Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence

Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies and Procedural Lapses Cast Serious Doubt on Prosecution's Case - In a significant ruling Kerala High Court acquitted P.C. Lalitha and her son, Nithin P.C., who had been convicted of murder, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and serious procedural lapses. The Court ruled that the prosecution had “failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” and that the “conviction cannot be sustained on unreliable witness testimonies and flawed evidence.” The appellants had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kasaragod, for the alleged murder of Mudhappa Gowda.

Setting aside the conviction, the Court observed, “The foundation of criminal justice is proof beyond reasonable doubt. When the prosecution's case is riddled with contradictions and lapses, conviction cannot be sustained merely on conjecture and suspicion.”

"A Family Dispute Turns Fatal—But Was the Conviction Justified?"

The case arose from a long-standing dispute over water rights, with the prosecution alleging that on March 4, 2011, at around 6:15 PM, P.C. Lalitha attacked Mudhappa Gowda with a chopper, while her son Nithin struck him with a wooden rafter. According to the prosecution, the victim’s son, Vishwanath (PW2), witnessed the attack and reported the incident to the police at 10:00 PM. Based on this account, the police registered Crime No. 91 of 2011 at Rajapuram Police Station, leading to the conviction of the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.

However, the High Court found several discrepancies in the prosecution's version. The Court remarked, “When witness testimonies contradict each other, and the sequence of events does not align with the evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.”

"Eyewitness Account Contradicts the Prosecution’s Story—Can a Conviction Be Sustained on Unreliable Testimony?"

The case heavily relied on PW2’s testimony, but the Court noted serious contradictions in his statements. The Court pointed out, “While PW2 claimed that the attack happened at 6:15 PM, another key witness stated that news of the death reached him between 5:00 and 5:30 PM, casting serious doubt on the alleged timeline.” It further noted that “PW2 initially claimed he was present when the police arrived at 7:30 PM, but later denied it, weakening the credibility of his account.”

The Court also highlighted the absence of blood on PW2 or his mother, despite their claim of being present at the crime scene. Rejecting the prosecution’s reliance on such testimony, the Court held, “Eyewitness testimony in a murder case must be unimpeachable. When the sole direct witness contradicts himself, the prosecution’s case collapses.”

"Manipulated FIR Raises Doubts on the Investigation—Can Delays in Filing Be Ignored?"

The Court found serious procedural lapses in the registration of the First Information Report (FIR). It questioned, “If the police arrived at the scene by 7:30 PM and recorded PW2’s statement, why was the FIR only registered at 10:30 PM?” The Court also raised concerns about the delay in sending the FIR to the magistrate, which was received only at 3:15 PM the following day.

Holding that such delays raised serious concerns about possible manipulation, the Court remarked, “Unexplained delays in FIR registration and suppression of earlier statements cast serious doubt on the integrity of the investigation.”

"Postmortem Report Raises Further Doubts—Did the Prosecution Fail to Prove the Cause of Death?"

The Court observed that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish the cause of death and found serious procedural lapses in the handling of the postmortem report. It noted, “The prosecution failed to call the doctor who conducted the autopsy to explain whether the injuries matched the alleged weapons.” Additionally, “alterations in the postmortem report in different handwriting create serious concerns of manipulation.”

"Recovery of Alleged Murder Weapon Contradicted by Witness Testimony"

The prosecution claimed that a chopper used in the crime was recovered based on the confession of the first accused, P.C. Lalitha. However, the Court found that a key witness (PW3) contradicted this version by testifying that the weapon was handed over by a third party. The Court held, “When an alleged recovery is contradicted by independent witnesses, such evidence loses credibility.”

"Criminal Law Demands Proof Beyond Doubt—Benefit Must Go to the Accused"
The Court reaffirmed the well-established principle of criminal law that “Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.” Citing Rang Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 2000 SC 1209), the Court stated, “In cases where doubt exists, the benefit must always go to the accused. The law does not permit courts to convict individuals based on mere probabilities.”

"Acquittal Ordered—Conviction Based on Suspicion Cannot Stand"

The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, ordering the immediate release of the appellants unless they were required in any other case. The Court concluded, “When witness accounts contradict each other, timelines do not match, and evidence appears manipulated, the conviction cannot be sustained. The accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.”

Date of Decision: 12 March 2025