Chain of Circumstances Broken, Innocence Presumed: Kerala High Court Frees Two Accused in Palakkad Murder Case

In a significant ruling Kerala High Court acquitted two men convicted for the murder of one Pradeep, highlighting that “the circumstances proved do not form a chain of evidence so complete as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused.” The Division Bench of Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and Jobin Sebastian set aside the life sentences imposed by the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad, stressing the need for “circumstances to be conclusive and not leave any room for doubt.” 

The case originated from the brutal killing of Pradeep on 14th November 2011 at Kulukkapara Puzhamedu. The prosecution alleged that the accused — Sivamani (A1) and Sajith (A2) — harbored enmity against Pradeep due to a previous incident where Pradeep had allegedly attacked Sivamani’s brother. On the fateful day, the accused were said to have intercepted Pradeep and hacked him to death with choppers. The trial court, relying on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies, found them guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 

The primary legal issue was whether the chain of circumstances was so conclusive as to warrant conviction solely based on circumstantial evidence. The appellants argued that all direct eyewitnesses had turned hostile, and crucial prosecution witness (PW3) was unreliable due to inconsistencies and his history of mental illness. 
The Court observed, “It is now trite that the circumstances to be proved to establish the guilt of the accused in a given case, shall be of a conclusive nature and tendency and the same shall be fully established... leaving no reasonable doubt.” 
Further, the Court highlighted that, “PW3 had not stated to the Investigating Officer that he saw the occurrence and his version in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC was only that he had hearsay information about the occurrence.” 
The Court emphasized the well-settled rule that, “Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof.”

After closely scrutinizing the evidence, the Court found that: PW3's testimony, the only purported direct evidence, was unreliable as he did not mention witnessing the crime during the police investigation, and was later proven to be undergoing psychiatric treatment. 
The recovery of the alleged weapons (MO1 series choppers) did not link the accused to the crime as no blood was detected on them by the Forensic Science Laboratory. 
Though there was evidence of previous enmity and the accused being seen near the scene earlier that day, the Court held that this was insufficient:  "These circumstances would not form a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused." 
In addressing the motive, the Court noted that, while enmity existed, “merely on account of the said omission on the part of the prosecution to bring on record the previous criminal case, it cannot be held straight away that the prosecution failed to establish the motive.” Yet, the absence of a credible link between the accused and the act itself proved decisive. 
The Bench stated: "If one examines the evidence let in by the prosecution keeping in mind the well-settled principles, the circumstances proved do not unequivocally establish the truth of the facts, leaving no reasonable doubt, or alternative explanation." 
Ultimately, the Court ruled that the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused and that the conviction and sentence could not stand. 
The Kerala High Court, reinforcing the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence that “the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt,” acquitted Sivamani and Sajith. The Court directed their immediate release unless required in any other case. 
Date of Decision: 03 April 2025