-
by Admin
07 February 2026 2:03 AM
“Suspicion, However Strong, Cannot Replace Proof”, In a significant judgment Kerala High Court acquitting Abhilash, a street dweller, who had been convicted by the Sessions Court for the murder of another homeless man and for causing hurt with a dangerous weapon. The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar set aside the life sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that conviction based on an intoxicated, inconsistent, and unreliable sole eyewitness was unsafe in law.
The Court emphatically reiterated:
“Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot be considered as a substitute for proof.”
Eyewitness Testimony Shaky, Contradictory, and Intoxicated: Court Finds Testimony Unworthy of Credence
The prosecution case rested almost entirely on the testimony of PW11, Seleena, the alleged sole eyewitness and injured victim. Seleena claimed to have witnessed the fatal assault by the accused Abhilash on the deceased Xavier @ Karuthamuth using a wooden rafter (MO-3) and also claimed that she herself was assaulted and later sexually assaulted. However, no case was registered for the alleged sexual assault, and the Sessions Court convicted the accused only for murder and hurt under Sections 302 and 324 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment.
The High Court, after careful reappreciation of evidence, rejected Seleena’s testimony as unreliable, holding:
“Her version is inconsistent with medical evidence, riddled with contradictions, and she was admittedly under the influence of alcohol. Her inability to recall material facts and contradictions in her statements render her testimony unsafe for conviction.”
The Court noted that her first version to the examining doctor named a different assailant (Albin), not the accused, and her later deposition implicating Abhilash was materially divergent.
Medical Evidence Fails to Support Claims of Repeated Assault or Fainting
The Court further found that Seleena’s medical report (Ext. P5) indicated only simple injuries—a scalp laceration and a finger wound—with no signs of concussion, loss of consciousness, or major trauma, despite her claims of being repeatedly beaten, dragged, and rendered unconscious.
Relying on the settled position of law from Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Court held:
“Though ocular testimony has primacy over medical evidence, when medical evidence renders the ocular version improbable, it becomes unsafe to convict solely on such ocular evidence.”
Delays, Lapses, and Missing Witnesses Weaken Prosecution Case Irretrievably
The Bench also expressed serious concern over multiple investigative lapses:
PW11’s statement was not recorded immediately, even though she allegedly approached police the next morning.
FIR was registered based on information from PW1, not the injured eyewitness.
Statements of material witnesses were recorded days later, with no explanation for the delay.
An independent witness, Shaji, to whom PW11 allegedly narrated the incident, was never examined.
Blood-stained clothes of PW11, said to be soaked in blood, were neither seized nor forensically examined.
The recovery of material evidence under Section 27 CrPC was also found to be unsubstantiated.
The Court observed:
“Withholding of material evidence and unexplained delay in recording witness statements casts serious doubts on the integrity of the investigation.”
Relying on Nazim v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2117 and Nallabothu Ramulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 KHC 4281, the Court concluded that the prosecution narrative appears to have been embellished and shaped post-facto, raising legitimate concerns of afterthought.
Prosecution Relied on a Witness Who Failed the Test of a 'Sterling Witness'
The Court cited the landmark principle from Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 KHC 4419 (SC) to emphasize the standard for conviction based on a solitary eyewitness:
“A sterling witness must be consistent, unshaken in cross-examination, and his or her testimony should be unimpeachable and natural, co-relating with other evidence.”
The Bench held that PW11 failed every test of being a ‘sterling witness’, including consistency, credibility, and coherence with other evidence.
Sessions Court Conviction Based on Surmises and Conjectures Set Aside
The Court found the trial court’s reasoning fundamentally flawed:
“The trial court has convicted the accused without properly evaluating the evidence of material witnesses, particularly that of PW11 and PW7, and arrived at a conclusion on the basis of surmises and conjectures.”
Citing Baljinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 856 and Joseph v. State of Kerala, (2003) 1 SCC 465, the Court underscored that a conviction cannot be sustained when eyewitness testimony is riddled with doubts, material contradictions, and not corroborated by medical or physical evidence.
Acquittal Ordered on Benefit of Doubt
In view of the serious deficiencies in the prosecution case, the Court concluded:
“The prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled to acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.”
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 324 IPC were set aside, and the accused was acquitted and directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Date of Decision: 03 February 2026
