Conviction For Sexual Assault Can Be Based Solely On Reliable Testimony Of Victim Without Corroboration: Allahabad High Court Marriage Dead For All Practical Purposes Can Be Nullified Under Article 142: Supreme Court Grants Divorce Citing Irretrievable Breakdown Senior Officers Accountable For Subordinates' Negligence; State Must Adopt Doctrine Of 'Superior Responsibility' To Combat Corruption: Allahabad High Court Constitutional Principles Of Article 21 Must Override Statutory Embargo Of Section 37 NDPS Act In Prolonged Incarceration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Recording Leasehold Land As 'Pattadar' Instead Of 'Sthitiban' Turns Back The Clock; Violates Right To Property: Orissa High Court Naib Tahsildar Performing Quasi-Judicial Functions Is A 'Judge' Under 1985 Act, Entitled To Protection Against Pension Cuts For Errors Of Judgment: MP High Court Demand Notice Under Section 138 NI Act Must Specifically State Cheque Amount; Failure To Do So Vitiates Prosecution: Kerala High Court Revisional Jurisdiction Under Land Revenue Act Must Be Exercised Within Reasonable Time, Cannot Reopen 20-Year-Old Mutation: J&K&L High Court Specific Performance: Plaintiff Must Prove Financial Capacity; Low Income & Dishonoured Cheques Negate Readiness and Willingness: Karnataka High Court Delay In Pronouncing Reserved Judgments Violates Article 21; Must Be Delivered Within 3 Months: Supreme Court Issues Binding Guidelines For High Courts Professional Independence Does Not Grant License To Abandon Matrimonial Obligations: Supreme Court Dissolves 18-Year Marriage Between Doctors Persistent Denial Of Sexual Intimacy Constitute Mental Cruelty; Supreme Court Dissolves 'Dead' Marriage Invoking Article 142 NDPS Act | High Court Cannot Ignore Mandatory Twin Conditions Under Section 37 While Granting Bail For Commercial Quantity: Supreme Court Contractual Royalty Rates Must Yield To Statutory Amendments; Royalty Payable At Rate Prevailing During Dispatch: Supreme Court Power To Punish For Contempt Must Be Exercised With Restraint But Should Act As Deterrent Against Levity: Supreme Court Public Functionaries Cannot Treat Supreme Court Orders As Matters To Be Addressed At Their Leisure: SC Warns Rajasthan Authorities High Court Can't Reassess Facts Or Substitute Its Interpretation Of Pleadings In Revisional Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Order 12 Rule 6 CPC | Decree On Admission Requires Categorical & Unequivocal Admission; Pleadings Cannot Be Read In Piecemeal: Supreme Court

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

Latest Legal News