Mere Unwanted Staring At A Woman's Chest In Office Does Not Constitute Voyeurism Under Section 354-C IPC: Bombay High Court State Cannot Justify Espionage FIR Based Solely On Custodial Disclosure Without Corroborative Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Mere Issuance Of Letter Of Intent Without Formal Work Order Does Not Create Concluded Contract Or Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree Merely Because Implementation Is Impracticable: Supreme Court Adjudicating Authority Only Needs To Check For 'Plausible' Pre-Existing Dispute Under Section 9 IBC, Not Its Success On Merits: Supreme Court Arguing Against Settled Law To Show Skill Wastes Court Time; Giving Up Such Arguments A Professional Virtue: Supreme Court Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Is Computed From Date Of Filing Complaint, Not Date Of Cognizance: Supreme Court MSCS Act | Co-operative Society Can't Acquire Corporate Debtor Under IBC If Not In 'Same Line Of Business' As Per Its Bye-Laws: Supreme Court Multi-State Co-op Societies Can Only Invest In Entities With Substantially Similar Core Business Under Bye-Laws: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Usurp Governor's Statutory Discretion To Grant Extraordinary Pension Under 1981 Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Can Challenge Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders In Final Appeal Under Section 105 CPC: Supreme Court Plaintiff Cannot File Fresh Suit For Title If Relief Was Omitted In Earlier Injunction Suit Arising From Same Dispute: Supreme Court Plaintiff's Failure To Enter Witness Box Draws Rebuttable Presumption, Not Fatal To Suit If Rebutted By Cogent Evidence: Supreme Court Sale Deeds Executed During Pendency Of Specific Performance Suit Hit By Doctrine Of Lis Pendens: Supreme Court EWS Certificates Must Relate To Correct Financial Year; Courts Should Not Routinely Interfere In Online Recruitment Rejections: Supreme Court Court Can Lift 'Veil Of Partnership' To Evict Tenants Using Reconstitution As Cloak For Unlawful Sub-Letting: Supreme Court State Cannot Fix Lower Dearness Relief Rate For Pensioners Than Dearness Allowance For Serving Employees: Supreme Court Prolonged Separation Indicates Matrimonial Bond Broken Beyond Repair: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife's Cruelty Right To Contest Elections Distinct From Right To Vote, Co-Operative Societies Can Set Threshold Eligibility Conditions: Supreme Court Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Party Withholding Best Evidence, Has No Duty To Seek Production: Supreme Court Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme 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