High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

“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