Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Criminal Conspiracy Requires More Than Mere Suspicion, Accused Nos. 5 to 8 Acquitted Under Section 120B IPC: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has acquitted accused Nos. 5 to 8 in a murder case involving gang rivalry in Thiruvananthapuram. The bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John, on 27 March 2024, set aside their conviction under Section 120B of the IPC for lack of substantial evidence of conspiracy.

The appeals arose from convictions under IPC sections 302, 341, and 120B for murder and conspiracy. The court affirmed the conviction of accused Nos. 1 to 4 for murder under Sections 341 and 302 r/w Section 34 IPC but found insufficient evidence for conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. The convictions under Section 326 IPC were also set aside due to Section 71 of the IPC, addressing double jeopardy.

The case centered on the murder of Sunil Babu, stemming from gang rivalry. The appellants challenged their convictions for murder and conspiracy. The primary issue was whether the evidence established their involvement in the murder and whether a criminal conspiracy existed among all accused.

 

The Court relied on testimonies of PWs 1, 3, 6, 33, and 48 and medical evidence, finding credible evidence against accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Sunil Babu's murder. Discrepancies in witnesses' timing were deemed minor.

Criminal Conspiracy - Lack of Evidence: There was no substantial evidence of a criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. The presence of accused Nos. 5 to 8 at the crime scene and call record analysis were found insufficient.

Double Jeopardy - Section 71 IPC: The conviction under Section 326 IPC for accused Nos. 1 to 4 was set aside due to Section 71 of IPC, avoiding double conviction for the same act.

Decision of the Court: The Court partly allowed the appeals of accused Nos. 1 to 4, maintaining their conviction for murder under Sections 341 and 302 r/w Section 34 IPC. However, their convictions under Sections 120B and 326 IPC were set aside. Accused Nos. 5 to 8 were acquitted of charges under Section 120B IPC. The court closed any pending interlocutory applications.

Date of Decision: 27 March 2024

BINU @ KARI BINU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Similar News