Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

“If the Testimony is True, We Act on It”: Kerala High Court Upholds Convictions in Divakaran Murder Case

11 November 2024 9:40 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Kerala has upheld the convictions of six individuals involved in the politically charged murder of Divakaran, an Indian National Congress activist. The bench, comprising Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and M.B. Snehalatha, confirmed the life sentences for five of the accused and the death penalty for the sixth, underscoring the importance of consistent witness testimonies and addressing concerns of investigative biases.
The case revolves around the brutal murder of Divakaran on November 29, 2009. Divakaran, a prominent figure in the Indian National Congress, was attacked in his home by a group of individuals, leading to his death and injuries to his family members. The attack was allegedly motivated by political rivalries and was orchestrated by six accused: Manju @ Sujith, Kannan @ Satheeshkumar, Praveen, Benny, Sethu @ Sethukumar, and R. Baiju. The Additional Sessions Court – III, Alappuzha, had earlier convicted and sentenced the accused for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including murder, conspiracy, and unlawful assembly.
The bench highlighted the reliability of the testimonies provided by key witnesses, despite the defense’s arguments regarding inconsistencies and alleged embellishments. “The evidence tendered by PWs 1 to 3 are consistent with their statements recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code,” the court noted. The judges emphasized that the initial reluctance of some witnesses to testify due to fear of the accused did not undermine the overall credibility of their accounts.
Addressing concerns over investigative biases, the court criticized the actions of investigating officers PWs 18 and 21, noting their apparent favoritism towards accused 5 and 6. The court stated, “The facts and circumstances mentioned above would indicate beyond doubt that PWs 18 and 21 police officers were prejudiced in favour of accused 5 and 6”. However, the bench reiterated that flaws in the investigation did not automatically discredit the substantive evidence provided by witnesses, referencing the Supreme Court’s judgment in K.Yarappa Reddy v. State of Karnataka.
The judgment delved into the principles of evaluating conspiracy and collective criminal liability under Sections 34 and 149 IPC. The court pointed out that while Section 34 IPC requires active participation and a prior meeting of minds, Section 149 IPC assigns liability merely by reason of membership in an unlawful assembly. The bench cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan, asserting that the substitution of Section 149 with Section 34 IPC was permissible under certain conditions.
Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar remarked, “If the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true, the court is free to act on it albeit the investigating officer’s suspicious role in the case”.
The High Court’s affirmation of the convictions and sentences sends a strong message about the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice, particularly in cases involving political violence. By upholding the credibility of witness testimonies and addressing investigative shortcomings, the judgment reinforces the legal framework for prosecuting politically motivated crimes. This landmark decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for future cases, emphasizing the importance of reliable evidence over investigative conduct.
Date of Decision:August 2, 2024

 

Latest Legal News