When Two Plausible Views Are Possible, The Appellate Court Must Adopt The View Favourable To The Accused: Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court delivered a significant judgment in a case arising out of the brutal murder of Deepak, a political worker associated with Janatha Dal United (JDU). A Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian upheld the acquittal of all ten accused, emphasizing that “if two reasonable or at least plausible views can be reached on the facts and evidence, one that leads to acquittal and the other that leads to conviction, the appellate court shall rule in favour of the accused.” The Court refused to overturn the acquittal in the absence of compelling and substantial reasons, reinforcing the fundamental principle of criminal law that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Deepak, a ration shop owner and office bearer of the JDU, was attacked and murdered on 24th March 2015 by a group allegedly linked to rival political outfit Socialist Janatha Dal (SJD). According to the prosecution, the sixth accused, Sivadas, held Deepak responsible for an earlier attempt on his life. Enraged by this, the accused allegedly conspired and executed a plan to eliminate Deepak. The prosecution alleged that accused Nos. 1 to 5 carried out the actual attack, while accused Nos. 6 to 10 facilitated the conspiracy, aided in disposal of weapons, and destroyed evidence.

The trial court acquitted all the accused on 10th April 2017, finding the prosecution evidence to be insufficient, shaky, and marred with inconsistencies. This led to the present appeals, one by the State and the other by the victim's wife, seeking to overturn the acquittal.

The main issue before the Court was whether the trial court had committed any patent illegality, perversity, or omission which would justify interference with the acquittal of the accused. The Court summed up the settled law by stating, “Once the trial court acquits the accused, the presumption of innocence is strengthened and reinforced.”

The Court meticulously analyzed the oral testimonies of the injured eyewitnesses, Sajeev (PW1) and Stalin (PW2), who deposed that the accused attacked Deepak with deadly weapons. However, the Court noted a crucial aspect from the record: “PW1 admitted that two among the assailants had covered their faces below the nose using towels at the relevant time.” This admission diluted the certainty of identification, especially when viewed with the fact that the test identification parades yielded mixed results. The Bench held, “Injured eyewitnesses, although entitled to weight, must also be subjected to the test of reliability especially when identification is in doubt.”

The prosecution attempted to establish the existence of two conspiracies through witnesses PW7 and PW9. However, the Court found the evidence weak. It observed, “PW7 and PW9 could not convincingly establish that the accused had entered into a meeting of minds or shared any common intention.” The Bench stressed that for a charge of conspiracy, “it is essential that the prosecution proves some physical manifestation of agreement to commit the crime,” which was lacking.

The Court also rejected reliance solely on scientific evidence. While DNA and fingerprint reports established that some accused had used the Maruti Omni van connected to the crime, the Court was firm in stating, “Mere presence in the vehicle, without more, does not conclusively establish participation in the crime.”

The Court found no perversity in the trial court's reasoning when it disbelieved the conspiracy theory and found the prosecution evidence insufficient. It held, “The trial court adopted one of the possible views based on evidence and probabilities, and as such, it cannot be said that the judgment suffers from any legal infirmity.”

The Court examined each charge separately. On the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, the Court observed, “Even if the depositions of PW7 and PW9 are accepted in full, the chain of circumstances necessary to prove the conspiracy remains incomplete.”

Regarding the charge under Section 302 IPC, the Court found, “There is no clinching evidence fixing the individual roles of the accused with the certainty required in a criminal trial,” especially when the identification of the accused remained under a cloud of doubt due to facial coverings and conflicting testimonies.

The Court reiterated that the test identification parades, relied upon heavily by the prosecution, could not inspire confidence. “The identification of accused in the test identification parades was partial, inconclusive, and cannot be elevated to the status of credible legal proof,” the Court remarked.

The Court also noted, “Scientific evidence is a corroborative tool and cannot be the sole basis of conviction when direct evidence remains unconvincing.”

Further, the Bench gave importance to settled law on appellate interference, citing Dhanapal v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 401, and held, “The appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless there is gross perversity or patent illegality.”

The Court concluded, “Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute legal proof. Courts cannot act on mere suspicion, however strong it may appear.” Emphasizing the risk of wrongful conviction, the Court held that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

In dismissing both the State's appeal and the victim’s appeal, the Court added, “No miscarriage of justice will result by sustaining the trial court’s view, which is plausible and supported by evidence.”

This judgment reaffirms the principle that “presumption of innocence” is not a mere formality but a substantive right which survives even after a full-fledged trial, unless displaced by evidence of unimpeachable quality.

Date of Decision: 27 March 2025