-stained clothes was noted as an important missing link that further weakened the case.
- Inconsistencies in Testimony: The eyewitness testimony did not corroborate with medical evidence, and key witness accounts were deemed unreliable due to serious inconsistencies and contradictions.
These findings punched holes in the prosecution's theory, emphasizing that mere suspicion cannot constitute proof, regardless of its strength.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around a tragic incident that occurred on the night of November 15, 2015, in Thodupuzha. A homeless ragpicker named Xavier was found dead, and a lady was subjected to sexual assault. The order observed that the prosecution had "delineated the story of street dwellers and their vagrancy" and altercations linked to intoxication, occurring under the cover of darkness.
Abhilash was arrested in connection with the crime and tried by a Thodupuzha trial court. After hearing both sides, the trial court framed charges against him, ultimately pronouncing him guilty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs 25,000.
Defense and Prosecution Arguments
The defense argued that the trial court's verdict was flawed, as guilt was decided without proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. They pointed out that the testimony of a key witness was wholly unreliable and riddled with inconsistencies.
In contrast, the prosecution maintained that guilt was arrived at after proper evaluation, weighing, and testing of evidence. They claimed that the version of the solitary eyewitness and the injured was trustworthy and natural, with any discrepancies being immaterial to the facts.
However, the High Court sided with the defense, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of Abhilash.
