CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeal, Affirms Convictions in Shameer Murder Case: “Defects in Investigation Cannot Override Strong Evidence”

20 February 2025 7:51 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Subheadline: Convictions under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, and 302 r/w Section 149 IPC upheld despite alleged investigative lapses.

Introduction:
The Kerala High Court has upheld the convictions of the accused in the 2006 murder of Shameer, affirming the trial court’s findings. The judgment, delivered by Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and G. Girish, emphasizes the importance of witness testimonies and the probative value of evidence, despite alleged defects in the investigation. The court’s decision reinforces the principle that investigative lapses do not necessarily invalidate strong and credible evidence.

Facts of the Case:
In December 2005, an altercation occurred between the victim, Shameer, and the first accused, Jayan. Shameer objected to Jayan drinking alcohol in public, resulting in a confrontation where Shameer struck Jayan with a bottle, causing injuries. This incident led Jayan and his associates to harbor animosity towards Shameer. On May 14, 2006, the accused allegedly conspired to murder Shameer, leading to his brutal killing by a group armed with choppers and iron pipes.

Court Observations and Views:
Witness Testimonies:
The court placed significant weight on the eyewitness accounts provided by PWs 2 to 4, finding their testimonies consistent and credible despite minor discrepancies. The court noted that minor variations in the testimonies were natural and did not undermine the overall credibility of the witnesses. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V stated, “Mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier”.

Credibility of Medical Evidence:
The medical evidence, including the post-mortem certificate and the wound certificate, was deemed significant in establishing the cause of death as homicide. Despite procedural lapses in marking the post-mortem certificate, the court held that the substantive evidence provided by the doctors was credible. The court remarked, “The injuries inflicted were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We hold that the death of Shameer was a case of homicide”.

Legal Reasoning:
The court extensively discussed the principles of evaluating evidence, particularly in cases involving multiple eyewitnesses and alleged investigative lapses. It reaffirmed that a conviction can be sustained on the basis of credible witness testimonies and corroborative medical evidence, even when there are defects in the investigation. The court cited the Supreme Court’s observation in C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, stating, “The defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal”.


Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V emphasized the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence, stating, “The inconsistencies pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant are minor and the learned Sessions Judge has sifted the chaff from the grain and has arrived at the finding of guilt”.

Conclusion:
The Kerala High Court’s decision to uphold the convictions in the Shameer murder case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that justice prevails, even in the face of investigative shortcomings. By affirming the lower court’s findings, the judgment sends a clear message about the importance of credible witness testimonies and medical evidence in securing convictions. This landmark ruling is expected to reinforce the legal framework for addressing serious crimes, emphasizing that procedural lapses do not necessarily compromise the pursuit of justice.

Date of Decision: July 25, 2024
 

Latest Legal News