SHAMSUDHEEN vs STATE OF KERALA

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​1​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
​PRESENT​
​THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
​&​
​THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR​
​MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2026 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1948​
​CRL.A NO. 601 OF 2023​
​CRIME NO.87/2018 OF Agali Police Station, Palakkad​
​AGAINST​ ​THE​ ​JUDGMENT​ ​DATED​ ​04.04.2023​ ​IN​ ​SC​ ​NO.265​ ​OF​ ​2018​ ​OF​
​SPECIAL​ ​COURT-TRIAL​ ​OF​ ​OFFENCE​ ​UNDER​ ​SC/ST(POA)ACT,​ ​1989,​
​MANNARKKAD​
​APPELLANT​/ACCUSED NO.1:​
​HUSSAIN​
​AGED 62 YEARS​
​S/O. MUHAMMED MECHERIYIL HOUSE, THAVALAM.P.O,​
​PAKKULAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582​
​BY ADVS.​
​SHRI.T.SHAJITH​
​SRI.S.K.SAJU​
​SHRI.M.ASOKAN​
​RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:​
​1​ ​STATE OF KERALA​
​REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,​
​HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031​
​2​ ​MALLI​
​AGED 61 YEARS​
​W/O MALLAN, CHINDAKKI, PAZHAYOORU, CHINDAKKI P O, MUKKALI,​
​ATTAPADY, PALAKADU DISTRICT​
​(ADDL. R2. IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.02.2024 IN​
​CRL.MA. NO. 4/2023)​
​BY ADVS.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​2​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​SHRI.C.K.RADHAKRISHNAN (CHALIL)​
​SHRI.P.V.JEEVESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR​
​THIS​ ​CRIMINAL​ ​APPEAL​ ​HAVING​ ​COME​ ​UP​ ​FOR​ ​FINAL​ ​HEARING​ ​ON​
​25.05.2026,​ ​ALONG​ ​WITH​ ​CRL.A.598/2023,​ ​602/2023​ ​AND​ ​CONNECTED​
​CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​3​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
​PRESENT​
​THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
​&​
​THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR​
​MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2026 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1948​
​CRL.A NO. 598 OF 2023​
​AGAINST​ ​THE​ ​JUDGMENT​ ​DATED​ ​04.04.2023​ ​IN​ ​SC​ ​NO.265​ ​OF​ ​2018​ ​OF​
​SPECIAL​ ​COURT-TRIAL​ ​OF​ ​OFFENCE​ ​UNDER​ ​SC/ST(POA)ACT,​ ​1989,​
​MANNARKKAD​
​APPELLANTS​/ACCUSED NOS.3,6 & 8 TO 10:​
​1​ ​SHAMSUDHEEN​
​AGED 37 YEARS​
​S/O MUHAMMED, POTHUVACHOLA (H), MUKKALI (P.O), KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD (DIST.), PIN - 678598​
​2​ ​ABOOBACKER @ BACKER​
​AGED 35 YEARS​
​S/O MUHAMMED, POTHUVACHOLA (H), PALLIPPADI,​
​THENKARA P.O, ANAMOOLI PALAKKAD (DIST.),​
​PIN - 678598​
​3​ ​UBAID​
​AGED 29 YEARS​
​S/O UMMAR, THOTTIYIL (H), MUKKALI (P.O),​
​KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD (DIST.), PIN - 678598​
​4​ ​NAJEEB​
​AGED 37 YEARS​
​S/O LATHEEF VIRUTHIYIL (H),​
​MUKKALI P.O, KALLAMALA PALAKKAD (DIST.),​
​PIN - 678582​
​5​ ​JAIJUMON​
​AGED 48 YEARS​
​S/O AYYAPPANKUTTY, MANNAMPATTA (H), MUKKALI P.O KALLAMALA​
​PALAKKAD (DIST.), PIN - 678582​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​4​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​BY ADVS.​
​SRI.ANIL K.MUHAMED​
​SRI. P. VIJAYABHANU​
​SRI.V.S.MANSOOR​
​SHRI.KRISHNAKUMAR G.​
​SHRI.AJIN SALAM​
​RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:​
​1​ ​STATE OF KERALA​
​REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,​
​HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031​
​2​ ​MALLI​
​AGED 61 YEARS​
​W/O MALLAN, CHINDAKKI, PAZHAYOORU, CHINDAKKI P O, MUKKALI,​
​ATTAPADY, PALAKADU DISTRICT PIN 678582​
​(ADDL R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.02.2024 IN​
​CRL.M.A.2/2023)​
​BY ADVS.​
​SHRI.C.K.RADHAKRISHNAN (CHALIL)​
​SHRI.P.V.JEEVESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR​
​THIS​ ​CRIMINAL​ ​APPEAL​ ​HAVING​ ​COME​ ​UP​ ​FOR​ ​FINAL​ ​HEARING​ ​ON​
​25.05.2026,​ ​ALONG​ ​WITH​ ​CRL.A.601/2023​ ​AND​ ​CONNECTED​ ​CASES,​ ​THE​
​COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​5​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
​PRESENT​
​THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
​&​
​THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR​
​MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2026 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1948​
​CRL.A NO. 602 OF 2023​
​AGAINST​ ​THE​ ​JUDGMENT​ ​DATED​ ​IN​ ​SC​ ​NO.265​ ​OF​ ​2018​ ​OF​ ​SPECIAL​
​COURT-TRIAL OF OFFENCE UNDER SC/ST(POA) ACT 1989, MANNARKKAD​
​APPELLANTS​/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 5:​
​1​ ​MARAKKAR​
​AGED 37 YEARS​
​S/O UNNEEN, KILAYIL, MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582​
​2​ ​RADHAKRISHNAN​
​AGED 38 YEARS​
​S/O BALAN, THAZHUSERRY HOUSE, MUKKALI,​
​KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582​
​BY ADVS.​
​SRI.S.RAJEEV​
​SRI.V.VINAY​
​SRI.M.S.ANEER​
​SHRI.SARATH K.P.​
​SHRI.PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH​
​SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.​
​SRI.P.BABU KARTHIKEYAN.​
​RESPONDENTS/STATE:​
​1​ ​STATE OF KERALA​
​REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,​
​HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031​
​2​ ​MALLI​
​AGED 61 YEARS​
​W/O MALLAN, CHINDAKKI, PAZHAYOORU, CHINDAKKI P O, MUKKALI,​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​6​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​ATTAPADY, PALAKADU DISTRICT​
​(ADDL R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.02.2024 IN C.R.L.​
​MA NO.1/2023)​
​BY ADVS.​
​SHRI.C.K.RADHAKRISHNAN (CHALIL)​
​SHRI.P.V.JEEVESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR​
​THIS​ ​CRIMINAL​ ​APPEAL​ ​HAVING​ ​COME​ ​UP​ ​FOR​ ​FINAL​ ​HEARING​ ​ON​
​25.05.2026,​ ​ALONG​ ​WITH​ ​CRL.A.601/2023​ ​AND​ ​CONNECTED​ ​CASES,​ ​THE​
​COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​7​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
​PRESENT​
​THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
​&​
​THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR​
​MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2026 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1948​
​CRL.A NO. 604 OF 2023​
​AGAINST​ ​THE​ ​JUDGMENT​ ​DATED​ ​04.04.2023​ ​IN​ ​SC​ ​NO.265​ ​OF​ ​2018​ ​OF​
​SPECIAL​ ​COURT-TRIAL​ ​OF​ ​OFFENCE​ ​UNDER​ ​SC/ST(POA)​ ​ACT​ ​1989,​
​MANNARKKAD​
​APPELLANTS​/ACCUSED NOS. 7,12,13,14 & 15:​
​1​ ​SIDHIQUE​
​AGED 42 YEARS​
​S/O. SAIDH, PADINJARE PALLA KURIKKAL HOUSE,​
​MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.,​
​PIN - 673308​
​2​ ​SAJEEV​
​AGED 34 YEARS​
​S/O.RAVEENDRANATH, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, KOTTIYURKUNNU,​
​MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.,​
​PIN - 673308​
​3​ ​SATHEESH​
​AGED 43 YEARS​
​S/O. GOVINDAN, MURIYKKADA HOUSE, MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673308​
​4​ ​HAREESH​
​AGED 38 YEARS​
​S/O. SIVARAMAN, CHERIVIL HOUSE, MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673308​
​5​ ​BIJU​
​AGED 45 YEARS​
​S/O. SIVARAMAN, CHERIVIL HOUSE, MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673308​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​8​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​BY ADVS.​
​SRI.NIREESH MATHEW​
​SRI.M.B.SANDEEP​
​SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN​
​SRI.P.K.VARGHESE​
​SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL​
​SRI.BABU JOSE​
​SRI.SEBIN SEBASTIAN​
​SHRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT​
​SHRI.DEVAN N.R​
​SHRI.MATHEW JACOB​
​SHRI.GEORGE V. PAUL​
​SHRI.M.T.SAMEER​
​SHRI.DHANESH V.MADHAVAN​
​SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN​
​SHRI.JERRY MATHEW​
​SHRI.REGHU SREEDHARAN​
​SHRI.RAMEEZ M. AZEEZ​
​SMT.K.P.SREEJA​
​SMT.ASWATHY JAYARAJ​
​SHRI.VISHNU K.K.​
​SHRI.V.N.HARIDAS​
​RESPONDENTS​/COMPLAINANT-STATE:​
​1​ ​STATE OF KERALA​
​REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,​
​HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031​
​2​ ​MALLI​
​AGED 61 YEARS​
​W/O MALLAN, CHINDAKKI, PAZHAYOORU, CHINDAKKI P.O., MUKKALI,​
​ATTAPADY, PALAKADU DISTRICT​
​(ADDL R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.02.2024 IN​
​CRL M.A NO.2/2023)​
​BY ADVS.​
​SHRI.P.V.JEEVESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR​
​SHRI.C.K.RADHAKRISHNAN (CHALIL)​
​THIS​ ​CRIMINAL​ ​APPEAL​ ​HAVING​ ​COME​ ​UP​ ​FOR​ ​FINAL​ ​HEARING​ ​ON​
​25.05.2026,​ ​ALONG​ ​WITH​ ​CRL.A.601/2023​ ​AND​ ​CONNECTED​ ​CASES,​ ​THE​
​COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​9​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
​PRESENT​
​THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
​&​
​THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR​
​MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2026 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1948​
​CRL.A NO. 661 OF 2023​
​AGAINST​ ​THE​ ​JUDGMENT​ ​DATED​ ​04.04.2023​ ​IN​ ​SC​ ​NO.265​ ​OF​ ​2018​ ​OF​
​SPECIAL​ ​COURT-TRIAL​ ​OF​ ​OFFENCE​ ​UNDER​ ​SC/ST(POA)​ ​ACT​ ​1989,​
​MANNARKKAD​
​APPELLANT/​COMPLAINANT:​
​STATE OF KERALA​
​REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,​
​HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031​
​BY ADVS.​
​SHRI.P.V.JEEVESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR​
​RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:​
​1​ ​HUSSAIN​
​AGED 37 YEARS​
​S/O MUHAMMED,MECHERIYIL(H), THAVALAM POST,PAKKULAM,PALAKKAD​
​DIST, PIN - 678582​
​2​ ​MARAKKAR​
​AGED 37 YEARS​
​S/O UNNEEN,KILAYIL (H) MUKKALI POST,KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD DIST, PIN - 678582​
​3​ ​SHAMSUDHEEN​
​AGED 37 YEARS,​
​S/O. MUHAMMED,POTHUVACHOLA(H),​
​MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD DIST, PIN - 678582​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​10​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​4​ ​ANEESH​
​AGED 34 YEARS​
​S/O RAJAGOPALAN,KUNNATH(H),KAKKUPPADI,​
​KALKANDI POST, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD DIST, PIN - 678582​
​5​ ​RADHAKRISHNAN​
​AGED 38 YEARS​
​S/O BALAN,THAZHUSSERY (H),​
​MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD,​
​PIN - 678582​
​6​ ​ABOOBACKER@BACKER​
​AGED 35 YEARS​
​S/O MUHAMMED, POTHUVACHOLA (H),​
​PALLIPPADI,THENKARA POST,​
​ANAMOOLI,PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582​
​7​ ​SIDHIQUE​
​AGED 42 YEARS​
​S/O SAIDH, PADINJARE PALLA,​
​KURIKKAL (H), MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD DIST, PIN - 678582​
​8​ ​UBAID​
​AGED 29 YEARS​
​S/O UMMAR,THOTTIYIL(H),​
​MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582​
​9​ ​NAJEEB​
​AGED 37 YEARS​
​S/O LATHEEF,VIRUTHIYIL (H),MUKKALI POST, KALLAMAL,​
​PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582​
​10​ ​JAIJUMON​
​AGED 48 YEARS​
​S/O AYYAPPANKUTTY, MANNAMPATTA(H),​
​MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD,​
​PIN - 678582​
​11​ ​ABDUL KAREEM​
​AGED 52 YEARS​
​S/O THAJUDHEEN,CHOLAYIL(H),MUKKALI POST,KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582​
​12​ ​SAJEEV​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​11​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​AGED 34 YEARS​
​S/O RAVEENDRANATH,PUTHANPURAKKAL(H),​
​KOTTIYURKUNNU,MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582​
​13​ ​SATHEESH​
​AGED 43 YEARS​
​S/O GOVINDAN,MURIYKKADA(H),MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA,PALAKKAD,​
​PIN - 678582​
​14​ ​HAREESH​
​AGED 38 YEARS​
​S/O SIVARAMAN,CHERIVIL(H),MUKKALI POST,KALLAMALA,PALAKKAD,​
​PIN - 678582​
​15​ ​BIJU​
​AGED 45 YEARS​
​S/O SIVARAMAN,CHERIVIL(H),MUKKALI POST,​
​KALLAMALA,PALAKKAD DIST, PIN - 678582​
​16​ ​MUNEER​
​AGED 32 YEARS​
​S/O LATHEEF,VIRUTHIYIL(H, MUKKALI POST,​
​KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582​
​17​ ​SADANANDAN.V.K (STRANGER)​
​S/O KOCHUKUNJU, JANAKI BHAVAN, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KAVANADU PO​
​KOLLAM, PIN-691003.​
​BY ADVS.​
​SHRI.T.SHAJITH​
​SRI.S.RAJEEV​
​SRI.ANIL K.MUHAMED​
​SRI.NIREESH MATHEW​
​SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN​
​SRI.C.RAJENDRAN​
​SRI.V.VINAY​
​SRI.M.S.ANEER​
​SHRI.SARATH K.P.​
​SHRI.PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH​
​SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.​
​SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN​
​SRI.V.S.MANSOOR​
​SHRI.KRISHNAKUMAR G.​
​SHRI.AJIN SALAM​
​SRI.M.B.SANDEEP​
​SMT.ASWATHY JAYARAJ​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​12​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​SHRI.VISHNU K.K.​
​SMT.K.P.SREEJA​
​SMT.SHAHINA NOUSHAD​
​SHRI.REUBEN CHARLY​
​SHRI.NAJAH EBRAHIM V.P.​
​THIS​ ​CRIMINAL​ ​APPEAL​ ​HAVING​ ​COME​ ​UP​ ​FOR​ ​FINAL​ ​HEARING​ ​ON​
​25.05.2026,​ ​ALONG​ ​WITH​ ​CRL.A.601/2023​ ​AND​ ​CONNECTED​ ​CASES,​ ​THE​
​COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​13​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
​PRESENT​
​THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
​&​
​THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR​
​MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2026 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1948​
​CRL.A NO. 676 OF 2023​
​AGAINST​ ​THE​ ​JUDGMENT​ ​DATED​ ​04.04.2023​ ​IN​ ​SC​ ​NO.265​ ​OF​ ​2018​ ​OF​
​SPECIAL​ ​COURT-TRIAL​ ​OF​ ​OFFENCE​ ​UNDER​ ​SC/ST(POA)​ ​ACT​ ​1989,​
​MANNARKKAD​
​APPELLANT​/ACCUSED NO.16:​
​MUNEER, AGED 37 YEARS​
​S/O LATHEEF VIRUTHIYIL (H) MUKKALI P.O,​
​KALLAMALA PALAKKAD (DIST.), PIN - 678582​
​BY ADVS.​
​SHRI.LEO GEORGE​
​SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)​
​RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:​
​STATE OF KERALA​
​REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,​
​HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031​
​BY ADVS.​
​SHRI.P.V.JEEVESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR​
​THIS​ ​CRIMINAL​ ​APPEAL​ ​HAVING​ ​COME​ ​UP​ ​FOR​ ​FINAL​ ​HEARING​ ​ON​
​25.05.2026,​ ​ALONG​ ​WITH​ ​CRL.A.601/2023​ ​AND​ ​CONNECTED​ ​CASES,​ ​THE​
​COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​14​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
​PRESENT​
​THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
​&​
​THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR​
​MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2026 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1948​
​CRA(V) NO. 27 OF 2024​
​AGAINST​ ​THE​ ​JUDGMENT​ ​DATED​ ​04.04.2023​ ​IN​ ​SC​ ​NO.265​ ​OF​ ​2018​ ​OF​
​SPECIAL​ ​COURT-TRIAL​ ​OF​ ​OFFENCE​ ​UNDER​ ​SC/ST(POA)ACT​ ​1989,​
​MANNARKKAD​
​APPELLANT/​DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:​
​MALLI​
​AGED 61 YEARS​
​W/O MALLAN, CHINDAKKI, PAZHAYOORU,​
​CHINDAKKI P.O, MUKKALI, ATTAPADY, PALAKADU DISTRICT,​
​PIN - 678582​
​BY ADVS.​
​SHRI.C.K.RADHAKRISHNAN (CHALIL)​
​SHRI.RAJESH M.​
​RESPONDENTS/​STATE/COMPLAINANT & ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 16:​
​1​ ​STATE OF KERALA​
​THROUGH THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,​
​HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERANAKULAM, PIN - 682031​
​2​ ​DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE​
​SMS & AGALI SUBDIVISION, AGALI, PALAKKAD,​
​PIN - 678581​
​3​ ​HUSSAIN​
​AGED 62 YEARS​
​S/O MUHAMMED, MECHERIYIL HOUSE, THAVALAM P .O, PAKKULAM,​
​PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678598​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​15​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​4​ ​MARAKKAR​
​AGED 37 YEARS​
​S/O UNNEEN, KILAYIL HOUSE, MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD​
​DISTRICT, PIN - 678598​
​5​ ​SHAMSUDHEEN​
​AGED 37 YEARS​
​S/O MUHAMMED, POTHUVACHOLA HOUSE, MUKKALI P.O, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678598​
​6​ ​ANEESH​
​AGED 34 YEARS​
​S/O RAJAGOPALAN, KUNNATH POST, KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,​
​PIN - 678598​
​7​ ​RADHAKRISHNAN​
​AGED 38 YEARS​
​S/O BALAN, THAZHUSRRY HOUSE, MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678598​
​8​ ​ABOOBAKER @ BAKER​
​AGED 35 YEARS​
​S/O MUHAMED,POTHUVACHOLA, PALLIPADY, THENKARA P.O, ANAMOOLI,​
​PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678598​
​9​ ​SIDHIQUE​
​AGED 35 YEARS​
​S/O SAIDH,PADINJARE PALLA KURIKKAL HOUSE, MUKKALI POST,​
​KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582​
​10​ ​UBAID​
​AGED 29 YEARS​
​S/O UMMAR, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, MUKKALI P O, KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD​
​DISTRICT, PIN - 678598​
​11​ ​NAJEEB​
​AGED 37 YEARS​
​S/O LATHEEF,VIRUTHIYIL HOUSE, MUKKALI P O,​
​KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678598​
​12​ ​JAIJUMON​
​AGED 48 YEARS​
​S/O AYYAPPANKUTTY, MANNAMPATA HOUSE, MUKKALI P O, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678598​
​13​ ​ABDUL KAREEM​
​AGED 52 YEARS​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​16​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​S/O THAJUDHEEN, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, MUKKALI P.O,​
​KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678598​
​14​ ​SAJEEV​
​AGED 34 YEARS​
​S/O RAVEENDRANATH, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, KOTTIYOORKUNNU,​
​MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582​
​15​ ​SATHEESH​
​AGED 43 YEARS​
​S/O GOVINDAN, MURIYKADA HOUSE, MUKKALI P O, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678598​
​16​ ​HAREESH​
​AGED 38 YEARS​
​S/O SIVARAMAN, CHERIVIL HOUSE, MUKKALI P O, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678598​
​17​ ​BIJU​
​AGED 45 YEARS​
​S/O SIVARAMAN, AGED 38 YEARS, CHERIVIL HOUSE,​
​MUKKALI P O, KALLAMALA, PALAKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678598​
​18​ ​MUNEER​
​AGED 33 YEARS​
​S/O LATHEEF, VIRUTHIYIL HOUSE, MUKKALI POST, KALLAMALA,​
​PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678598​
​BY ADVS.​
​SHRI.P.V.JEEVESH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR​
​SHRI.T.SHAJITH​
​SRI.ANIL K.MUHAMED​
​SRI.NIREESH MATHEW​
​SRI.M.B.SANDEEP​
​SRI.V.S.MANSOOR​
​SHRI.KRISHNAKUMAR G.​
​SHRI.AJIN SALAM​
​SHRI.MUHAMMED AFRIN NUHMAN T.T.​
​SHRI.NAJAH EBRAHIM V.P.​
​SMT.K.P.SREEJA​
​SMT.AMALOO RAMACHANDRAN​
​THIS​​CRL.A​​BY​​DEFACTO​​COMPLAINANT/VICTIM​​HAVING​​COME​​UP​​FOR​​FINAL​
​HEARING​ ​ON​ ​25.05.2026,​ ​ALONG​ ​WITH​ ​CRL.A.601/2023​ ​AND​ ​CONNECTED​
​CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​17​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​I N D E X​
​Sl.No.​ ​Description​ ​Page Nos.​
​1​ ​Prologue.​ ​19-20​
​2.​ ​The Death of Madhu.​ ​20-23​
​3​ ​The Nature and Scope of the present Appeals.​ ​23-24​
​4​ ​The Prosecution Case: A synopsis​ ​24-28​
​5​ ​Registration of the Crime, Investigation and Filing of Chargesheet​ ​28-34​
​6​ ​The Course of Trial​ ​34-35​
​7​ ​Summary of the Judgment assailed in these Appeals​ ​35-43​
​8​ ​Submissions on behalf of the State and the Victim​ ​43-55​
​9​ ​Common submissions advanced by the defence​ ​55-59​​
Arguments advanced by the learned counsel —​
​9.1.​​ Sri. T. Shajith for accused No.1.​ ​59-62​
​9.2.​​ Sri. S. Rajeev for accused Nos. 2 and 5.​ ​62-66​
​9.3.​ ​Sri. Anil Mohammed​​for accused Nos. 3, 6 and​​8 to 10.​ ​66-69​
​9.4.​ ​Sri. P. Vijayabhanu for Accused Nos. 8, 9 and 16.​ ​69-72​
​9.5.​ ​Sri. Nireesh Mathew for accused Nos. 7 and 12.​ ​72-73​
​9.6.​ ​Sri. S.K.Adityan for accused No. 13.​ ​73-74​
​9.7.​ ​Sri. Varghese for accused Nos. 14 and 15.​ ​74-76​
​10​ ​Analysis of evidence​ ​76-131​
​11​ ​Defence witnesses​ ​131-133​
​12​ ​Issues for determination —​
​12.1.​ ​Was the death homicidal?​ ​133-135​
​12.2.​ ​Whether it is a case of custodial torture?​ ​135-148​
​12.3.​ ​Tribal identity of Madhu​ ​148-151​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​18​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​12.4.​ ​Non-Tribal status of the accused​ ​151-152​
​12.5.​ ​Knowledge of Madhu’s Tribal identity​ ​152-162​
​12.6.​ ​Motive: Whether established?​ ​162-164​
​12.7.​ ​Admissibility of Electronic Evidence​ ​164-181​
​12.8.​ ​Reconstruction of events​ ​181-195​
​13​ ​Section 149 IPC: Categorisation and Individual Findings:​ ​195-205​
​14​ ​Legal Principles on Interference with Acquittals:​ ​205-212​
​15​ ​Appellate Challenge to the Convictions:​ ​212-213​
​16​ ​The concluded findings as against accused Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,​
​12, 13, 14, and 15​
​214-225​
​17​ ​Findings on Accused No.16​ ​225-228​
​18​ ​Findings on Accused No.1​ ​228-235​
​19.​ ​Reflections of the Court​ ​236-242​
​20​ ​Conclusion​ ​242-245​
​21​ ​Sentence and Operative Portion of the Judgment​ ​246-255​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​19​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​“CR”​
​COMMON JUDGMENT​
​[CRL.A Nos. 601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023, 604/2023,​
​661/2023, 676/2023 & CRA(V) No.27/2024]​
​Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.​
​1.​ ​Prologue:​
​The​​Preamble​​of​​the​​Constitution​​of​​India​​holds​​out​​two​​solemn​​promises​​among​
​others:​ ​Justice​ ​—​ ​social,​ ​economic​ ​and​ ​political​ ​—​ ​and​ ​Equality​ ​of​ ​status​ ​and​ ​of​
​opportunity.​ ​These​ ​were​ ​not​ ​merely​ ​aspirational​ ​words.​ ​They​ ​were​ ​a​ ​declaration​ ​of​
​intent​​by​​a​​nation​​that​​had​​seen,​​across​​centuries,​​what​​the​​organised​​denial​​of​​justice​
​and​ ​equality​ ​could​ ​do​ ​to​ ​the​ ​human​ ​spirit.​ ​They​ ​were​ ​words​ ​written,​ ​in​ ​no​ ​small​
​measure,​​for​​the​​emancipation​​of​​the​​downtrodden​​who​​had​​been​​humiliated,​​excluded,​
​and shamed by deliberate social design.​
​1.2.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​25th​ ​of​ ​November,​ ​1949,​ ​Dr.​ ​B.R.​ ​Ambedkar,​ ​the​ ​principal​
​architect​​of​​our​​Constitution,​​stood​​up​​before​​the​​Constituent​​Assembly​​and​​stated​​what​
​can​ ​only​ ​be​ ​described​​as​​a​​warning​​to​​posterity.​​(See​​Constituent​​Assembly​​Debates,​
​Volume X, Page 979)​
​“On​ ​the​ ​26th​ ​of​ ​January​ ​1950,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​going​ ​to​ ​enter​ ​into​ ​a​ ​life​ ​of​
​contradictions.​​In​​politics​​we​​will​​have​​equality​​and​​in​​social​​and​​economic​
​life​​we​​will​​have​​inequality.​​In​​politics​​we​​will​​be​​recognizing​​the​​principle​
​of​​one​​man​​one​​vote​​and​​one​​vote​​one​​value.​​In​​our​​social​​and​​economic​
​life,​​we​​shall,​​by​​reason​​of​​our​​social​​and​​economic​​structure,​​continue​​to​
​deny​​the​​principle​​of​​one​​man​​one​​value.​​How​​long​​shall​​we​​continue​​to​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​20​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​live​​this​​life​​of​​contradictions?​​How​​long​​shall​​we​​continue​​to​​deny​​equality​
​in​​our​​social​​and​​economic​​life?​​If​​we​​continue​​to​​deny​​it​​for​​long,​​we​​will​
​do​​so​​only​​by​​putting​​our​​political​​democracy​​in​​peril.​​We​​must​​remove​​this​
​contradiction​​at​​the​​earliest​​possible​​moment​​or​​else​​those​​who​​suffer​​from​
​inequality​ ​will​ ​blow​ ​up​ ​the​ ​structure​ ​of​ ​political​ ​democracy​ ​which​ ​this​
​Assembly has so laboriously built up."​
​The​ ​conflict​ ​that​ ​Sri.​ ​B.R.​ ​Ambedkar​ ​described​ ​between​ ​political​ ​equality​ ​and​
​social​ ​and​ ​economic​ ​inequality​ ​is​ ​still​ ​alive​ ​in​​Indian​​public​​life​​today.​​If​​any​​proof​​is​
​required,​ ​one​ ​only​ ​needs​ ​to​​look​​at​​the​​facts​​of​​this​​case.​​The​​distance​​between​​the​
​solemn​​promise​​in​​the​​Preamble​​and​​the​​facts​​of​​this​​case​​is​​a​​verdict​​not​​merely​​on​​the​
​accused, but on “​We the People​”.​
​2.​ ​The Death of Madhu:​
​2.1.​ ​These​ ​Appeals​ ​concern​ ​the​ ​brutal​ ​assault​ ​and​ ​death​ ​of​ ​Madhu,​ ​a​
​27-year-old​​tribal​​man,​​who,​​if​​the​​prosecution​​version​​is​​believed,​​was​​publicly​​beaten,​
​stripped,​​paraded​​in​​a​​semi-naked​​condition,​​humiliated​​on​​social​​media,​​and​​subjected​
​to​​sustained​​violence​​before​​succumbing​​to​​his​​injuries.​​The​​incident​​occurred​​in​​broad​
​daylight, involved multiple accused persons, and was recorded on digital devices.​
​2.2.​ ​The​​alleged​​perpetrators​​of​​the​​crime,​​according​​to​​the​​prosecution,​​are​
​16​​individuals,​​all​​residents​​of​​Mannarkkad​​and​​its​​surrounding​​areas.​​They​​stood​​trial​
​before​ ​the​ ​Additional​ ​Sessions​ ​Court,​ ​Mannarkkad,​ ​in​ ​S.C.No.​ ​265​ ​of​​2018​​and​​were​
​charged​​under​​Sections​​143,​​147,​​323,​​324,​​326,​​294(b),​​342,​​352,​​364,​​367,​​368,​​and​
​302​​r/w.​​Section​​149​​of​​the​​Indian​​Penal​​Code,​​and​​additionally​​under​​Sections​​3(1)(d),​
​3(1)(r),​​3(2)(v)​​and​​3(2)(va)​​of​​the​​Scheduled​​Castes​​and​​Scheduled​​Tribes​​(Prevention​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​21​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [“SC/ST (PoA) Act”].​
​2.3.​ ​The​ ​trial​ ​court,​ ​by​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​judgment,​ ​acquitted​ ​a​ ​few​ ​and​
​convicted​ ​the​ ​rest​ ​for​ ​lesser​ ​offences.​ ​Accused​ ​Nos.​ ​4​ ​and​ ​11​ ​were​ ​acquitted​ ​of​ ​all​
​charges​​framed​​against​​them.​​Insofar​​as​​the​​remaining​​14​​accused​​is​​concerned,​​though​
​the​​court​​did​​not​​find​​them​​guilty​​of​​the​​offence​​under​​Section​​302​​of​​the​​IPC,​​they​​were​
​found​​guilty,​​convicted​​and​​sentenced​​for​​several​​of​​the​​other​​offences,​​the​​details​​of​
​which are set out in the chart below:​
​Accused​
​Name​ ​Section​
​304 Part​
​Section​
​326 r/w​
​Section​
​367 r/w​
​Section​
​3(1)(d)​
​SC/ST(PoA)​
​Other offenses​
​II r/w.​
​Section​
​149 of the​
​149 of​
​the IPC​
​section​
​149 of​
​the IPC​
​Act​
​IPC​
​A1​ ​Hussain​ ​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.1,00,000​
​acquitted​ ​acquitted​ ​acquitted​ ​S.143:​ ​6​ ​months​ ​+​ ​Rs.​
​1000;​
​S.147: 2 yrs+ Rs.2000;​
​S.323: 1 yr +Rs. 1000;​
​S.342: 1 yr + Rs. 1000.​
​(all r/w. S.149)​
​A2​ ​Marakkar​ ​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.1,00,000​
​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​5​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.2,000​
​3​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​S.143:​ ​6​ ​months​ ​+​ ​Rs.​
​1000 ;​
​S.147: 2 yrs + Rs. 2000;​
​S.323: 1 yr + Rs. 1000;​
​S.324: 2 yrs + Rs. 1000;​
​S.342: 1 yr + Rs. 1000.​
​(all r/w. S.149)​
​A3​ ​Shamsudheen​ ​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.1,00,000​
​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​5​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.2,000​
​3​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​S.143:​ ​6​ ​months​ ​+​ ​Rs.​
​1000 ;​
​S.147: 2 yrs + Rs. 2000;​
​S.323: 1 yr + Rs. 1000;​
​S.324: 2 yrs + Rs. 1000;​
​S.342: 1 yr + Rs. 1000.​
​(all r/w. S.149)​
​A5​ ​Radhakrishnan​ ​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.1,00,000​
​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​5​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.2,000​
​3​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​S.143:​ ​6​ ​months​ ​+​ ​Rs.​
​1000 ;​
​S.147: 2 yrs + Rs. 2000;​
​S.323: 1 yr + Rs. 1000;​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​22​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Accused​
​Name​ ​Section​
​304 Part​
​Section​
​326 r/w​
​Section​
​367 r/w​
​Section​
​3(1)(d)​
​SC/ST(PoA)​
​Other offenses​
​II r/w.​
​Section​
​149 of the​
​149 of​
​the IPC​
​section​
​149 of​
​the IPC​
​Act​
​IPC​
​S.324: 2 yrs + Rs. 1000;​
​S.342: 1 yr + Rs. 1000.​
​(all r/w. S.149)​
​A6​ ​Aboobacker​ ​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.1,00,000​
​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​5​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.2,000​
​3​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​S.143:​ ​6​ ​months​ ​+​ ​Rs.​
​1000 ;​
​S.147: 2 yrs + Rs. 2000;​
​S.323: 1 yr + Rs. 1000;​
​S.324: 2 yrs + Rs. 1000;​
​S.342: 1 yr + Rs. 1000.​
​(all r/w. S.149)​
​A7​ ​Sidhique​ ​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.1,00,000​
​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​5​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.2,000​
​3​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​S.143:​ ​6​ ​months​ ​+​ ​Rs.​
​1000 ;​
​S.147: 2 yrs + Rs. 2000;​
​S.323: 1 yr + Rs. 1000;​
​S.324: 2 yrs + Rs. 1000;​
​S.342: 1 yr + Rs. 1000.​
​(all r/w. S.149)​
​A8​ ​Ubaid​ ​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.1,00,000​
​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​5​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.2,000​
​3​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​S.143:​ ​6​ ​months​ ​+​ ​Rs.​
​1000 ;​
​S.147: 2 yrs + Rs. 2000;​
​S.323: 1 yr + Rs. 1000;​
​S.324: 2 yrs + Rs. 1000;​
​S.342: 1 yr + Rs. 1000.​
​(all r/w. S.149)​
​A9​ ​Najeeb​ ​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.1,00,000​
​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​5​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.2,000​
​3​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​S.143:​ ​6​ ​months​ ​+​ ​Rs.​
​1000 ;​
​S.147: 2 yrs + Rs. 2000;​
​S.323: 1 yr + Rs. 1000;​
​S.324: 2 yrs + Rs. 1000;​
​S.342: 1 yr + Rs. 1000.​
​(all r/w. S.149)​
​A10​ ​Jaijumon​ ​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.1,00,000​
​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​5​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.2,000​
​3​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​S.143:​ ​6​ ​months​ ​+​ ​Rs.​
​1000 ;​
​S.147: 2 yrs + Rs. 2000;​
​S.323: 1 yr + Rs. 1000;​
​S.324: 2 yrs + Rs. 1000;​
​S.342: 1 yr + Rs. 1000.​
​(all r/w. S.149)​
​A12​ ​Sajeev​ ​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.1,00,000​
​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​5​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.2,000​
​3​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​S.143:​ ​6​ ​months​ ​+​ ​Rs.​
​1000 ;​
​S.147: 2 yrs + Rs. 2000;​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​23​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Accused​
​Name​ ​Section​
​304 Part​
​Section​
​326 r/w​
​Section​
​367 r/w​
​Section​
​3(1)(d)​
​SC/ST(PoA)​
​Other offenses​
​II r/w.​
​Section​
​149 of the​
​149 of​
​the IPC​
​section​
​149 of​
​the IPC​
​Act​
​IPC​
​S.323: 1 yr + Rs. 1000;​
​S.324: 2 yrs + Rs. 1000;​
​S.342: 1 yr + Rs. 1000.​
​(all r/w. S.149)​
​A13​ ​Satheesh​ ​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.1,00,000​
​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​5​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.2,000​
​3​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​S.143:​ ​6​ ​months​ ​+​ ​Rs.​
​1000 ;​
​S.147: 2 yrs + Rs. 2000;​
​S.323: 1 yr + Rs. 1000;​
​S.324: 2 yrs + Rs. 1000;​
​S.342: 1 yr + Rs. 1000.​
​(all r/w. S.149)​
​A14​ ​Hareesh​ ​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.1,00,000​
​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​5​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.2,000​
​3​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​S.143:​ ​6​ ​months​ ​+​ ​Rs.​
​1000 ;​
​S.147: 2 yrs + Rs. 2000;​
​S.323: 1 yr + Rs. 1000;​
​S.324: 2 yrs + Rs. 1000;​
​S.342: 1 yr + Rs. 1000.​
​(all r/w. S.149)​
​A15​ ​Biju​ ​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.1,00,000​
​7​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​5​ ​yrs​ ​RI​
​+​
​Rs.2,000​
​3​ ​yrs​ ​RI​ ​+​
​Rs.5,000​
​S.143:​ ​6​ ​months​ ​+​ ​Rs.​
​1000 ;​
​S.147: 2 yrs + Rs. 2000;​
​S.323: 1 yr + Rs. 1000;​
​S.324: 2 yrs + Rs. 1000;​
​S.342: 1 yr + Rs. 1000.​
​(all r/w. S.149)​
​A16​ ​Muneer​ ​acquitted​ ​acquitted​ ​acquitted​ ​acquitted​ ​S.352​ ​IPC:​ ​3​ ​months​ ​SI​
​+ Rs.500 fine.​
​3.​ ​The Nature and Scope of the present Appeals:​
​3.1.​ ​The​​following​​appeals​​have​​been​​preferred​​before​​this​​Court,​​assailing​
​the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence.​
​a)​ ​Crl. A. No. 601 of 2023 is filed by the 1st accused;​
​b)​ ​Crl. A. No. 602 of 2023 is filed by accused Nos. 2 and 5;​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​24​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​c)​ ​Crl. A. No. 598 of 2023 is filed by accused Nos. 3, 6, & 8 to 10;​
​d)​ ​Crl. A. No. 604 of 2023 is filed by accused Nos. 7, 12, 13, 14 and 15;​
​e)​ ​Crl. A No. 676 of 2023 is filed by the 16th accused;​
​f)​ ​Crl. A. No. 661 of 2023 is the appeal preferred by the State; and​
​g)​ ​CRA(V)​ ​No.​ ​27​ ​of​ ​2024​ ​is​ ​the​ ​appeal​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​mother​ ​of​ ​the​
​deceased, being the victim.​
​3.2.​ ​While​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​seek​ ​acquittal​ ​on​ ​all​ ​charges,​ ​the​ ​State​ ​and​ ​the​
​victim​​challenge​​the​​acquittal​​of​​accused​​Nos.​​4​​and​​11​​and​​seek​​conviction​​of​​all​​the​
​accused​​under​​Section​​302​​of​​the​​IPC​​and​​Sections​​3(2)(v)​​and​​3(2)(va)​​of​​the​​SC/ST​
​(PoA)​​Act.​​The​​scope​​of​​appellate​​reappreciation​​in​​such​​a​​case,​​where​​both​​acquittal​
​and​​conviction​​are​​under​​challenge,​​is​​well​​settled.​​The​​Appellate​​Court​​has​​full​​power​​to​
​review,​ ​reappreciate,​ ​and​ ​reconsider​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​evidence,​​both​​on​​facts​​and​​law,​​and​
​1​
​may​​arrive​​at​​its​​own​​conclusions,​​as​​held​​in​ ​Chandrappa​ ​v.​​State​​Of​​Karnataka​ ​.​
​However,​​this​​power​​must​​be​​exercised​​with​​caution,​​particularly​​when​​dealing​​with​​an​
​order​ ​of​ ​acquittal,​ ​which​ ​carries​ ​a​ ​double​ ​presumption​ ​of​​innocence​​in​​favour​​of​​the​
​accused.​
​4.​ ​The Prosecution Case: A synopsis:​
​4.1.​ ​Madhu,​ ​son​​of​​Mallan,​​was​​a​​resident​​of​​Chindakki​​Ooru,​​Mukkali.​​He​
​was​​a​​member​​of​​the​​Mudugar​​community,​​a​​Scheduled​​Tribe.​​He​​suffered​​from​​a​​mild​
​mental​​illness​​and​​led​​a​​nomadic​​life,​​and​​used​​to​​reside​​in​​the​​Silent​​Valley​​Reserved​
​1​
​[​ 2007 INSC 142]​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​25​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Forest​ ​area​ ​away​ ​from​​his​​family.​​From​​time​​to​​time,​​he​​would​​come​​down​​from​​the​
​forest​​and​​take​​food​​and​​other​​items​​from​​shops​​at​​Mukkali​​without​​the​​permission​​of​
​the​​shop​​owners.​​This​​irked​​the​​accused,​​who​​were​​residents​​of​​Mukkali​​and​​the​​nearby​
​areas, and they wanted to teach him a lesson.​
​4.2.​ ​On​ ​22nd​ ​of​ ​February​ ​2018,​ ​at​ ​around​ ​12.15​ ​p.m.,​ ​the​ ​2nd​ ​accused​
​received​​information​​from​​CW19​​that​​Madhu​​had​​been​​spotted​​in​​the​​Ajmudi​​forest​​area​
​within​​the​​Vandikkadavu​​Teak​​Plantation.​​He​​conveyed​​the​​said​​information​​to​​the​​9th​
​accused​​over​​the​​mobile​​phone.​​The​​9th​​accused​​informed​​the​​3rd​​accused,​​who​​then​
​passed​​the​​information​​to​​the​​remaining​​accused​​persons.​​This​​passing​​of​​information​
​ignited​​a​​chain​​of​​events.​​Accused​​Nos.​​3,​​5,​​6,​​7,​​8,​​and​​12​​arrived​​in​​an​​autorickshaw​
​bearing​​Registration​​No.​​KL-50-D-2908​​owned​​by​​the​​10th​​accused​​in​​front​​of​​the​​shop​
​of​​the​​9th​​accused.​​Around​​the​​same​​time,​​Accused​​No.​​13​​arrived​​on​​his​​motorcycle​
​and​ ​conferred​ ​with​ ​the​ ​9th​ ​accused.​ ​The​ ​prosecution​ ​alleged​ ​that​ ​by​ ​approximately​
​12.30​ ​p.m.,​ ​this​ ​group​ ​had​ ​assembled​ ​and​ ​formed​ ​an​ ​unlawful​ ​assembly,​ ​with​ ​the​
​common​​object​​of​​abducting​​Madhu​​from​​the​​forest,​​causing​​him​​grievous​​injuries,​​and​
​ultimately causing his death.​
​4.3.​ ​Acting​ ​in​ ​furtherance​ ​of​ ​their​ ​common​ ​object,​ ​at​ ​about​ ​12.40​ ​p.m.,​
​Accused​​Nos.​​3,​​5,​​6,​​7,​​8,​​9,​​10,​​and​​12​​travelled​​to​​the​​Vandikkadavu​​Teak​​Plantation​
​in​​a​​Marshal​​Jeep​​belonging​​to​​the​​ninth​​accused,​​while​​Accused​​No.​​13​​followed​​on​​his​
​motorcycle.​ ​After​ ​parking​ ​their​ ​vehicles,​ ​they​ ​joined​ ​the​ ​2nd​ ​accused​ ​and​ ​unlawfully​
​entered​​the​​reserved​​forest.​​The​​group​​trekked​​nearly​​two​​kilometres​​through​​the​​forest​
​terrain​​along​​the​​Bhavani​​River,​​within​​Padavayal​​Village​​of​​Mannarkkad​​Taluk,​​beneath​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​26​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Ajmudi​​Hill.​​At​​about​​1.10​​p.m.,​​they​​reached​​a​​rocky​​outcrop​​known​​as​​Andiyallachaal,​
​where they spotted Madhu.​
​4.4.​ ​The​ ​prosecution​ ​alleged​ ​that​​the​​accused,​​after​​forcibly​​apprehending​
​Madhu,​​stripped​​him​​of​​his​​clothing,​​tied​​his​​hands​​behind​​his​​back​​using​​his​​own​​dhoti,​
​and​​began​​to​​assault​​him.​​They​​are​​alleged​​to​​have​​punched​​and​​kicked​​him​​repeatedly​
​on​​his​​face​​and​​back,​​while​​preventing​​him​​from​​escaping.​​Accused​​Nos.​​5,​​7,​​8,​​and​​9​
​recorded​ ​the​ ​capture​ ​and​ ​subsequent​ ​abuse​ ​on​ ​their​ ​mobile​ ​phones,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​8th​
​accused​ ​deliberately​ ​circulated​ ​these​ ​videos​ ​on​ ​social​ ​media​ ​platforms​​with​​the​​clear​
​intention​ ​of​​garnering​​views​​of​​Madhu's​​public​​humiliation.​​To​​further​​immobilise​​him,​
​the​​3rd​​accused​​tied​​his​​right​​hand​​with​​a​​zip​​cord​​taken​​from​​a​​bag.​​The​​10th​​accused​
​then​ ​placed​ ​a​ ​heavy​ ​sack​ ​containing​ ​rice​ ​and​ ​other​ ​items​ ​on​ ​Madhu's​ ​shoulders.​
​Throughout​​this​​ordeal,​​the​​accused​​persons​​hurled​​continuous​​verbal​​abuse​​at​​Madhu,​
​branding​​him​​a​​thief.​​The​​2nd​​accused​​held​​the​​zip​​cord​​restraining​​his​​hands​​while​​the​
​7th​​accused​​gripped​​his​​left​​hand,​​forcing​​him​​to​​walk​​forward​​as​​the​​degrading​​abuse​
​continued​ ​without​ ​pause​ ​through​ ​the​ ​mountainous​ ​terrain.​​In​​the​​meantime,​​the​​3rd​
​accused​​contacted​​Accused​​No.​​14​​and​​informed​​him​​of​​the​​capture​​and​​the​​movements​
​of​ ​the​ ​group.​ ​On​ ​receiving​ ​the​ ​above​ ​information,​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​14​ ​drove​ ​to​ ​the​
​Vandikkadavu​​area​​and​​unlawfully​​entered​​the​​forest​​and​​joined​​the​​group.​​Accused​​No.​
​15​ ​also​ ​arrived​ ​at​ ​the​ ​scene​ ​and​​joined​​the​​assembly​​and​​they​​were​​having​​full​​and​
​conscious​​knowledge​​of​​its​​violent​​purpose.​​Accused​​No.​​14​​allegedly​​assaulted​​Madhu​
​by​​beating​​him​​on​​his​​back​​and​​recorded​​videos​​of​​the​​assault.​​Accused​​Nos.​​2,​​6,​​7,​​9,​
​and​​10​​continued​​to​​punch​​repeatedly.​​The​​3rd​​accused​​struck​​him​​on​​the​​back​​with​​a​
​wooden​ ​stick​ ​causing​ ​the​ ​fracture​​of​​one​​of​​his​​ribs.​​The​​accused​​thereafter​​brought​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​27​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Madhu​ ​out​ ​of​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​to​ ​the​ ​shed​ ​at​ ​Vandikkadavu,​ ​from​ ​where​​they​​forced​​him,​
​half-naked,​​bound,​​and​​visibly​​injured​​to​​walk​​nearly​​three​​kilometres​​along​​the​​public​
​road to Mukkali Junction.​
​4.5.​ ​At​​about​​2:30​​p.m.,​​Madhu​​was​​brought​​in​​front​​of​​Sreerag​​Bakery​​Cool​
​Bar​​at​​Mukkali​​Junction.​​Here,​​Accused​​Nos.​​4,​​11,​​and​​16​​are​​alleged​​to​​have​​joined​​the​
​unlawful​​assembly.​​The​​11th​​accused​​loudly​​abused​​Madhu​​in​​public,​​calling​​him​​a​​thief,​
​while​​the​​16th​​accused​​assaulted​​him​​by​​delivering​​a​​knee​​blow​​to​​his​​back.​​Accused​
​Nos.​​4​​and​​8​​once​​again​​recorded​​videos​​of​​the​​incident​​and​​circulated​​them​​on​​social​
​media.​​The​​accused​​then​​forced​​Madhu​​to​​sit​​near​​the​​hundi​​(offering​​box)​​of​​Ponmala​
​Dharmasastha​ ​Temple,​ ​situated​ ​close​ ​to​ ​the​ ​northern​​wall​​near​​the​​bakery​​premises.​
​Accused​​No.​​15​​continued​​to​​restrain​​Madhu​​by​​holding​​the​​zip​​cord​​tied​​to​​his​​hand​​and​
​punched him on the shoulder.​
​4.6.​ ​Meanwhile,​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​accused​ ​arrived​ ​at​ ​the​ ​scene​ ​in​ ​his​ ​vehicle,​ ​fully​
​aware​ ​of​ ​the​ ​ongoing​ ​assault​ ​and​ ​knowingly​ ​joined​ ​the​ ​unlawful​ ​assembly.​ ​It​ ​was​
​alleged​ ​that​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​accused​ ​was​ ​motivated​ ​by​ ​a​ ​personal​ ​grievance​ ​against​ ​Madhu​
​owing​ ​to​ ​alleged​ ​thefts​ ​from​ ​his​ ​shop.​ ​The​ ​1st​ ​accused​ ​is​ ​alleged​ ​to​ ​have​ ​stamped​
​forcefully​ ​on​ ​Madhu's​ ​chest​ ​as​ ​he​ ​sat​ ​against​ ​the​ ​temple​ ​wall.​ ​The​ ​impact​ ​caused​
​Madhu's​ ​head​ ​to​ ​strike​ ​the​ ​wall​ ​violently,​ ​inflicting​ ​grievous​ ​injuries​ ​which​ ​ultimately​
​proved fatal.​
​4.7.​ ​In​​the​​meantime,​​the​​police​​reached​​Mukkali​​at​​about​​3:00​​p.m.,​​and​
​took​​Madhu​​into​​custody.​​While​​on​​the​​way​​to​​Mele​​Thavalam,​​Madhu​​became​​unwell.​
​The​ ​Jeep​ ​was​ ​stopped​ ​briefly​ ​to​ ​enable​ ​Madhu​ ​to​ ​vomit.​ ​Madhu​ ​then​ ​became​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​28​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​unresponsive.​​The​​police​​jeep​​reached​​Agali​​Community​​Health​​Centre​​(CHC)​​at​​about​
​4:15​​pm.​​The​​duty​​doctor,​​Dr.​​Lima​​Francis,​​examined​​Madhu​​and​​“declared​​him​​brought​
​dead”.​
​5.​ ​Registration of the Crime, Investigation and Filing​​of Chargesheet:​
​5.1.​ ​PW83,​​the​​then​​Sub​​Inspector​​of​​Agali​​Police​​Station,​​registered​​Crime​
​No.​​87​​of​​2018​​under​​Section​​174​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C.​​at​​5.15​​p.m.,​​on​​22​​February​​2018.​​Due​
​to​ ​a​ ​power​ ​failure​ ​at​ ​the​ ​Police​ ​Station​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time,​ ​Ext.​ ​P81​ ​FIR​ ​was​ ​manually​
​registered.​​Ext.​​P80​​FIS​​was​​based​​on​​the​​notes​​taken​​by​​PW83​​at​​Mukkali,​​where​​he​
​had​​noted​​the​​names​​and​​addresses​​of​​seven​​persons​​present​​there​​who​​had​​informed​
​him about the incident.​
​5.2.​ ​After​ ​shifting​ ​Madhu's​ ​body​ ​to​ ​the​ ​mortuary,​ ​the​ ​Sub​ ​Collector​ ​of​
​Ottapalam​ ​(PW67)​ ​conducted​ ​an​ ​inquest​ ​on​ ​the​ ​body​ ​of​ ​Madhu​ ​at​ ​Agali​ ​CHC​ ​and​
​prepared​ ​Ext.P1​ ​Inquest​ ​Report.​ ​As​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​inquest,​ ​the​ ​Sub​ ​Collector​ ​recorded​
​statements​​of​​five​​persons.​​The​​MO26​​series​​clothes​​of​​Madhu​​were​​seized​​at​​the​​time​
​of the inquest. The body was then sent for postmortem examination.​
​5.3.​ ​The​ ​postmortem​ ​examination​ ​was​​conducted​​on​​24​​February​​2018​​at​
​the​ ​Government​ ​Medical​ ​College​ ​Hospital,​ ​Thrissur,​ ​by​ ​PW86,​ ​Professor​ ​of​ ​Forensic​
​Medicine​​and​​Police​​Surgeon,​​who​​also​​accompanied​​the​​Sub​​Collector.​​The​​postmortem​
​examination​ ​revealed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​death​​was​​a​​case​​of​​homicide.​​The​​entire​​postmortem​
​was​ ​video-recorded​ ​by​ ​PW103​ ​(DCRB​ ​photographer)​ ​and​ ​the​ ​same​ ​was​ ​saved​ ​in​
​Ext.P167​ ​SD​ ​Card.​ ​The​ ​biological​ ​materials​ ​collected​ ​during​ ​postmortem​ ​were​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​29​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​subsequently​ ​seized​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer​ ​as​ ​per​ ​Ext.P56​ ​seizure​ ​mahazar​ ​on​
​25.02.2018. Ext.P82 is the Postmortem Certificate.​
​5.4.​ ​PW97,​ ​the​ ​then​ ​Deputy​ ​Superintendent​ ​of​ ​Police,​ ​SMS​ ​&​ ​Agali​
​Sub-Division,​​Agali,​​took​​over​​the​​investigation​​on​​23.02.2018​​as​​per​​the​​direction​​of​​the​
​Inspector​​General​​of​​Police.​​He​​seized​​MO26​​series​​clothes​​worn​​by​​Madhu​​at​​the​​time​
​of​​his​​death​​as​​per​​Ext.P61​​seizure​​mahazar.​​These​​dresses​​had​​been​​collected​​by​​the​
​Sub-Divisional​ ​Magistrate​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​the​ ​inquest.​ ​Scientific​ ​Officer,​ ​Rini​ ​Thomas,​
​(PW64)​​of​​DCRB,​​Thrissur,​​collected​​food​​articles,​​remnants​​of​​vomit​​and​​faeces​​from​
​the​ ​police​​jeep​​bearing​​Registration​​No.​​KL-01-BW-5724​​in​​which​​Madhu​​was​​brought​
​from​​Mukkali.​​She​​also​​collected​​food​​materials​​from​​the​​forest​​at​​Aandiyallachaal.​​These​
​samples were packed, sealed, labelled, and seized.​
​5.5.​ ​The​​Investigating​​Officer​​then​​prepared​​the​​scene​​mahazar​​of​​the​​place​
​of​​occurrence​​at​​Mukkali​​junction.​​The​​sack​​and​​material​​objects​​that​​were​​in​​the​​police​
​jeep​​during​​custody​​were​​seized​​as​​MO3​​series,​​sack​​and​​items​​inside​​—​​MO16,​​MO31,​
​MO20,​ ​MO34,​ ​MO18,​ ​MO21,​ ​MO36,​ ​MO37,​ ​MO12​ ​and​ ​MO2​ ​zip​ ​used​ ​to​ ​tie​ ​Madhu's​
​hands, were produced as Ext.P99 property list.​
​5.6.​ ​At​​about​​4.00​​p.m.,​​the​​Investigating​​Officer,​​along​​with​​his​​team​​and​
​Scientific​​Officer​​Rini​​Thomas,​​visited​​the​​Aandiyallachaal​​Reserved​​Forest,​​where​​Madhu​
​was​​allegedly​​apprehended​​by​​the​​accused.​​The​​Investigating​​Officer​​was​​accompanied​
​by​ ​PW62,​ ​the​ ​Section​ ​Officer​ ​of​ ​Mukkali​ ​Forest​ ​Station,​ ​along​ ​with​ ​forest​ ​watchers​
​Perumal​​and​​Panali.​​They​​seized​​food​​articles,​​spices,​​a​​big​​shopper​​bag,​​and​​a​​range​​of​
​material objects and the same were produced as Ext.P100 property list.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​30​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​5.7.​ ​On​​24.02.2018,​​all​​16​​accused​​were​​formally​​arrested​​as​​per​​Ext.P101​
​series​ ​to​ ​P103​ ​series​ ​arrest​ ​memos,​ ​arrest​ ​intimations,​ ​and​ ​inspection​ ​memos.​ ​The​
​Investigating​ ​Officer​ ​then​ ​prepared​ ​a​ ​section​ ​alteration​ ​report​ ​on​ ​24.02.2018,​
​incorporating​​penal​​provisions​​into​​what​​had​​previously​​been​​registered​​as​​an​​unnatural​
​death​​under​​Section​​174​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C.​​On​​24.02.2018,​​the​​Investigating​​Officer​​filed​​a​
​report​​requesting​​the​​Sub​​Divisional​​Magistrate,​​Ottapalam​​to​​transfer​​the​​records​​of​​the​
​case​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Sessions​ ​Court.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​filed​ ​a​ ​report​ ​on​ ​the​ ​same​ ​day​ ​furnishing​ ​the​
​complete addresses of all accused.​
​5.8.​ ​On​​25.02.2018,​​the​​accused​​persons​​were​​produced​​before​​court​​along​
​with Ext.P112 remand report.​
​5.9.​ ​Materials​​collected​​by​​the​​Doctor​​during​​postmortem​​were​​seized​​by​​the​
​Investigating​ ​Officer​ ​on​ ​25.02.2018,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​same​ ​were​ ​produced​ ​as​ ​per​ ​Ext.P113​
​property​​list.​​Blood​​samples​​of​​all​​16​​accused​​were​​collected​​by​​the​​Nursing​​Assistant​​of​
​Tribal Speciality Hospital, Kottathara (PW61).​
​5.10.​ ​Vehicle​ ​bearing​ ​registration​ ​No.KL-32-B-5259​ ​(Mahindra​ ​Xylo​ ​used​ ​by​
​Accused​​No.​​1)​​was​​seized​​as​​per​​Ext.P28​​seizure​​mahazar;​​KL-11-H-8559​​(Marshal​​Jeep​
​used​​by​​Accused​​No.​​9)​​was​​seized​​as​​per​​Ext.P29​​seizure​​mahazar,​​and​​the​​same​​were​
​produced as Ext.P116 property list.​
​5.11.​ ​Manual​​GD​​(Ext.P85)​​of​​Agali​​Police​​Station​​seized​​on​​25.02.2018​​as​​per​
​Ext.P119 seizure mahazar.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​31​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​5.12.​ ​On​ ​26.2.2018,​ ​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer,​ ​with​ ​the​ ​assistance​ ​of​ ​Vinu,​
​CPO​​from​​District​​Cyber​​Cell,​​Palakkad,​​examined​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​of​​Sreerag​​Bakery.​
​The DVR (MO28) and adapter [MO28(a)] were seized as per Ext.P120 seizure mahazar.​
​5.13.​ ​Photographs​ ​of​ ​all​ ​accused​ ​were​ ​taken​ ​at​ ​Lamiya​ ​Studio​ ​(Ext.P30​
​series), by PW38 and the same were seized as per Ext.P69 seizure mahazar.​
​5.14.​ ​The​ ​caste​ ​certificates​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​persons​ ​and​ ​Ext.P39​ ​caste​
​certificate of the deceased Madhu were collected through PW51 Tahsildar, Mannarkkad.​
​5.15.​ ​The​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer​ ​seized​ ​multiple​ ​mobile​ ​phones​ ​from​ ​the​
​accused​​persons,​​each​​seizure​​being​​duly​​recorded​​through​​separate​​seizure​​mahazars.​
​MO27(d)​​was​​seized​​from​​Accused​​No.​​4​​(Aneesh),​​as​​per​​Ext.P66​​and​​produced​​under​
​Ext.P104​ ​property​ ​list.​ ​MO27,​ ​along​ ​with​ ​MO27(e)​ ​memory​ ​card,​ ​was​ ​seized​ ​from​
​Accused​ ​No.​ ​7​ ​(Sidhique),​ ​under​ ​Ext.P62​ ​and​ ​produced​ ​as​ ​Ext.P105.​ ​MO27(a)​ ​was​
​recovered​ ​from​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​5​ ​(Radhakrishnan),​ ​as​ ​per​ ​Ext.P63​ ​and​​produced​​under​
​Ext.P106.​ ​MO27(b)​ ​was​ ​seized​ ​from​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​9​ ​(Najeeb),​ ​under​ ​Ext.P64​ ​and​
​produced​​as​​Ext.P107​​dated​​05.03.2018,​​while​​MO27(c)​​was​​seized​​from​​Accused​​No.​​8​
​(Ubaid),​ ​under​ ​Ext.P65​ ​and​ ​produced​ ​as​ ​Ext.P108​ ​of​ ​the​ ​same​​date.​​Further,​​MO25,​
​belonging​​to​​Accused​​No.​​14​​(Hareesh),​​was​​produced​​by​​his​​relative​​Aanand​​and​​seized​
​in​​accordance​​with​​Ext.P58,​​and​​subsequently​​included​​in​​Ext.P137.​​The​​contents​​of​​all​
​these​​mobile​​phones,​​comprising​​photographs​​and​​videos​​relating​​to​​the​​assault​​and​​of​
​Madhu,​​were​​extracted​​and​​stored​​in​​Ext.P92(a)​​pen​​drive,​​accompanied​​by​​a​​certificate​
​under Section 65B of the Evidence Act issued by the Cyber Forensic authority.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​32​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​5.16.​ ​The​​CCTV​​footage​​of​​Ponniyammal​​Gurukulam,​​which​​was​​contained​​in​
​DVR​​(MO29)​​and​​adapter​​[MO29(a)]​​were​​seized​​as​​per​​Ext.P31​​seizure​​mahazar​​and​
​produced as per Ext.P128 property list.​
​5.17.​ ​The​​call​​data​​records​​of​​the​​accused​​were​​also​​obtained​​and​​seized​​as​
​per Ext.P59 seizure mahazar.​
​5.18.​ ​On​​4.3.2018,​​the​​Xylo​​Car​​bearing​​Registration​​No.​​KL-32-B-5959,​​used​
​by​​Accused​​No.​​15​​was​​seized​​as​​per​​Ext.P15​​and​​the​​same​​was​​produced​​as​​Ext.P130​
​property​​list.​​The​​Motorcycle​​bearing​​Registration​​No.​​KL-05-AJ-498​​used​​by​​Accused​​No.​
​13​ ​was​ ​seized​ ​as​ ​per​ ​Ext.P32​ ​seizure​ ​mahazar​ ​and​ ​the​ ​same​ ​was​ ​produced​ ​as​ ​per​
​Ext.P131 property list.​
​5.19.​ ​The​​recovery​​of​​MO24,​​the​​wooden​​stick​​allegedly​​used​​in​​the​​assault​​of​
​Madhu,​ ​was​ ​effected​ ​pursuant​ ​to​ ​the​ ​confession​ ​statement​ ​of​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​3​
​(Shamsudheen),​​marked​​as​​Ext.P132.​​Acting​​on​​this​​disclosure,​​the​​Investigating​​Officer​
​recovered​ ​the​ ​said​ ​weapon​ ​in​ ​the​ ​presence​ ​of​ ​witnesses.​ ​The​ ​recovered​ ​article​ ​was​
​subsequently​ ​produced​ ​and​ ​included​ ​in​ ​the​ ​property​ ​list​ ​as​ ​Ext.P133.​ ​Further,​ ​the​
​autorickshaw​ ​bearing​ ​registration​ ​No.​ ​KL-50-D-2908,​ ​allegedly​ ​connected​ ​with​ ​the​
​incident,​​was​​seized​​under​​Ext.P70​​seizure​​mahazar​​and​​produced​​as​​Ext.P134​​property​
​list.​
​5.20.​ ​On​​05.03.2018,​​the​​Investigating​​Officer​​seized​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​from​
​the​​Anavai​​Forest​​Station,​​including​​the​​DVR​​(MO23)​​and​​its​​adapter​​[MO23(a)],​​as​​per​
​Ext.P44​ ​seizure​ ​mahazar,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​same​ ​were​ ​produced​ ​under​​Ext.P127​​property​​list.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​33​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​PW56,​​a​​Forest​​Department​​official,​​was​​a​​signatory​​to​​the​​said​​mahazar.​​The​​relevant​
​CCTV​​visuals​​from​​various​​sources,​​including​​Sreerag​​Bakery,​​Ponniyammal​​Gurukulam,​
​and​​Anavai​​Forest​​Station,​​were​​subsequently​​extracted​​by​​PW72​​Vinu,​​Cyber​​Cell​​Expert​
​of​​the​​District​​Cyber​​Cell,​​Palakkad,​​and​​stored​​in​​a​​DVD​​(MO30),​​as​​recorded​​in​​Ext.P72​
​seizure​​mahazar.​​Further,​​Ext.P34​​comprises​​the​​sketch​​and​​scene​​plan​​of​​the​​reserved​
​forest,​ ​while​ ​Ext.P45​ ​contains​ ​details​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​layout​ ​of​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​area.​ ​The​
​registration​ ​particulars​ ​of​ ​all​ ​vehicles​​involved​​in​​the​​incident​​were​​obtained​​from​​the​
​Joint​ ​RTO,​ ​Mannarkkad,​ ​and​ ​are​ ​marked​ ​as​ ​Ext.P47​ ​series.​ ​Additionally,​ ​the​ ​medical​
​treatment​ ​records​ ​of​ ​Madhu​ ​from​ ​institutions​ ​including​ ​the​ ​Mental​ ​Health​ ​Centre,​
​Kozhikode,​​and​​the​​Government​​Tribal​​Specialty​​Hospital,​​Kottathara,​​were​​seized​​as​​per​
​Ext.P67 seizure mahazar and produced under Ext.P145 property list.​
​5.21.​ ​On​ ​17.03.2018,​ ​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer​ ​seized​ ​the​ ​Facebook​ ​and​
​WhatsApp​ ​visuals​ ​that​ ​had​ ​been​ ​circulated​ ​by​ ​the​ ​accused​​persons​​in​​the​​WhatsApp​
​group​ ​titled​ ​“Voice​ ​of​ ​Attappadi”​ ​and​ ​on​ ​Facebook,​ ​as​ ​recorded​ ​in​ ​Ext.P76​ ​seizure​
​mahazar.​​Screenshots​​of​​these​​visuals,​​marked​​as​​Ext.P35,​​Ext.P38,​​and​​Ext.P143​​series,​
​were​​produced​​through​​CW63​​(Nikhul)​​and​​included​​in​​Ext.P144​​property​​list.​​Further,​
​the​ ​Internet​ ​Protocol​ ​Detail​ ​Records​ ​(IPDR)​ ​evidencing​ ​the​ ​usage​ ​of​ ​Facebook​ ​by​
​Accused​​No.​​8​​(Ubaid)​​and​​Accused​​No.​​4​​(Aneesh),​​were​​seized​​under​​Ext.P74​​seizure​
​mahazar.​​The​​corresponding​​Facebook​​business​​records,​​along​​with​​the​​certificate​​under​
​Section​ ​65B​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Evidence​ ​Act,​ ​were​ ​produced​ ​as​ ​Ext.P68​ ​series,​ ​Ext.P91,​ ​and​
​Ext.P91(a), and collectively included in Ext.P157 Form 15.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​34​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​5.22.​ ​The​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer​ ​(PW97)​ ​filed​ ​the​ ​final​ ​report​​on​​22.05.2018​
​before​ ​the​ ​Special​ ​Court​ ​For​ ​SC/ST​ ​(PoA)​ ​Act​ ​Cases/Additional​ ​Sessions​ ​Court,​
​Mannarkkad,​​against​​all​​16​​accused​​persons,​​alleging​​commission​​of​​offences​​punishable​
​under​​Sections​​143,​​147,​​148,​​294(b),​​323,​​324,​​326,​​302,​​342,​​352,​​364,​​367​​and​​368​
​r/w.​​Section​​149​​of​​the​​Indian​​Penal​​Code,​​as​​well​​as​​under​​Sections​​3(1)(d),​​3(1)(r),​
​3(2)(v)​ ​and​ ​3(2)(va)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​SC/ST​ ​(PoA)​ ​Act.​ ​Along​ ​with​ ​the​ ​final​ ​report,​ ​the​
​Investigating​​Officer​​submitted​​Ext.P155​​report​​seeking​​incorporation​​of​​Section​​352​​of​
​the​​IPC​​and​​Ext.P156​​report​​for​​deletion​​of​​Section​​27(1)(e)(iv)​​of​​the​​Kerala​​Forest​​Act.​
​The​​Investigating​​Officer​​also​​filed​​Ext.P158​​report​​detailing​​the​​mobile​​phones​​used​​by​
​the​ ​accused​ ​persons​ ​and​ ​Ext.P110​ ​report​ ​requesting​ ​the​ ​Sub-Divisional​ ​Magistrate,​
​Ottapalam, to transmit the case records to the Sessions Court.​
​6.​ ​The Course of Trial:​
​6.1.​ ​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Court​​took​​cognizance​​of​​the​​offence​​and​​on​​the​
​appearance​​of​​the​​accused,​​the​​charges​​were​​framed​​by​​following​​the​​procedure.​​The​
​charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty.​
​6.2.​ ​In​​the​​trial​​which​​followed,​​the​​prosecution​​examined​​PW1​​to​​PW103​​to​
​prove​​its​​case.​​Exts.​​P1​​to​​P168​​were​​exhibited​​and​​marked.​​MO1​​to​​MO37​​(a)​​were​​also​
​produced​ ​and​​identified.​​Upon​​closure​​of​​the​​prosecution​​evidence,​​the​​accused​​were​
​examined​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​313​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Code​ ​of​ ​Criminal​ ​Procedure.​ ​During​ ​such​
​examination,​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​denied​ ​all​ ​incriminating​ ​circumstances​ ​and​ ​allegations​
​appearing​​in​​the​​evidence​​against​​them.​​Thereafter,​​the​​matter​​was​​considered​​under​
​Section​​232​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C.​​As​​the​​Court​​found​​that​​the​​case​​was​​not​​fit​​for​​passing​​an​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​35​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​order​ ​of​ ​acquittal​ ​at​ ​that​ ​stage,​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​were​ ​called​ ​upon​ ​to​ ​adduce​ ​defence​
​evidence.​​Accordingly,​​DW1​​to​​DW8​​were​​examined​​on​​behalf​​of​​the​​defence​​and​​Exts.​
​D1 to D30 were marked.​
​7.​ ​Summary of the Judgment assailed in these Appeals​:​
​7.1.​ ​The​​trial​​court,​​after​​an​​elaborate​​appreciation​​of​​evidence,​​recorded​​the​
​following findings:​
​a)​ ​The​​identity​​of​​Madhu​​as​​a​​member​​of​​a​​Scheduled​​Tribe​​stood​​clearly​
​proved.​ ​The​ ​caste​ ​certificates​ ​marked​ ​as​​Ext.P39​​and​​Ext.P163,​​issued​​by​​competent​
​authorities,​ ​established​ ​that​ ​Madhu​ ​belonged​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Hindu-Mudugar​​Scheduled​​Tribe.​
​The​​court​​held​​that​​the​​bare​​denial​​by​​the​​accused​​was​​wholly​​insufficient​​to​​rebut​​the​
​statutory presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.​
​b)​ ​With​ ​respect​ ​to​ ​electronic​ ​evidence,​ ​the​ ​court​ ​found​ ​the​ ​same​​to​​be​
​admissible​ ​and​ ​reliable.​ ​The​ ​CCTV​ ​footage,​ ​mobile​ ​phone​ ​videos,​ ​and​ ​other​ ​digital​
​records​ ​were​ ​produced​ ​in​ ​original​ ​through​ ​PW95,​ ​an​ ​expert​ ​from​ ​the​ ​State​ ​Cyber​
​Forensic​​Laboratory,​​along​​with​​certificates​​under​​Section​​65B​​of​​the​​Evidence​​Act.​​In​
​the​ ​absence​ ​of​ ​any​ ​material​ ​indicating​ ​tampering,​ ​the​ ​court​ ​admitted​ ​the​ ​evidence,​
​placing​​reliance​​on​​the​​principles​​laid​​down​​in​ ​Mukesh​​&​​Ors.​​v.​​State​​for​​NCT​​of​
​2​ ​3​
​Delhi & Ors​ ​and​ ​Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal​ ​.​
​2​
​[​ AIR 2017 SC 2161].​
​3​
​[2020 SCC OnLine SC 571]​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​36​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​c)​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​profusely​ ​relied​ ​on​ ​CCTV​ ​footage​ ​from​
​Mukkali​ ​Junction,​ ​which​ ​visually​ ​captured​ ​the​ ​presence​ ​of​ ​Madhu​ ​in​ ​a​ ​restrained​
​condition,​ ​the​ ​gathering​​of​​accused​​persons,​​the​​physical​​positioning​​near​​the​​temple​
​hundi​​area​​and​​the​​sequence​​of​​events​​immediately​​preceding​​Madhu’s​​collapse.​ ​The​
​Court​​accepted​​the​​footage​​to​​establish​​the​​presence​​and​​conduct​​of​​the​​accused​​at​​the​
​crime scene.​
​d)​ ​The​​trial​​court​​after​​evaluation​​of​​the​​evidence​​noticed​​that​​as​​almost​​all​
​eyewitnesses​​turned​​hostile,​​the​​prosecution​​case​​had​​to​​be​​evaluated​​on​​the​​basis​​of​
​electronic​​evidence,​​namely,​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​and​​mobile​​phone​​video​​recordings.​​The​
​court​​relied​​on​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​from​​Sreerag​​Bakery​​(Q2​​file),​​Anavai​​Forest​​Station​
​(Q1​​file),​​and​​Ponniyammal​​Gurukulam​​(Q3​​file),​​as​​well​​as​​the​​photos​​and​​videos​​in​​the​
​mobile​​phones​​marked​​as​​Q5,​​Q6,​​and​​Q7​​stored​​in​​Ext.P92(a)​​pen-drive,​​to​​attribute​
​specific overt acts to the accused.​
​e)​ ​In​ ​respect​ ​of​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​1,​ ​the​ ​court​ ​concluded​ ​that​ ​the​ ​relevant​
​incident​​was​​captured​​between​​3.36.10​​and​​3.36.13​​in​​Camera​​1​​and​​Camera​​3​​of​​the​
​Sreerag​​Bakery​​CCTV​​footage​​(Q2​​file).​​The​​oral​​evidence​​of​​PW8​​(Suresh)​​and​​PW19​
​(Manikandan),​​who​​claimed​​to​​have​​witnessed​​the​​act,​​was​​discarded,​​as​​according​​to​
​the​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge,​ ​the​ ​CCTV​ ​clearly​ ​showed​ ​that​ ​both​ ​witnesses​ ​were​ ​not​
​present​​at​​the​​scene​​at​​the​​relevant​​time.​​PW8​​had​​moved​​towards​​Keeripaara​​road​​at​
​3.35.05​​p.m.​​and​​returned​​only​​at​​3.52.05​​p.m.,​​while​​PW19​​was​​positioned​​near​​Joly’s​
​shop,​​about​​50–100​​meters​​away,​​and​​had​​already​​left​​in​​an​​autorickshaw.​​The​​CCTV​
​footage​​revealed​​that​​the​​1st​​accused​​entered​​the​​gathering​​at​​3.35.15​​p.m.,​​and​​within​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​37​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​a​​minute,​​between​​3.36.10​​and​​3.36.13​​seconds,​​a​​sudden​​and​​noticeable​​disturbance​
​occurred​ ​within​​the​​crowd,​​clearly​​visible​​in​​Camera​​3.​​At​​the​​same​​moment,​​the​​7th​
​accused,​ ​who​ ​was​ ​standing​ ​in​ ​front​​of​​Madhu,​​is​​seen​​abruptly​​rising​​and​​raising​​his​
​hands​ ​towards​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​accused,​ ​a​ ​spontaneous​ ​reaction​ ​treated​ ​as​ ​relevant​ ​under​
​Section​ ​6​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Evidence​ ​Act.​ ​Immediately​ ​thereafter,​ ​nearby​ ​persons,​ ​including​
​Accused​​No.​​14,​​rushed​​towards​​the​​spot,​​and​​once​​the​​1st​​accused​​moved​​away,​​those​
​present​ ​were​ ​seen​ ​looking​​in​​his​​direction.​​From​​these​​cumulative​​circumstances,​​the​
​court​ ​concluded​ ​that​ ​the​ ​act​ ​of​ ​stamping​ ​by​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​accused​ ​stood​ ​conclusively​
​established, treating the CCTV as an independent and silent witness.​
​f)​ ​With​ ​respect​ ​to​ ​Accused​ ​Nos.​ ​2,​ ​3,​​5​​to​​10,​​and​​12​​to​​15,​​the​​court​
​relied​ ​extensively​ ​on​ ​the​ ​mobile​ ​phone​ ​recordings.​ ​The​ ​Q7​ ​file,​ ​which​ ​contained​
​audio-visual​​recordings​​primarily​​from​​the​​mobile​​phone​​of​​Accused​​No.​​9,​​revealed​​that​
​a​​substantial​​portion​​of​​the​​assault​​had​​taken​​place​​in​​the​​Aandiyallachaal​​forest​​itself,​​as​
​evidenced​​by​​both​​the​​visual​​content​​and​​the​​accompanying​​voice​​recordings.​​The​​Q6​
​file,​ ​consisting​ ​of​ ​photographs​ ​extracted​ ​from​ ​the​ ​mobile​ ​phone​ ​of​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​5​
​[MO27(a)],​​showed​​the​​initial​​apprehension​​of​​Madhu​​in​​the​​forest​​between​​1.00​​p.m​
​and​ ​1.23​ ​p.m,​ ​which​ ​was​ ​found​ ​to​ ​corroborate​ ​the​ ​timeline​ ​of​ ​events.​ ​The​ ​Q5​ ​file,​
​retrieved​ ​from​ ​the​ ​mobile​ ​phone​ ​of​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​8​ ​[MO27(c)],​ ​depicted​ ​multiple​
​instances​​of​​the​​accused​​surrounding​​and​​assaulting​​Madhu,​​tying​​his​​hands​​first​​with​
​his​ ​own​ ​dhoti​ ​and​ ​later​ ​with​ ​MO2​ ​(black​ ​zip),​ ​placing​ ​a​ ​sack​ ​on​ ​his​ ​shoulders,​ ​and​
​parading​ ​him​ ​through​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​and​ ​along​ ​the​ ​Silent​ ​Valley​ ​road​ ​to​ ​Mukkali.​ ​This​
​sequence​​was​​further​​corroborated​​by​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​from​​Anavai​​Forest​​Station​​(Q1​
​file)​​and​​Ponniyammal​​Gurukulam​​(Q3​​file),​​which​​showed​​the​​group​​walking​​along​​the​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​38​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​public​​road​​with​​Madhu​​in​​a​​semi-nude​​condition.​​Additionally,​​MO24,​​the​​wooden​​stick​
​used​ ​in​ ​the​ ​assault,​ ​was​ ​recovered​ ​from​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​3​ ​pursuant​ ​to​ ​a​ ​confession​
​statement,​​as​​recorded​​in​​Ext.P52​​recovery​​mahazar.​​The​​medical​​evidence​​confirmed​
​that​​this​​weapon​​could​​have​​caused​​Injury​​No.​​12,​​which​​was​​a​​rib​​fracture​​found​​on​​the​
​body of the deceased.​
​g)​ ​The​ ​trial​ ​court​ ​placed​ ​substantial​​reliance​​on​​the​​medical​​evidence​​of​
​PW86,​ ​the​ ​Professor​ ​of​ ​Forensic​ ​Medicine,​ ​Government​ ​Medical​ ​College,​ ​Thrissur,​ ​to​
​determine​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​and​ ​cause​ ​of​ ​death.​ ​The​ ​postmortem​ ​revealed​ ​a​ ​total​ ​of​ ​44​
​ante-mortem​​injuries​​on​​the​​body​​of​​Madhu.​​The​​court​​further​​concluded​​that​​the​​death​
​of​​Madhu​​was​​homicidal.​​Of​​these,​​injuries​​Nos.​​1​​to​​15​​were​​identified​​as​​the​​cause​​of​
​death,​ ​with​ ​injuries​ ​Nos.​ ​1,​ ​2,​ ​3,​ ​and​ ​12​ ​being​ ​categorised​ ​as​ ​serious,​ ​while​ ​the​
​remaining​​injuries​​(Nos.​​4–11​​and​​13–44)​​were​​largely​​minor​​contusions​​and​​abrasions.​
​The​​crucial​​medical​​opinion​​was​​that​​no​​single​​injury,​​taken​​in​​isolation,​​was​​sufficient​​to​
​cause​​death.​​Rather,​​it​​was​​the​​cumulative​​or​​conjoint​​effect​​of​​all​​these​​injuries​​that​
​resulted​​in​​death.​​The​​Doctor​​further​​deposed​​that​​even​​after​​sustaining​​these​​injuries,​
​the​​victim​​could​​have​​continued​​to​​behave​​normally.​​He​​could​​have​​stood,​​walked​​and​
​consumed​ ​food​ ​and​ ​carried​ ​out​ ​such​ ​activities.​​It​​was​​concluded​​on​​the​​basis​​of​​the​
​Doctor’s​ ​evidence​ ​that​ ​death​ ​would​ ​occur​ ​only​ ​after​ ​brain​ ​edema​ ​progressed​ ​over​​a​
​period of 2–3 hours leading to unconsciousness and death.​
​h)​ ​The​ ​defence​ ​contention​ ​alleging​ ​custodial​ ​torture​ ​by​ ​the​ ​police​ ​was​
​rejected.​​The​​argument​​that​​PW83,​​PW84,​​and​​PW89​​had​​caused​​the​​death​​of​​Madhu​
​either​​in​​the​​police​​jeep​​or​​at​​the​​Agali​​Police​​Station​​was​​the​​principal​​defence​​raised​​by​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​39​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​all​​the​​accused.​​No​​material​​was​​brought​​on​​record​​to​​establish​​that​​the​​injuries​​were​
​inflicted​​by​​the​​police.​​The​​theory​​of​​custodial​​torture​​was​​thus​​completely​​disbelieved.​
​The​​time​​when​​Madhu​​was​​picked​​up​​by​​the​​police​​and​​the​​time​​of​​death​​at​​the​​CHC​
​coupled​​with​​the​​evidence​​of​​PW86​​to​​the​​effect​​that​​death​​would​​occur​​only​​after​​brain​
​edema​ ​progressed​ ​over​ ​a​​period​​of​​2–3​​hours​​was​​used​​to​​rule​​out​​police​​torture​​as​
​contended by the defence.​
​i)​ ​The​​motive​​for​​the​​occurrence​​was​​held​​to​​be​​established.​​Evidence​​of​
​PW28​​to​​PW31​​and​​PW91​​disclosed​​a​​series​​of​​thefts​​involving​​food​​and​​minor​​articles​
​from​​shops​​in​​Mukkali​​and​​surrounding​​areas,​​and​​the​​belief​​among​​the​​accused​​that​
​Madhu​​was​​responsible​​for​​the​​same.​​Though​​the​​court​​did​​not​​characterise​​Madhu​​as​​a​
​habitual​ ​thief,​ ​it​ ​held​ ​that​ ​this​ ​belief​ ​constituted​ ​a​ ​relevant​ ​and​ ​established​ ​motive​
​forming part of the chain of circumstances.​
​j)​ ​The​ ​court​ ​held​​that​​the​​prosecution​​failed​​to​​establish​​the​​charge​​under​
​Section​​302​​of​​the​​IPC​​but​​found​​sufficient​​material​​to​​conclude​​that​​the​​accused​​had​
​acted​ ​collectively,​​that​​they​​had​​restrained​​Madhu,​​that​​they​​repeatedly​​assaulted​​the​
​deceased,​ ​and​ ​jointly​ ​contributed​​to​​the​​sequence​​of​​violence.​​Holding​​so,​​they​​were​
​convicted​​for​​the​​offences​​under​​Sections​​143,​​147,​​323,​​324,​​326,​​342​​and​​304​​Part​​II​
​r/w.​ ​Section​ ​149​ ​of​​the​​IPC.​​The​​Court​​held​​that​​the​​common​​object​​of​​the​​unlawful​
​assembly​​was​​not​​to​​murder​​Madhu,​​but​​rather​​to​​apprehend​​him​​and​​hand​​him​​over​​to​
​the​​police.​​This​​conclusion​​was​​based​​on​​multiple​​factors,​​including​​the​​conduct​​of​​the​
​accused​​in​​taking​​Madhu​​to​​Mukkali,​​informing​​the​​police​​in​​advance,​​and​​not​​causing​
​any​​single​​fatal​​injury.​​The​​death,​​according​​to​​the​​court,​​resulted​​from​​the​​cumulative​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​40​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​effect​ ​of​ ​the​ ​injuries​ ​inflicted,​ ​and​ ​not​ ​from​ ​any​ ​premeditated​ ​intention​ ​to​ ​murder.​
​Consequently,​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​were​ ​found​ ​to​ ​have​ ​committed​ ​the​ ​offence​ ​of​ ​culpable​
​homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.​
​k)​ ​Similarly,​​the​​charge​​under​​Section​​364​​of​​the​​IPC​​was​​not​​attracted​​as,​
​according​​to​​the​​Court,​​the​​purpose​​of​​the​​abduction​​was​​not​​to​​kill.​​The​​charge​​under​
​Section​​368​​of​​the​​IPC​​was​​also​​found​​not​​proved​​since​​Madhu​​was​​not​​concealed​​but​
​taken​​through​​public​​spaces​​and​​handed​​over​​openly​​to​​the​​police.​​The​​Court​​further​
​acquitted​​Accused​​Nos.2​​to​​15​​under​​Section​​352​​of​​the​​IPC,​​noting​​that​​their​​actions​
​constituted graver offences involving actual hurt, making the provision inapplicable.​
​l)​ ​Likewise,​​the​​offence​​under​​Section​​368​​of​​the​​IPC​​was​​found​​not​​made​
​out,​​as​​Madhu​​was​​not​​concealed​​but​​was​​in​​fact​​publicly​​paraded​​and​​ultimately​​handed​
​over to the police, with prior intimation having been given by the 3rd accused.​
​m)​ ​Though​​most​​of​​the​​witnesses​​had​​turned​​hostile,​​the​​learned​​Sessions​
​Judge​​relied​​on​​their​​evidence​​to​​hold​​that​​Madhu​​was​​wrongfully​​confined​​at​​Mukkali​
​Junction​​near​​the​​temple​​hundi,​​that​​the​​accused​​were​​present​​at​​the​​scene,​​and​​that​
​the 1st accused had stamped upon the chest of the deceased.​
​n)​ ​The​​court​​also​​held​​that​​there​​is​​reliable​​evidence​​to​​conclude​​that​​the​
​accused​​had​​formed​​an​​unlawful​​assembly,​​first​​in​​the​​forest​​area​​and​​later​​at​​Mukkali​
​Junction,​​and​​acted​​in​​furtherance​​of​​a​​shared​​common​​object​​to​​assault,​​restrain,​​and​
​humiliate Madhu.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​41​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​o)​ ​Insofar​​as​​Accused​​No.​​4​​was​​concerned,​​the​​only​​allegation​​was​​that​
​he​ ​had​ ​photographed​ ​Madhu​ ​and​ ​circulated​ ​the​ ​visuals.​ ​The​ ​court​ ​held​ ​that​ ​taking​
​photographs​​was​​not​​part​​of​​the​​common​​object​​of​​the​​unlawful​​assembly,​​which​​was​
​confined​ ​to​ ​apprehending​ ​and​ ​assaulting​ ​Madhu.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​absence​ ​of​ ​any​ ​overt​ ​act​
​causing​​bodily​​injury​​or​​participation​​in​​the​​assault,​​vicarious​​liability​​under​​Section​​149​
​of the IPC could not be fastened on him.​
​p)​ ​With​ ​respect​ ​to​ ​the​ ​charge​ ​under​ ​Section​​3(1)(r)​​of​​the​​SC/ST​​(PoA)​
​Act,​​no​​witness​​testified​​that​​Accused​​No.​​4​​had​​posted​​the​​visuals​​on​​social​​media,​​and​
​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer’s​ ​opinion​ ​in​ ​that​ ​regard​ ​was​ ​held​ ​to​ ​be​ ​insufficient​ ​in​ ​law.​
​Consequently, Accused No. 4 was acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C.​
​q)​ ​With​​respect​​to​​Accused​​No.​​11,​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​went​​on​​to​
​hold​​that​​other​​than​​being​​seen​​in​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​at​​Mukkali​​as​​part​​of​​the​​crowd,​​no​
​overt​​act​​had​​been​​proved.​​There​​was​​no​​evidence​​of​​assault,​​wrongful​​confinement,​​or​
​verbal​​abuse.​​The​​allegation​​that​​he​​had​​called​​Madhu​​a​​thief​​was​​not​​supported​​by​​any​
​oral​​testimony,​​and​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​contained​​no​​audio.​​Relying​​on​​settled​​precedents,​
​the​​court​​held​​that​​a​​passive​​bystander​​who​​joins​​a​​gathering​​out​​of​​curiosity,​​without​
​sharing​​the​​common​​object,​​cannot​​be​​made​​vicariously​​liable​​under​​Section​​149​​of​​the​
​IPC. He too was acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C.​
​r)​ ​Insofar​ ​as​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​16​ ​is​ ​concerned,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​​Judge​
​held​​that​​the​​evidence​​did​​not​​establish​​that​​he​​was​​part​​of​​the​​unlawful​​assembly​​at​​the​
​time​​of​​commission​​of​​the​​principal​​offences,​​that​​he​​had​​no​​knowledge​​or​​participation​
​in​​its​​common​​object,​​and​​had​​committed​​only​​a​​single,​​isolated​​act​​of​​minimal​​force.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​42​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Consequently,​ ​it​ ​was​ ​held​ ​that​​the​​accused​​could​​not​​be​​held​​vicariously​​liable​​under​
​Section​ ​149​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC​ ​or​​for​​any​​graver​​offences,​​and​​his​​act​​was​​reduced​​to​​mere​
​criminal force punishable under Section 352 of the IPC.​
​s)​ ​The​​Court​​also​​held​​that​​the​​offence​​Section​​294(b)​​of​​the​​IPC​​was​​not​
​made​​out.​​Though​​certain​​words​​were​​discernible​​in​​the​​Q7​​file,​​the​​court​​found​​that​​the​
​utterances​​were​​not​​made​​in​​a​​public​​setting​​in​​the​​presence​​of​​others,​​and​​the​​specific​
​abusive words were not clearly set out in the final report.​
​t)​ ​The​ ​charge​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​3(1)(r)​ ​of​​the​​SC/ST​​(PoA)​​Act,​​relating​​to​
​circulation​​of​​visuals​​to​​humiliate,​​was​​also​​found​​not​​proved.​​Despite​​the​​production​​of​
​Facebook​ ​business​ ​records​ ​and​ ​WhatsApp​ ​screenshots,​ ​no​ ​witness​ ​identified​ ​any​
​particular​ ​accused​ ​as​ ​having​ ​posted​ ​the​ ​content.​ ​The​​administrator​​of​​the​​WhatsApp​
​group​ ​was​ ​not​ ​examined,​ ​and​​given​​that​​several​​persons​​had​​recorded​​videos​​at​​the​
​scene,​​the​​identity​​of​​the​​person​​who​​uploaded​​the​​visuals​​remained​​unestablished.​​The​
​court​ ​held​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer’s​ ​opinion​ ​alone​ ​was​ ​insufficient​ ​to​ ​sustain​​a​
​conviction.​
​u)​ ​Finally,​​the​​enhanced​​punishment​​provisions​​under​​Sections​​3(2)(v)​​and​
​3(2)(va)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​SC/ST(Prevention​ ​of​ ​Atrocities)​ ​Act​ ​were​ ​held​​inapplicable.​​The​​court​
​found​​no​​evidence​​to​​establish​​that​​the​​accused​​had​​knowledge​​of​​Madhu’s​​caste​​at​​the​
​time​​of​​the​​incident.​​The​​motive,​​as​​found​​earlier,​​was​​based​​on​​the​​belief​​that​​Madhu​
​had​​committed​​theft,​​and​​not​​on​​his​​caste​​identity.​​The​​court​​held​​that​​such​​knowledge​
​is​ ​a​ ​personal​ ​and​ ​specific​ ​fact​ ​that​​cannot​​be​​inferred​​from​​video​​footage​​or​​general​
​circumstances,​ ​and​ ​in​ ​the​ ​absence​​of​​oral​​evidence​​establishing​​such​​knowledge,​​the​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​43​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​ingredients​ ​of​ ​these​ ​provisions​ ​were​ ​not​ ​satisfied.​ ​All​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​were​ ​accordingly​
​acquitted of these charges as well.​
​8.​ ​Submissions on behalf of the State and the Victim​:​
​8.1.​ ​Sri.​ ​Jeevesh,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Special​ ​Public​ ​Prosecutor​ ​and​
​Sri.C.K.Radhakrishnan​​(Chalil),​​the​​learned​​counsel​​appearing​​for​​the​​victim,​​advanced​
​elaborate​ ​submissions​ ​assailing​ ​the​ ​findings​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Trial​ ​Court.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​
​would​ ​take​ ​pains​ ​to​ ​highlight​ ​the​ ​fundamental​ ​character​ ​of​ ​what​​happened​​on​​22nd​
​February​​2018.​​According​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​a​​mentally​​ill​​tribal​​man​​—​​homeless,​
​malnourished,​ ​wandering​ ​in​ ​the​ ​forests​ ​of​ ​Attappadi​ ​—​ ​was​ ​hunted​ ​down​ ​by​ ​an​
​organised​​mob​​of​​shopkeepers,​​dragged​​from​​the​​forest,​​stripped,​​tied,​​beaten​​with​​a​
​wooden​ ​stick,​ ​paraded​ ​half-naked​ ​for​ ​3​ ​kms​ ​through​ ​a​ ​public​ ​road,​ ​filmed​​for​​social​
​media​​circulation,​​assaulted​​again​​at​​a​​crowded​​junction,​​and​​died​​within​​hours.​​They​
​pointed​​out​​that​​every​​bit​​of​​the​​above​​gruesome​​act​​was​​captured​​by​​the​​perpetrators​
​themselves​ ​on​ ​mobile​ ​phones​ ​and​ ​on​ ​the​ ​CCTV​ ​cameras​ ​placed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​forest​
​department​ ​and​ ​some​ ​shop​ ​keepers.​ ​The​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​the​ ​brutal​ ​violence​ ​was​
​permanently​ ​recorded​ ​across​ ​44​ ​wounds​ ​on​ ​the​ ​body​ ​of​ ​Madhu.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​
​learned​ ​counsel,​ ​though​ ​the​ ​Sessions​ ​Court​ ​found​ ​the​ ​charge​ ​against​ ​the​ ​accused​
​proved​​beyond​​reasonable​​doubt,​​it​​proceeded​​to​​hold​​only​​14​​of​​the​​16​​accused​​guilty.​
​The​​court​​then​​proceeded​​to​​hold​​that​​this​​was​​not​​murder​​but​​only​​culpable​​homicide​
​not​ ​amounting​ ​to​ ​murder.​ ​The​ ​Court​ ​also​ ​acquitted​ ​Accused​ ​No.​​4,​​who​​participated​
​actively​​and​​filmed​​the​​entire​​spectacle​​and​​Accused​ ​No.11,​​who​​stood​​throughout​​and​
​called​​Madhu​​a​​thief​​of​​all​​offences.​​A​​fleabite​​sentence​​was​​awarded​​to​​Accused​​No.​​16​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​44​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​against​ ​whom​ ​there​ ​was​ ​convincing​ ​evidence​ ​to​ ​show​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​kicked​ ​a​ ​tied,​
​helpless,​ ​dying​ ​man.​​The​​Court​​also​​refused​​to​​convict​​any​​of​​the​​accused​​under​​the​
​graver​​provisions​​of​​the​​SC/ST​​(PoA)​​Act,​​notwithstanding​​that​​the​​prosecution​​has​​let​​in​
​convincing​ ​evidence​ ​that​ ​Madhu​ ​was​ ​a​ ​tribal​ ​man​ ​which​ ​fact​ ​was​ ​known​ ​to​ ​all​ ​the​
​accused.​​It​​is​​against​​these​​specific​​findings​​—​​the​​acquittals​​of​​Accused​​Nos.​​4​​and​​11,​
​the​​lesser​​conviction​​of​​Accused​​No.​​16,​​the​​downgrading​​of​​the​​offence​​from​​Section​
​302​​to​​Section​​304​​Part​​II​​of​​the​​IPC,​​and​​the​​failure​​to​​apply​​the​​SC/ST​​(PoA)​​Act,​​that​
​the State and the victim have advanced their arguments before this Court.​
​8.2.​ ​Against the Acquittal of Accused No. 4 (Aneesh):​
​a.​ ​The​​CCTV​​footage​​from​​Q2​​file​​(Sreerag​​Bakery)​​and​​the​​forensic​​report​
​(Ext.P92)​ ​conclusively​ ​establish​ ​the​ ​physical​ ​presence​ ​of​ ​Accused​ ​No.4​ ​at​ ​Mukkali​
​junction​​throughout​​the​​relevant​​period.​​Accused​​No.4​​was​​specifically​​and​​deliberately​
​at​​the​​location​​where​​Madhu​​was​​being​​held,​​and​​he​​was​​engaged​​in​​an​​act​​of​​filming​
​which required him to consciously direct his phone at the victim and operate it.​
​b.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​acquitted​ ​Accused​ ​No.4​ ​primarily​ ​on​​the​
​ground​​that​​the​​common​​object​​of​​the​​unlawful​​assembly​​was​​to​​apprehend​​and​​beat​
​Madhu,​​and​​that​​taking​​photographs​​fell​​outside​​the​​scope​​of​​that​​common​​object.​​This​
​reasoning​​is​​fundamentally​​flawed​​according​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel.​​Section​​149​​of​​the​
​IPC​​does​​not​​require​​that​​every​​specific​​act​​committed​​by​​each​​member​​of​​an​​unlawful​
​assembly​​be​​individually​​enumerated​​in​​the​​common​​object.​​The​​section​​fastens​​liability​
​on​​every​​member​​for​​every​​act​​done​​in​​prosecution​​of​​the​​common​​object,​​or​​which​​the​
​members​​knew​​was​​likely​​to​​be​​committed​​in​​prosecution​​of​​that​​object.​​The​​common​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​45​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​object,​​as​​found​​by​​the​​Sessions​​Judge​​himself,​​included​​the​​public​​humiliation,​​public​
​degradation, and public insult of Madhu.​
​c.​ ​It​​was​​argued​​that​​the​​photography​​of​​a​​bound,​​stripped,​​and​​brutalised​
​man​ ​in​ ​the​ ​midst​ ​of​ ​an​ ​ongoing​ ​mob​ ​attack​ ​is​ ​not​​a​​neutral​​or​​extraneous​​act.​​The​
​mobile​​phone​​of​​Accused​​No.​​4​​contained​​three​​photographs​​and​​one​​video​​of​​Madhu​
​taken​ ​during​ ​the​ ​incident​ ​and​​the​​EXIF​​metadata​​confirmed​​by​​PW95​​establishes​​the​
​time​​and​​device.​​It​​is​​further​​submitted​​that​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​found​​the​​social​
​media​ ​posting​ ​charge​ ​unproved​​against​​Accused​​No.4​​because​​no​​witness​​specifically​
​identified​​him​​as​​the​​person​​who​​posted​​the​​images​​online.​​However,​​Ext.P68(a)​​is​​the​
​Facebook​ ​business​ ​record​ ​associated​ ​with​ ​the​​account​​of​​the​​4th​​accused​​which​​was​
​accompanied​​by​​a​​certificate​​under​​Section​​65B​​of​​the​​Indian​​Evidence​​Act.​​Ext.P91​​is​
​the​​certified​​copy​​of​​the​​IPDR​​(Internet​​Protocol​​Detail​​Record)​​establishing​​A4's​​specific​
​internet​​usage​​from​​his​​device​​at​​the​​relevant​​time​​on​​22​​February​​2018.​​The​​mobile​
​phone​ ​Q4​ ​itself​ ​contained​ ​photographs​ ​of​ ​Madhu​ ​captured​ ​during​ ​the​ ​incident.​ ​The​
​photographs​​were​​communicated​​through​​WhatsApp,​​as​​the​​file​​naming​​convention​​in​
​the​ ​EXIF​ ​data​ ​makes​ ​clear.​ ​The​ ​combination​ ​of​ ​the​ ​account​ ​record,​ ​internet​ ​usage​
​record,​​and​​device​​content​​creates​​a​​closed​​evidentiary​​circle.​​In​​these​​circumstances,​
​Section​ ​106​ ​of​ ​the​​Evidence​​Act​​would​​squarely​​apply.​​It​​was​​the​​burden​​of​​Accused​
​No.4​ ​to​ ​explain​ ​how​ ​the​ ​images​ ​from​ ​his​ ​phone​ ​found​ ​their​ ​way​ ​into​ ​social​ ​media​
​circulation,​​and​​he​​offered​​not​​a​​word​​of​​explanation.​​The​​Sessions​​Court​​identified​​this​
​silence but did not draw the consequential adverse inference.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​46​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​4​
​d.​ ​The​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Mizaji​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​UP​ ​has​ ​held​ ​that​ ​active​
​participation​ ​in​ ​any​ ​form,​ ​including​ ​acts​ ​that​ ​further​ ​the​ ​collective​ ​enterprise,​ ​can​
​constitute​​membership​​of​​an​​unlawful​​assembly.​​The​​capturing​​of​​these​​photographs,​​in​
​context,​​is​​precisely​​such​​an​​act.​​It​​does​​not​​require​​Accused​​No.4​​to​​have​​struck​​a​​blow.​
​What​ ​it​ ​requires​ ​is​ ​that​ ​he​ ​did​ ​something,​ ​while​ ​a​ ​member​ ​of​ ​the​ ​assembly,​ ​that​
​advanced the common object.​
​e.​ ​Section​ ​3(1)(r)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​SC/ST​ ​(PoA)​ ​Act​ ​specifically​ ​criminalises​ ​the​
​recording​​and​​circulation​​of​​images​​with​​intent​​to​​humiliate​​a​​member​​of​​a​​Scheduled​
​Tribe.​​The​​Sessions​​Judge​​acquitted​​Accused​​No.4​​on​​this​​charge​​for​​want​​of​​proof​​of​
​posting.​​But​​the​​act​​of​​recording​​itself​​with​​the​​intent​​to​​humiliate​​is​​established​​on​​the​
​evidence.​
​8.3.​ ​Against the Acquittal of Accused No. 11 (Abdul Kareem):​
​a.​ ​A11​​was​​a​​shopkeeper​​at​​Mukkali,​​which​​area​​was​​the​​target​​of​​a​​series​
​of​ ​thefts​ ​attributed​ ​to​ ​Madhu.​ ​The​ ​CCTV​ ​footage​ ​from​ ​Q2​ ​establishes​ ​that​ ​A11​ ​was​
​present​​at​​Mukkali​​junction​​from​​the​​time​​Madhu​​was​​made​​to​​sit​​in​​front​​of​​the​​treasury​
​box​​to​​the​​time​​the​​police​​arrived​​and​​took​​him​​away.​​His​​was​​a​​continuous​​presence​​in​
​the​ ​immediate​ ​vicinity​ ​of​ ​an​ ​ongoing​​assault​​on​​a​​tied,​​helpless​​man.​​Relying​​on​​the​
​5​
​observations​​of​​the​​Apex​​Court​​in​ ​Lalji​​And​​Others​​v.​​State​​Of​​U.P.​ ​,​​it​​was​​urged​
​that​​prolonged​​presence​​at​​the​​scene​​of​​an​​unlawful​​assembly,​​without​​any​​attempt​​at​
​dissociation,​​is​​itself​​sufficient​​to​​infer​​membership​​of​​that​​assembly.​​It​​is​​not​​necessary​
​in​​every​​case​​to​​prove​​an​​overt​​act​​of​​physical​​violence.​​What​​is​​required​​is​​presence​
​4​
​[AIR 1959 SC 572]​
​5​
​[​ ​(1989) 1 SCC 437​ ]​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​47​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​with​​knowledge​​of​​the​​common​​object​​and​​the​​absence​​of​​any​​effort​​to​​separate​​oneself​
​from the group committing the violence.​
​b.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge,​ ​while​ ​acquitting​ ​the​ ​11th​ ​accused,​ ​has​
​concluded​​that​​there​​is​​no​​evidence​​of​​the​​said​​accused​​calling​​Madhu​​a​​thief​​in​​public,​
​and​​that​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​carried​​no​​audio.​​This​​finding​​is​​erroneous​​as​​the​​prosecution​
​had​​established​​that​​the​​witnesses​​who​​were​​cited​​to​​prove​​this​​fact​​had​​turned​​adverse​
​to​ ​the​ ​prosecution​​to​​give​​the​​accused​​a​​clean​​chit.​​The​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​wrongly​
​taken​​the​​view​​that​​Accused​​No.​​11​​might​​have​​been​​an​​innocent​​onlooker.​​As​​a​​matter​
​of​​fact,​​Accused​​No.​​11​​was​​specifically​​named​​in​​the​​Ext.​​P80​​FIS​​recorded​​within​​hours​
​of the incident, and he was identified in the CCTV footage.​
​8.4.​ ​Against​​the​​conviction​​of​​Accused​​No.​​16​​(Muneer)​​for​​a​​lesser​
​offence under Section 352 of the IPC:​
​a.​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​16​ ​is​​the​​son​​of​​PW31,​​a​​shopkeeper​​who​​had​​filed​​the​
​theft​​case​​against​​Madhu​​in​​Crime​​No.​​524/2016​​in​​Agali​​Police​​Station.​ ​Accused​​No.​​16​
​was​​cited​​as​​CW2​​in​​that​​said​​case.​​He​​knew​​exactly​​who​​Madhu​​was.​​He​​knew​​why​​the​
​mob​ ​had​ ​brought​ ​Madhu​ ​to​ ​Mukkali.The​ ​video​ ​evidence​ ​shows​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​16​
​deliberately​​walking​​up​​behind​​Madhu​​and​​kicking​​him​​on​​the​​back​​with​​his​​leg.​​This​​was​
​a​ ​deliberate​ ​act​​against​​Madhu.​​The​​Sessions​​Judge​​characterised​​the​​act​​of​​Accused​
​No.​ ​16​ ​as​ ​a​ ​"stray​ ​assault",​​which​​is​​an​​erroneous​​finding.​​Accused​​No.​​16​​was​​fully​
​aware​​of​​what​​was​​happening​​and​​his​​act​​was​​an​​act​​of​​deliberate​​violence​​against​​a​
​helpless​​person.​​A​​person​​with​​that​​level​​of​​personal​​knowledge​​and​​personal​​connection​
​to​ ​the​ ​events​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​treated​ ​as​ ​an​ ​innocent​ ​curious​ ​spectator​ ​who​ ​happened​ ​to​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​48​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​wander​ ​into​ ​the​​situation.​​Accused​​No.​​16​​arrived​​at​​Mukkali​​with​​full​​awareness​​and​
​motive.​
​b.​ ​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​declined​​to​​apply​​Section​​323​​of​​the​​IPC​​to​
​A16's​​act​​on​​the​​basis​​that​​Madhu's​​facial​​expression​​in​​the​​video​​showed​​"annoyance​
​rather​​than​​pain."​​This,​​according​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​is​​an​​entirely​​unsound​​basis​
​for​​an​​acquittal​​for​​the​​offence​​under​​Section​​323​​of​​the​​IPC.​​By​​the​​time​​Accused​​No.16​
​struck​ ​Madhu,​ ​Madhu​ ​had​ ​already​ ​sustained​ ​forty-four​ ​injuries.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​mentally​ ​ill,​
​severely​ ​weakened,​ ​and​ ​had​​his​​hands​​tied.​​His​​capacity​​to​​register​​or​​visibly​​display​
​pain​​was​​profoundly​​compromised​​by​​his​​ailment​​and​​because​​of​​the​​fact​​that​​he​​was​
​cornered​​by​​a​​large​​group​​of​​people.​​The​​definition​​of​​"hurt"​​under​​Section​​319​​of​​the​
​IPC​ ​requires​ ​only​ ​that​ ​bodily​ ​pain​ ​be​ ​caused​ ​and​ ​sets​ ​no​ ​threshold​ ​of​ ​severity,​ ​no​
​requirement​ ​of​ ​visible​ ​expression,​ ​and​ ​no​ ​minimum​ ​duration.​​A​​blow​​with​​a​​leg​​to​​a​
​person's​​back​​would​​necessarily​​cause​​some​​bodily​​pain.​​The​​threshold​​of​​Section​​319​​or​
​323​​of​​the​​IPC​​is​​deliberately​​low​​because​​the​​legislative​​intent​​was​​to​​protect​​the​​bodily​
​integrity​ ​of​ ​every​ ​person​ ​from​ ​every​ ​form​ ​of​ ​intentional​​physical​​contact​​that​​causes​
​pain.​
​c.​ ​Accused​ ​No.​​16​​joined​​the​​assembly​​at​​Mukkali​​with​​knowledge​​of​​its​
​common​​object.​​He​​was​​present​​at​​the​​assembly​​and​​he​​participated​​by​​striking​​Madhu.​
​These​​facts,​​taken​​together,​​establish​​that​​Accused​​No.​​16​​was​​a​​knowing​​participant​​in​
​the​ ​unlawful​ ​assembly​ ​and​ ​not​ ​a​ ​stranger​ ​who​ ​happened​ ​to​ ​commit​ ​an​ ​impulsive,​
​isolated​​act.​​If​​Accused​​No.​​16​​was​​a​​member​​of​​the​​unlawful​​assembly,​​then​​Section​
​149​​of​​the​​IPC​​applies​​to​​him​​as​​it​​applies​​to​​the​​other​​members,​​and​​he​​becomes​​liable​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​49​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​for​ ​all​ ​the​ ​offences​ ​committed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​assembly​ ​in​ ​prosecution​​of​​its​​common​​object​
​including the offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.​
​8.5.​ ​Section 302 of the IPC vs Section 304 Part II​​of the IPC:​
​a.​ ​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​evaluated​​the​​entire​​evidence​​through​​the​
​subjective​ ​lens​ ​of​ ​the​ ​purported​ ​objectives​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused.​ ​The​ ​Court​ ​erroneously​
​concluded​​that​​all​​that​​the​​accused​​wanted​​was​​to​​hand​​over​​Madhu​​to​​the​​police​​for​
​which​​purpose​​they​​had​​called​​the​​Sub​​Inspector​​of​​Police​​beforehand.​​They​​also​​filmed​
​the​ ​entire​ ​transaction​ ​openly.​ ​He​ ​concluded​ ​that​ ​if​ ​the​​intention​​was​​to​​murder​​they​
​could​ ​have​ ​pushed​ ​him​ ​down​ ​from​​the​​forest​​down​​the​​cliffs.​​From​​these​​post-event​
​inferences,​ ​he​ ​concluded​ ​there​ ​was​ ​no​ ​murderous​ ​intent.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​ ​learned​
​6​
​counsel,​​by​​applying​​the​​law​​in​ ​Virsa​​Singh​​v.​​State​​of​​Punjab​ ​,​​what​​the​​court​​had​
​to​​consider​​was​​whether​​it​​has​​been​​proven​​that​​(a)​​a​​bodily​​injury​​was​​caused;​​(b)​​the​
​injury​​was​​intentionally​​inflicted;​​and​​(c)​​the​​injury​​was,​​objectively​​assessed,​​sufficient​
​in​​the​​ordinary​​course​​of​​nature​​to​​cause​​death.​​The​​question​​is​​not​​what​​the​​accused​
​subjectively​ ​intended​ ​to​ ​achieve.​ ​The​ ​question​ ​is​ ​only​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​injury​ ​was​
​deliberately​ ​inflicted​ ​and​ ​judged​​by​​medical​​science​​and​​common​​understanding,​​was​
​sufficient​ ​in​ ​the​ ​ordinary​ ​course​ ​of​ ​nature​ ​to​ ​cause​ ​death.​​Reliance​​is​​placed​​on​​the​
​Postmortem​​Certificate​​and​​the​​evidence​​of​​PW86​​and​​it​​is​​urged​​that​​the​​injury​​Nos.​​1​
​and​ ​2,​ ​together​ ​with​ ​uncal​ ​grooving​ ​(injury​ ​No.​ ​3),​ ​had​ ​caused​ ​Madhu's​ ​death.​ ​No​
​amount​​of​​reasoning​​about​​what​​the​​accused​​"could​​have​​done​​differently"​​changes​​the​
​character​​of​​those​​acts​​or​​the​​nature​​of​​those​​injuries.​​The​​said​​reasoning​​is​​nothing​​but​
​6​
​[AIR 1958 SC 465]​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​50​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​speculation​​and​​purely​​hypothetical​​and​​was​​entirely​​irrelevant​​to​​the​​legal​​analysis​​of​
​the actual violence that was committed.​
​b.​ ​The​​question​​of​​application​​of​​Clause​​fourthly​​of​​Section​​300​​of​​the​​IPC​
​was​​not​​considered.​​The​​Supreme​​Court​​in​ ​State​​of​​Andhra​​Pradesh​​v.​​Rayavarapu​
​7​
​Punnayya​ ​drew​ ​the​ ​distinction​ ​between​ ​Section​​302​​and​​Section​​304​​of​​the​​IPC​​in​
​terms​​of​​degree​​of​​probability.​​When​​the​​act​​is​​so​​imminently​​dangerous​​that​​death​​is​
​not​ ​merely​ ​a​ ​possibility​ ​but​ ​a​​near-inevitable​​consequence,​​clause​​fourthly​​of​​Section​
​300​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC​ ​is​ ​attracted.​ ​The​ ​threshold​ ​was​ ​crossed​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case.​ ​A​ ​mentally​ ​ill,​
​malnourished,​​tribal​​man​​was​​subjected​​to​​sustained​​mob​​violence​​over​​several​​hours,​
​and​​he​​was​​inflicted​​with​​forty-four​​injuries​​leading​​to​​severe​​head​​injuries​​and​​fractured​
​ribs.​​He​​was​​then​​paraded​​for​​three​​kilometres​​in​​the​​heat,​​his​​hands​​tied,​​without​​any​
​medical​​attention,​​in​​a​​weakened​​and​​deteriorating​​condition​​and​​he​​was​​made​​to​​carry​
​a​​heavy​​sack.​​By​​the​​time​​Accused​​No.1​​stamped​​him​​at​​Mukkali,​​Madhu​​was​​already​​in​
​a​ ​state​ ​of​ ​serious​ ​neurological​ ​deterioration​ ​from​ ​the​ ​brain​ ​edema​ ​that​ ​had​ ​been​
​building​​for​​two​​to​​three​​hours.​​The​​accused​​chose​​to​​deny​​Madhu​​medical​​care,​​and​
​continued​​to​​subject​​him​​to​​physical​​abuse​​and​​the​​same​​contributed​​to​​his​​death.​​In​
​those circumstances, death was not merely probable but was inevitable.​
​c.​ ​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​erred​​in​​taking​​a​​view​​that​ ​all​​accused​
​persons​​cannot​​be​​attributed​​with​​intent​​to​​commit​​murder​​but​​merely​​to​​hand​​Madhu​
​over​​to​​the​​police.​​It​​was​​the​​3rd​​accused​​who​​had​​called​​PW91,​​the​​police​​officer.​ ​The​
​criminal​​liability​​of​​the​​rest​​of​​the​​accused​​who​​caused​​serious​​physical​​injuries​​must​​be​
​7​
​((1976) 4 SCC 382)​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​51​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​assessed​​on​​the​​basis​​of​​what​​they​​did​​and​​not​​on​​the​​basis​​of​​what​​one​​of​​them​​said​
​on​ ​the​ ​phone​ ​to​ ​a​ ​police​ ​officer.​ ​Under​ ​Section​ ​149​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC,​ ​each​ ​member​ ​is​
​independently​​liable​​for​​their​​own​​acts​​as​​well​​as​​for​​the​​acts​​of​​others​​in​​the​​assembly.​
​Just​​calling​​the​​police​​after​​committing​​serious​​violence​​is​​not​​a​​legal​​exculpation​​of​​that​
​violence.​ ​The​ ​moral​ ​and​ ​legal​ ​quality​ ​of​ ​each​ ​violent​ ​act​ ​must​ ​be​ ​assessed​ ​at​ ​the​
​moment​​of​​commission,​​not​​retroactively​​modified​​by​​subsequent​​conduct.​​The​​Sessions​
​Court​ ​conflated​ ​post-event​ ​conduct​ ​with​ ​the​ ​intent​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​the​ ​act,​ ​which​ ​is​
​erroneous.​
​8.6.​ ​Sentence and Compensation​ :​
​a.​ ​The​​Sessions​​Judge​​found​​that​​the​​conjoint​​effect​​of​​all​​injuries​​formed​
​a​​vicious​​cycle​​causing​​Madhu's​​death,​​and​​that​​all​​the​​accused​​who​​contributed​​to​​this​
​vicious​​cycle​​are​​members​​of​​the​​same​​unlawful​​assembly.​​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​
​then​ ​assessed​ ​the​ ​murder​ ​question​ ​by​ ​looking​ ​at​ ​the​ ​individual​ ​act​ ​of​ ​each​ ​of​ ​the​
​accused​​in​​isolation​​and​​finally​​holding​​that​​no​​single​​act​​was​​sufficient​​in​​the​​ordinary​
​course​ ​of​ ​nature​ ​to​ ​cause​ ​death.​ ​If​ ​the​ ​cause​ ​of​ ​death​ ​is​ ​the​ ​conjoint​ ​effect​ ​of​ ​all​
​injuries,​ ​and​ ​if​ ​all​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​who​ ​caused​ ​those​ ​injuries​ ​are​​members​​of​​the​​same​
​unlawful​​assembly,​​then​​the​​proper​​question​​under​​Section​​149​​of​​the​​IPC​​is​​whether​
​the​​cumulative​​act​​of​​the​​entire​​assembly​​satisfies​​the​​requirements​​of​​Section​​300​​of​
​the IPC.​
​8.7.​ ​Acquittal​​for​​the​​offences​​under​​Sections​​3(2)(v)​​and​​3(2)(va)​
​of the SC/ST (PoA) Act:​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​52​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​a.​ ​Section​​8​​of​​the​​Scheduled​​Castes​​and​​Scheduled​​Tribes​​(PoA)​​Act,​​as​
​amended​​in​​2016,​​provides​​that​​when​​the​​prosecution​​establishes​​that​​an​​offence​​under​
​the​ ​Act​ ​has​ ​been​ ​committed​ ​against​ ​a​​member​​of​​a​​Scheduled​​Tribe,​​the​​court​​shall​
​presume​ ​that​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​had​ ​the​ ​requisite​​knowledge​​of​​the​​victim's​​caste​​or​​tribal​
​identity​ ​unless​ ​the​ ​contrary​ ​is​ ​proved​ ​by​ ​the​ ​accused.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge,​
​however,​ ​found​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​guilty​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​3(1)(d)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Act​ ​for​ ​parading​ ​a​
​member​​of​​the​​Scheduled​​Tribe​​in​​a​​semi-naked​​condition​​through​​a​​public​​place.​​None​
​of​​the​​accused​​offered​​any​​evidence​​to​​rebut​​the​​presumption.​​In​​those​​circumstances,​
​the charges under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) ought to have been held proved.​
​b.​ ​The​ ​accused​​were​​long-term​​residents​​and​​traders​​in​​Mukkali,​​a​​town​
​located​​within​​one​​of​​the​​most​​well-known​​Scheduled​​Tribe-dominant​​areas​​in​​Kerala.​
​They​​had​​been​​conducting​​their​​businesses​​in​​that​​area​​for​​years.​​Several​​of​​them​​had​
​prior​​encounters​​with​​Madhu​​himself​​and​​some​​of​​them​​had​​even​​lodged​​complaints​​of​
​theft.​​In​​these​​circumstances,​​an​​inference​​of​​knowledge​​of​​Madhu's​​tribal​​identity​​does​
​not​ ​require​ ​any​ ​elaborate​ ​evidentiary​ ​foundation.​ ​It​ ​follows​ ​as​ ​a​ ​matter​ ​of​ ​common​
​sense​ ​and​ ​common​ ​observation​ ​from​ ​the​ ​context​ ​in​ ​which​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​lived​ ​and​
​operated.​
​c.​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​3​ ​called​ ​PW91,​ ​Sub​ ​Inspector​ ​of​ ​Police​ ​(Subin)​ ​and​
​informed​ ​him​ ​that​ ​a​ ​person​ ​found​ ​in​ ​"Aandiyallachaal​ ​forest"​ ​was​ ​being​ ​brought​ ​to​
​Mukkali.​ ​Nothing​ ​more​​is​​required​​to​​establish​​A3's​​clear​​knowledge​​of​​Madhu's​​tribal​
​identity made in the course of the commission of the offence.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​53​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​d.​ ​In​ ​Crime​ ​No.​ ​524​ ​of​ ​2016​ ​(Ext.P89),​ ​the​ ​theft​ ​case​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​PW31,​
​Madhu​​was​​the​​accused.​​In​​the​​investigation​​of​​that​​case,​​Accused​​No.​​16​​(PW31's​​son)​
​was​ ​cited​​as​​CW2.​​It​​has​​come​​out​​that​​he​​had​​identified​​Madhu​​in​​CCTV​​footage​​in​
​connection​​with​​that​​theft.​​He​​had​​formally​​participated​​in​​a​​criminal​​investigation​​as​​an​
​identifying​ ​witness​ ​in​ ​a​ ​case​ ​where​ ​Madhu's​ ​identity​ ​was​ ​specifically​ ​at​ ​issue.​ ​That​
​knowledge is evidence of the group's collective awareness of Madhu's identity.​
​e.​ ​The​​motive​​of​​the​​group​​was​​the​​belief​​entertained​​by​​the​​accused​​that​
​Madhu​​was​​a​​thief​​and​​he​​committed​​thefts.​​The​​WhatsApp​​group​​messages​​referred​​to​
​in​ ​the​ ​electronic​ ​evidence​ ​described​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​that​ ​include​ ​his​ ​community.​ ​The​ ​very​
​characterisation​​used​​in​​the​​group​​message,​​according​​to​​the​​evidence,​​singled​​Madhu​
​out​​as​​a​​person​​connected​​to​​the​​tribal​​community.​​The​​accused​​targeted​​this​​specific​
​person,​ ​in​ ​this​ ​specific​ ​location,​ ​in​ ​this​ ​specific​ ​manner​ ​and​ ​the​​prior​​interactions​​all​
​point​ ​to​ ​an​ ​awareness​ ​of​ ​his​ ​tribal​ ​identity​ ​that​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​disentangled​ ​from​ ​the​
​targeting itself.​
​8.8.​ ​The​​sentences​​imposed​​do​​not​​reflect​​the​​gravity​​of​​the​​offence.​​Even​
​accepting​​the​​Section​​304​​Part​​II​​of​​the​​IPC​​finding​​at​​its​​face,​​the​​sentence​​of​​seven​
​years​ ​rigorous​ ​imprisonment​ ​imposed​ ​uniformly​ ​on​ ​13​ ​accused​ ​for​ ​the​ ​killing​ ​of​ ​a​
​mentally​​ill​​tribal​​man​​and​​for​​filming​​and​​circulating​​the​​same,​​is​​manifestly​​inadequate.​
​The​ ​maximum​ ​punishment​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​304​ ​Part​ ​II​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC​ ​is​ ​ten​ ​years.​ ​The​
​sentencing​ ​norm​​in​​cases​​of​​this​​gravity​​must​​be​​calibrated​​to​​the​​seriousness​​of​​the​
​offence,​​the​​vulnerability​​of​​the​​victim,​​and​​the​​deliberate,​​organised,​​collective​​nature​​of​
​the violence.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​54​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​8.9.​ ​The​ ​compensation​ ​awarded​ ​under​​Section​​357​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C​​is​​on​​the​
​lower​​side.​​The​​Sessions​​Court​​directed​​that​​75%​​of​​the​​fine​​be​​paid​​as​​compensation​​to​
​the​ ​legal​ ​heirs​ ​of​ ​Madhu​ ​and​ ​also​ ​addressed​​the​​District​​Legal​​Services​​Authority​​for​
​victim​ ​compensation.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​compensation​ ​awarded​ ​is​ ​inadequate,​
​having​​regard​​to​​the​​direction​​of​​the​​Apex​​Court​​in​ ​Ankush​​Shivaji​​Gaikwad​​v.​​State​
​8​ ​9​
​of​ ​Maharashtra​ ​and​ ​in​ ​Sangeet​ ​v.​​State​​of​​Haryana​ ​that​​courts​​must​​consider​
​compensation​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​357​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Cr.P.C.​ ​in​ ​every​ ​case,​ ​mandate​ ​it​ ​where​
​appropriate,​​and​​record​​specific​​reasons​​if​​it​​is​​not​​awarded​​adequately.​​This​​Court,​​in​
​exercising​ ​its​ ​appellate​ ​powers​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​386​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Cr.P.C.,​ ​has​ ​the​ ​power​ ​to​
​enhance compensation independently of the fine, and the victim presses for that relief.​
​8.10.​ ​The​​peculiar​​facts​​and​​character​​of​​this​​case​​demands​​the​​full​
​rigour of the law.​
​It​​is​​pointed​​out​​that​​the​​Sessions​​Court​​had​​observed​​that​​“this​​is​​the​​first​​mob​
​lynching​​case​​in​​God's​​Own​​Country.​​Let​​it​​be​​the​​last."​​An​​organised,​​mob​​killing​​of​​a​
​mentally​ ​ill​ ​tribal​ ​man,​ ​which​ ​was​ ​documented​ ​by​ ​the​ ​perpetrators​ ​themselves​ ​and​
​circulated​ ​in​ ​a​ ​WhatsApp​ ​group​ ​named​ ​for​ ​the​ ​tribal​ ​belt​ ​in​ ​which​ ​it​ ​occurred,​ ​is​
​precisely​​the​​kind​​of​​case​​for​​which​​the​​SC/ST​​(PoA)​​Act​​was​​enacted​​and​​for​​which​​the​
​penal​​provisions​​of​​the​​IPC​​must​​be​​applied​​in​​their​​full​​force.​​A​​conviction​​under​​Section​
​304​ ​Part​ ​II​ ​of​​the​​IPC​​with​​a​​sentence​​of​​seven​​years,​​with​​acquittals​​for​​those​​who​
​photographed​​and​​watched,​​and​​three​​months​​for​​one​​who​​kicked,​​is​​not​​the​​message​
​8​
​[​ (2013) 6 SCC 770]​
​9​
​[​ (2013) 2 SCC 452]​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​55​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​that​​the​​law​​sends​​in​​a​​case​​like​​this,​​and​​it​​is​​not​​the​​message​​this​​Court​​should​​permit​
​to stand.​
​9.​ ​Common submissions advanced by the defence:​
​a.​ ​The​​learned​​counsel​​appearing​​for​​the​​accused​​argued​​that​​since​​most​
​material​​witnesses​​had​​turned​​hostile​​and​​the​​CCTV​​did​​not​​cover​​the​​injuries​​allegedly​
​inflicted​ ​inside​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​area,​ ​no​ ​specific​ ​overt​ ​act​ ​attributable​ ​to​ ​any​ ​individual​
​accused was proved.​
​b.​ ​The​​main​​defence​​that​​was​​taken​​by​​all​​16​​accused​​was​​that​​the​​death​
​of​​Madhu​​while​​in​​the​​custody​​of​​the​​police​​was​​due​​to​​police​​brutality​​and​​not​​due​​to​
​their​ ​acts.​ ​It​ ​was​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​Madhu​ ​was​ ​alive​ ​and​ ​uninjured​​when​​the​​accused​
​handed​ ​him​ ​to​ ​the​ ​police​ ​at​ ​Mukkali​​at​​approximately​​3:30​​p.m.,​​and​​the​​44​​injuries​
​found​ ​on​ ​his​ ​body​ ​at​ ​the​ ​postmortem,​ ​which​ ​was​ ​conducted​ ​two​ ​days​ ​later,​ ​were​
​inflicted​ ​by​ ​police​​personnel,​​either​​in​​the​​police​​jeep​​during​​transit​​or​​at​​Agali​​Police​
​Station.​
​c.​ ​The​ ​defence​ ​came​ ​out​ ​with​ ​a​ ​detailed,​ ​layered​ ​attack​ ​on​ ​every​
​procedural​​step​​taken​​by​​the​​police​​from​​the​​moment​​Madhu​​was​​taken​​into​​custody.​​It​
​was​​contended​​that​​the​​failure​​on​​the​​part​​of​​the​​police​​to​​comply​​with​​the​​procedure​
​was not an innocent lapse but an attempt to conceal the culpability of the police.​
​d.​ ​It​ ​was​ ​forcefully​ ​urged​ ​that​ ​the​ ​police​ ​officers​ ​who​ ​took​ ​Madhu​ ​into​
​custody​​at​​Mukkali​​at​​approximately​​3.30​​p.m.​​violated​​each​​of​​the​​formalities​​that​​are​
​to​ ​be​ ​complied​ ​with​ ​by​ ​the​ ​police​ ​as​ ​laid​ ​down​ ​in​ ​D.K​ ​Basu​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​Of​ ​West​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​56​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​10​
​Bengal​ ​.​ ​No​ ​arrest​ ​memo​ ​was​ ​prepared​ ​by​ ​PW83,​ ​Sub​ ​Inspector​ ​of​ ​Police​​(Prasad​
​Varkky),​ ​the​ ​arresting​ ​officer,​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​arrest​ ​as​​mandated​​under​​law.​​Had​​the​
​police​​prepared​​an​​inspection​​memo​​at​​Mukkali​​at​​3.30​​p.m.​​recording​​Madhu's​​physical​
​condition​​as​​observed​​at​​that​​point,​​there​​would​​have​​been​​a​​baseline​​against​​which​​the​
​44​​postmortem​​injuries​​could​​be​​assessed.​​It​​was​​contended​​that​​the​​injuries​​found​​on​
​the​​body​​of​​Madhu​​were​​inflicted​​in​​the​​45-minute​​window​​between​​3.30​​p.m.​​and​​4.15​
​p.m., during which Madhu was entirely under police control.​
​e.​ ​It​​is​​pointed​​out​​that​​the​​CCTNS​​entry​​made​​at​​Agali​​Police​​Station​​on​
​22.02.2018​​was​​recorded​​at​​5:02​​p.m.​​by​​the​​GD​​charge​​officer​​Rejimon​​and​​it​​is​​stated​
​therein​​that​​Madhu​​had​​died​​"while​​being​​brought​​to​​Agali​​Police​​Station"​​in​​the​​police​
​jeep. This would throw serious doubts on the case set up by the prosecution.​
​f.​ ​It​​is​​contended​​that​​when​​PW83​​received​​information​​at​​Mukkali​​that​​a​
​person​ ​had​ ​been​ ​injured​ ​by​ ​a​ ​mob​ ​and​ ​was​ ​being​ ​brought​ ​to​ ​the​ ​police,​ ​he​ ​was​
​duty-bound​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​154​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Cr.P.C.​ ​to​ ​register​ ​a​ ​First​ ​Information​ ​Report​
​incorporating​ ​cognizable​ ​offences​ ​in​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​law​ ​laid​ ​down​ ​in​ ​Lalita​​Kumari​​v.​
​11​
​Government​​of​​Uttar​​Pradesh​ ​.​​Instead,​​PW83​​registered​​only​​an​​unnatural​​death​
​report​​under​​Section​​174​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C.​​at​​5.15​​p.m.​​By​​that​​time,​​Madhu​​had​​already​
​died,​​and​​the​​body​​had​​been​​shifted​​to​​the​​mortuary.​​It​​is​​urged​​that​​registering​​an​​FIR​
​under​ ​Section​ ​154​ ​with​ ​penal​ ​provisions​ ​would​ ​have:​ ​(a)​ ​triggered​ ​mandatory​
​investigation​ ​procedures,​ ​(b)​ ​required​ ​formal​ ​documentation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​persons​
​named​ ​in​ ​the​ ​FIS,​ ​and​ ​(c)​ ​created​ ​a​ ​contemporaneous​ ​record​ ​of​ ​police​ ​receipt​ ​of​​a​
​10​
​[AIR 1997 SC 610]​
​11​
​[(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 17]​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​57​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​seriously injured person.​
​g.​ ​In​​the​​FIS​​(Ext.P80)​​itself,​​PW83,​​who​​recorded​​the​​same,​​wrote​​that​
​Madhu​ ​himself​ ​told​ ​him​ ​the​ ​names​ ​and​ ​phone​ ​numbers​ ​of​ ​seven​ ​persons​ ​who​ ​had​
​attacked​​him.​​This​​was​​impossible​​as​​a​​dying,​​mentally​​ill​​man​​with​​brain​​edema​​could​
​not​ ​have​ ​stated​ ​the​ ​phone​ ​numbers​​of​​the​​assailants.​​Nothing​​more​​was​​required​​to​
​show​ ​that​ ​the​ ​FIS​​was​​a​​fabricated​​document​​to​​create​​a​​version​​of​​events​​in​​which​
​information​​about​​the​​attackers​​came​​from​​Madhu​​himself​​rather​​than​​from​​the​​police's​
​own knowledge acquired through other means.​
​h.​ ​Curiously,​​the​​FIR​​(Ext.P81)​​was​​registered​​manually​​at​​5.15​​p.m.​​The​
​contention​​advanced​​by​​the​​prosecution​​was​​that​​this​​was​​on​​account​​of​​a​​power​​failure​
​at​ ​Agali​ ​Police​​Station​​at​​the​​relevant​​time​​and​​the​​CCTNS​​computer​​system​​was​​not​
​working.​​The​​evidence​​let​​in​​by​​the​​defence​​by​​examining​​DW2​​(Assistant​​Engineer​​of​
​KSEB,​ ​Agali​ ​Section)​ ​and​ ​DW3​ ​(Assistant​ ​Engineer,​ ​11​ ​KV​ ​Sub​ ​Station,​ ​Mannarkkad)​
​would​ ​reveal​ ​that​ ​such​ ​an​​assertion​​was​​false.​​Reliance​​was​​also​​placed​​on​​Exts.D14​
​(complaint​​register​​of​​KSEB​​Agali​​dated​​22.02.2018),​​D15​​(LT​​interruption​​register),​​D16​
​(HT​​interruption​​register),​​D17​​(interruption​​register​​of​​33​​KV​​Sub​​Station,​​Agali),​​and​
​D18​​(operators'​​daily​​register​​of​​33​​KV​​Sub​​Station,​​Agali​​dated​​22.02.2018)​​and​​it​​was​
​argued​ ​that​ ​at​ ​point​ ​of​ ​time​ ​was​ ​a​ ​complaint​ ​registered​ ​with​​KSEB​​regarding​​power​
​failure at Agali Police Station on the relevant date​
​i.​ ​CCTV​​cameras​​were​​installed​​at​​the​​Agali​​Police​​Station,​​if​​that​​be​​the​
​case,​​the​​investigating​​officer​​was​​obligated​​to​​verify​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​at​​the​​Station​​to​
​determine​ ​whether​ ​Madhu​​was​​brought​​into​​the​​station,​​and​​if​​so,​​in​​what​​condition.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​58​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​The​ ​failure​ ​to​ ​produce​ ​the​​said​​document​​would​​only​​reveal​​that​​the​​attempt​​was​​to​
​conceal the incident of custodial torture.​
​j.​ ​The​​case​​of​​the​​prosecution​​specifically​​is​​that​​Madhu​​vomited​​at​​Mele​
​Thavalam,​​which​​is​​located​​approximately​​10​​km​​from​​Mukkali​​on​​the​​road​​to​​Agali.​​The​
​police​ ​jeep​ ​was​ ​stopped​ ​briefly​ ​and​ ​thereafter​ ​continued​ ​to​ ​Agali​ ​CHC,​ ​which​ ​was​
​situated​ ​about​ ​8​​km​​away.​​Between​​Mukkali​​and​​Agali,​​several​​private​​hospitals​​were​
​available​ ​and​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​reason​ ​why​​Madhu​​was​​not​​admitted​​in​​those​​hospitals​​for​
​treatment.​
​k.​ ​DW1,​​the​​Senior​​Nursing​​Officer​​of​​Agali​​CHC,​​produced​​the​​OP​​register​
​(Ext.D12)​​and​​the​​injection​​register​​(Ext.D13)​​for​​the​​relevant​​period.​​In​​Ext.D13,​​the​
​time​​of​​admission​​of​​Madhu​​had​​been​​changed​​from​​4:25​​p.m.​​to​​4:15​​p.m.​​This​​was​​a​
​clear​ ​attempt​ ​to​ ​manipulate​ ​the​ ​police​ ​records​ ​to​ ​create​ ​a​ ​shorter​ ​window​ ​between​
​police​ ​custody​ ​and​ ​death,​​thereby​​making​​it​​appear​​there​​was​​less​​time​​for​​police​​to​
​have inflicted injuries.​
​l.​ ​No​​external​​injuries​​were​​noted​​by​​the​​police​​at​​the​​time​​of​​custody​​but​
​when​​the​​postmortem​​was​​conducted​​by​​a​​team​​of​​doctors​​44​​injuries​​were​​found​​on​
​various​ ​parts​ ​of​​the​​body​​which​​include​​fractured​​ribs,​​head​​contusions​​causing​​brain​
​edema, tramline contusions, and internal haematomas.​
​m.​ ​Dr.​​Lima​​Francis​​(PW56),​​the​​duty​​doctor​​at​​Agali​​CHC,​​was​​influenced​
​by​​senior​​police​​officials​​to​​record​​a​​clinical​​note​​that​​portrayed​​a​​different​​picture​​of​​the​
​injuries on Madhu's body. The certificate prepared by her was also manipulated.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​59​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​n.​ ​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​committed​​a​​grave​​error​​in​​conducting​
​its​​own​​visual​​identification​​of​​the​​accused​​without​​any​​scientific​​methodology.​ ​In​​the​
​case​​on​​hand,​​the​​prosecution​​examined​​PW38,​​a​​photographer,​​who​​took​​photos​​of​​the​
​accused​​persons​​after​​their​​arrest​​in​​a​​neutral​​background​​and​​those​​photographs​​were​
​marked​​as​​‘S’​​series​​photographs.​ ​Thereafter,​​PW95,​​the​​scientific​​expert,​​compared​​the​
​photographs​ ​with​ ​video​ ​footage​​of​​the​​accused​​and​​identified​​the​​accused​​in​​Ext.P92​
​report.​ ​The​ ​court​ ​also​ ​relied​ ​on​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​PW2,​ ​PW27​ ​and​ ​PW97​ ​to​ ​pin​​the​
​accused​​as​​the​​persons​​in​​the​​video​​footage.​ ​This​​manner​​of​​analysis​​cannot​​be​​relied​
​upon to identify the accused in a case of this nature.​
​9.1.​ ​Arguments​​advanced​​by​​the​​Sri.​​T.​​Shajith,​​the​​learned​​counsel​
​appearing for accused No. 1 :​
​a.​ ​According​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​PW83,​​the​​Officer​​who​​recorded​​the​
​FIS,​ ​has​ ​falsely​ ​included​ ​the​ ​name​ ​of​ ​Accused​ ​No.1​ ​with​​a​​view​​to​​persuade​​him​​to​
​become​ ​a​ ​witness​ ​for​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​at​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​stage.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​ ​learned​
​counsel,​​except​​A1​​and​​A11,​​none​​of​​the​​persons​​named​​in​​the​​FI​​Statement​​have​​been​
​arrayed​​as​​accused​​in​​the​​final​​report.​ ​This​​would​​reveal​​that​​the​​implication​​of​​A1​​and​
​the​​other​​accused​​are​​merely​​an​​afterthought​​to​​give​​a​​clean​​chit​​to​​the​​police​​officers​​in​
​whose custody Madhu had sustained injuries.​
​b.​ ​According​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​Accused​​No.​​1​​had​​come​​to​​Mukkali​
​as​​he​​was​​informed​​that​​his​​granddaughter​​had​​eloped​​with​​a​​boy.​​He​​had​​come​​along​
​with​ ​his​ ​son​ ​(Riyas-​ ​DW8/PW45),​ ​younger​ ​brother​ ​(Abdu​ ​Rahiman-​ ​DW6),​ ​and​
​son-in-law​​(Nasar-​​DW5)​​to​​his​​daughter's​​house​​at​​Mukkali​​to​​sort​​out​​this​​matter.​​In​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​60​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​order​ ​to​ ​substantiate​ ​his​ ​contention,​ ​he​ ​examined​ ​DW5,​ ​DW6,​ ​DW7​ ​(K.V.​ ​Salam-​
​Secretary​​of​​the​​Jama​​Ath),​​and​​DW8​​as​​witnesses.​​Their​​version​​is​​unchallenged​​and​
​there​​was​​no​​reason​​for​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​to​​conclude​​that​​it​​was​​as​​informed​
​by​ ​the​ ​rest​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​that​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​accused​ ​had​ ​come​ ​to​ ​Mukkali​ ​to​ ​wreck​ ​his​
​vengeance.​
​c.​ ​It​​has​​come​​out​​in​​evidence​​that​​hundreds​​of​​persons​​had​​gathered​​at​
​Mukkali,​​and​​not​​all​​of​​them​​have​​been​​arrayed​​as​​accused​​in​​the​​case.​​The​​presence​​of​
​the​​accused​​at​​the​​scene​​has​​also​​been​​explained​​by​​examining​​credible​​witnesses.​​In​
​that​​view​​of​​the​​matter,​​the​​mere​​presence​​of​​A1​​in​​and​​around​​Mukkali​​is​​no​​reason​​to​
​conclude​ ​that​​the​​1st​​accused​​had​​also​​shared​​the​​common​​object​​of​​the​​rest​​of​​the​
​accused.​​Reliance​​was​​placed​​on​​the​​judgments​​rendered​​by​​the​​Apex​​Court​​in​ ​Subal​
​12​
​Ghorai​​and​​Ors.​​v.​​Govt.​​of​​West​​Bengal​​and​​Ors.​ ​,​ ​Muthu​​Naicker​​and​​Ors.​​v.​
​13​ ​14​
​State​ ​of​ ​Tamil​ ​Nadu​ ​,​ ​Baladin​ ​and​ ​Ors.​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​U.P.​ ​to​ ​substantiate​ ​his​
​contention.​
​d.​ ​It​ ​was​ ​brought​ ​out​ ​during​ ​the​ ​cross-examination​ ​of​ ​PW2​ ​that​ ​the​
​Aandiyallachaal​ ​area​ ​and​ ​the​ ​area​ ​near​ ​the​ ​treasure​ ​box​ ​were​ ​rocky,​ ​and​​that​​while​
​walking​​through​​a​​rocky​​area,​​one​​might​​naturally​​lift​​one's​​leg.​​Going​​by​​the​​evidence​
​of​ ​PW2,​ ​all​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​seen​ ​was​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​accused​ ​lifting​ ​his​​leg​​and​​nothing​​more.​
​According​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​Accused​​No.1​​lifted​​his​​leg​​to​​navigate​​rocks,​​and​​not​
​for stamping Madhu.​
​12​
​[(2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 530]​
​13​
​[(1979 SCC (Cri) 14]​
​14​
​[1956 KHC 391]​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​61​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​e.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​has​
​rightly​ ​held​ ​that​ ​PW8​ ​and​ ​PW19​ ​are​ ​planted​​witnesses​​and​​they​​had​​no​​occasion​​to​
​witness​ ​the​ ​stamping​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​by​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​accused.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​​has​
​invited​ ​the​ ​attention​ ​of​ ​this​​Court​​to​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​and​​timeline​​relied​​on​​by​​the​
​prosecution​​to​​show​​that​​PW8​​(Suresh)​​was​​not​​within​​the​​capturing​​area​​of​​the​​camera​
​at​​3.36.10–13​​seconds​​and​​that​​he​​had​​moved​​towards​​Keeripaara​​road​​at​​3.35.05​​p.m.​
​and​​returned​​only​​at​​3.52.05​​p.m.​​It​​was​​also​​emphatically​​submitted​​that​​PW19​​was​
​near Joly's shop (50–100 metres away) and had left in an autorickshaw before 3.36 p.m.​
​f.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​has​
​seriously​​erred​​in​​relying​​on​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​and​​in​​concluding​​that​​the​​disturbance​​in​
​the​​crowd,​​A7's​​reaction,​​the​​rushing​​of​​bystanders​​were​​enough​​to​​prove​​the​​alleged​
​act​ ​of​ ​stamping.​ ​No​ ​such​ ​finding​ ​was​ ​warranted​ ​even​ ​if​ ​the​ ​footage​ ​is​ ​meticulously​
​evaluated, contended the learned counsel.​
​g.​ ​The​ ​learned​​Sessions​​Judge,​​after​​disbelieving​​the​​evidence​​of​​PWs​​8​
​and​​19,​​who​​were​​cited​​to​​prove​​the​​incident,​​went​​on​​to​​watch​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​and​
​based​​on​​the​​same​​came​​to​​the​​conclusion​​that​​the​​act​​of​​A7​​raising​​his​​hands​​and​​the​
​disturbance​​among​​the​​people​​who​​were​​standing​​around​​Madhu​​revealed​​that​​A1​​had​
​stamped​​Madhu.​ ​According​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​the​​observation​​by​​the​​learned​​Trial​
​Judge​​is​​his​​personal​​observation​​and​​no​​opportunity​​was​​given​​to​​the​​1st​​accused​​to​
​challenge​ ​the​ ​res​ ​gestae​ ​evidence.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​pointed​ ​out​ ​that​ ​if​ ​the​ ​same​ ​was​ ​an​
​incriminating​ ​circumstance,​ ​an​ ​opportunity​ ​ought​ ​to​ ​have​ ​been​ ​granted​ ​to​ ​the​ ​1st​
​accused​​to​​explain​​the​​same,​​the​​same​​was​​not​​done.​​Relying​​on​​the​​observations​​in​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​62​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​15​
​Pritam​​Singh​​and​​Another​​v.​ ​State​​of​​Punjab​ ​,​​it​​is​​argued​​that​​the​​observations​
​and​​findings​​arrived​​at​​by​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​after​​viewing​​the​​CCTV​​footage​
​without granting an opportunity to the defence to explain the same is illegal.​
​h.​ ​It​​is​​submitted​​that​​even​​if​​it​​is​​held​​that​​the​​1st​​accused​​had​​stamped​
​on​​the​​deceased​​without​​admitting​​the​​same,​​his​​action​​would​​only​​attract​​offence​​under​
​16​
​Section​ ​323​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC.​ ​Reliance​ ​is​ ​placed​ ​on​ ​Thomas​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Kerala​ ​to​
​substantiate his contention.​
​i.​ ​It​​was​​argued​​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​​that​​the​​1st​​accused​​never​​went​
​to​​the​​forest,​​had​​no​​connection​​with​​the​​plans​​of​​the​​other​​accused,​​and​​was​​merely​​a​
​casual observer at Mukkali who came for a family purpose.​
​9.2.​ ​Sri.​​S.​​Rajeev,​​the​​learned​​counsel​​appearing​​for​​Accused​​Nos.2​
​and 5, advanced the following submissions:​
​a.​ ​There​ ​was​ ​no​ ​oral​ ​evidence​ ​and​ ​no​ ​CCTV​ ​footage​ ​showing​ ​Accused​
​No.2​ ​or​ ​Accused​ ​No.5​ ​individually​ ​committing​ ​any​​specific​​violent​​act​​against​​Madhu.​
​The​​eyewitnesses​​who​​might​​have​​deposed​​to​​such​​acts​​had​​all​​turned​​hostile.​​In​​those​
​circumstances,​ ​Section​ ​149​​of​​the​​IPC​​cannot​​be​​invoked​​to​​convict​​them​​for​​injuries​
​they were not individually proved to have inflicted.​
​b.​ ​The​​learned​​counsel​​contended​​that​​PW10​​and​​PW11,​​both​​serving​​as​
​forest​​watchers,​​are​​the​​primary​​witnesses​​relied​​upon​​by​​the​​prosecution​​to​​establish​
​15​
​[1956 KHC 423]​
​16​
​[​ 1991 KHC 392]​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​63​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​the​​presence​​of​​the​​2nd​​accused​​in​​the​​forest.​​However,​​it​​was​​pointed​​out​​that​​PW11,​
​during​​the​​initial​​stage​​of​​his​​examination,​​did​​not​​support​​the​​case​​of​​the​​prosecution.​
​Subsequently,​ ​he​ ​appeared​ ​before​ ​the​ ​office​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Public​ ​Prosecutor,​ ​participated​​in​
​witness​​protection​​proceedings​​conducted​​at​​the​​District​​Judge​​level,​​and​​was​​thereafter​
​recalled.​​In​​the​​second​​stage​​of​​his​​examination,​​he​​reneged​​from​​his​​earlier​​stance​​and​
​supported​ ​the​ ​prosecution.​ ​A​ ​similar​ ​pattern,​ ​according​ ​to​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel,​ ​is​
​evident​​in​​the​​testimony​​of​​PW10.​​In​​his​​examination-in-chief​​at​​the​​first​​stage,​​PW10​
​stated​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​seen​ ​“some​ ​persons”​ ​walking​​through​​the​​forest​​at​​a​​distance​​of​
​approximately​ ​10​ ​-​ ​70​ ​metres,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​he​ ​identified​ ​one​ ​among​ ​them​ ​as​ ​the​ ​2nd​
​accused​ ​(Marakkar).​ ​However,​ ​during​ ​cross-examination​ ​at​ ​that​ ​stage,​ ​the​ ​defence​
​elicited​​statements​​suggesting​​that​​the​​witness​​was​​observing​​from​​a​​distance​​ranging​
​between​​500​​metres​​and​​1​​kilometre—a​​range​​from​​which,​​it​​was​​argued,​​identification​
​would​​be​​humanly​​impossible.​​When​​recalled​​for​​further​​examination,​​PW10​​once​​again​
​supported​​the​​prosecution​​and​​reaffirmed​​that​​he​​had​​seen​​and​​identified​​Accused​​No.2.​
​In​​light​​of​​these​​inconsistencies​​across​​different​​stages​​of​​their​​testimony,​​the​​learned​
​counsel​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​both​ ​witnesses​ ​have​ ​given​ ​materially​ ​conflicting​ ​versions,​
​thereby​ ​rendering​ ​their​ ​evidence​ ​unreliable​ ​for​ ​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​identification.​ ​It​ ​was​
​therefore​ ​argued​ ​that​ ​their​ ​testimony​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​safely​ ​relied​ ​upon​ ​for​ ​sustaining​ ​a​
​conviction.​ ​In​ ​support​ ​of​ ​this​ ​contention,​ ​reliance​ ​was​ ​placed​ ​on​ ​Munshi​ ​Singh​
​17​
​Gautam​ ​v.​​State​​of​​Madhya​​Pradesh​ ​and​ ​Malkhansingh​​v.​​State​​of​​Madhya​
​18​
​Pradesh​ ​,​​wherein​​it​​has​​been​​held​​that​​identification​​evidence​​must​​be​​approached​
​with​​caution,​​particularly​​in​​circumstances​​where​​there​​exists​​a​​possibility​​of​​the​​witness​
​17​
​AIR 2005 SC 402​
​18​
​(​ 2003 ) 5 SCC 746​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​64​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​being influenced.​
​c.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel,​ ​accused​ ​Nos.​ ​2​ ​and​ ​5​ ​were​ ​not​
​present​ ​in​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​at​ ​the​ ​relevant​ ​time.​ ​It​ ​was​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​court​
​nevertheless​​proceeded​​to​​rely​​upon​​CCTV​​footage​​to​​accept​​the​​prosecution’s​​version​
​regarding​​the​​role​​allegedly​​played​​by​​the​​said​​accused.​​The​​learned​​counsel​​contended​
​that​​the​​method​​and​​manner​​in​​which​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​was​​relied​​upon​​is​​contrary​​to​
​the​​prescribed​​procedure,​​and,​​on​​that​​ground​​alone,​​no​​reliance​​ought​​to​​have​​been​
​placed​​on​​such​​material.​​It​​was​​further​​urged​​that​​no​​Test​​Identification​​Parade​​(TIP)​
​was​​conducted​​in​​the​​present​​case.​​Instead,​​the​​witnesses​​are​​stated​​to​​have​​identified​
​the​​accused​​after​​being​​shown​​photographs​​and​​video​​footage​​by​​the​​police.​​According​
​to​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel,​ ​such​ ​identification​ ​is​ ​inherently​ ​tainted​ ​and​ ​lacks​​evidentiary​
​value,​ ​as​ ​it​ ​carries​ ​a​ ​serious​ ​risk​ ​of​ ​suggestion​ ​and​ ​influence,​​thereby​​rendering​​the​
​identification unsafe to be relied upon.​
​d.​ ​The​​mobile​​phone​​bearing​​SIM​​No.​​9961268715,​​from​​which​​the​​three​
​calls​​to​​Accused​​No.9​​(Najeeb)​​were​​made​​at​​12.17​​p.m.,​​12.21​​p.m.,​​and​​12.22​​p.m.​​by​
​the​​2nd​​accused,​​was​​never​​seized​​by​​the​​Investigating​​Officer.​​Accused​​No.2​​was​​not​
​holding​ ​his​ ​mobile​ ​phone​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​his​ ​arrest​ ​on​ ​24.02.2018.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​
​learned​ ​counsel,​ ​the​​CDR​​(Ext.P42​​series)​​cannot​​be​​attributed​​to​​Accused​​No.2.​​Any​
​person could have been using the said SIM on that day.​
​e.​ ​There​​is​​no​​evidence​​that​​either​​Accused​​No.2​​or​​Accused​​No.5​​carried​
​any​​weapons​​to​​the​​forest.​​Section​​148​​of​​the​​IPC​​requires​​proof​​that​​the​​person​​was​
​armed. The inference that each accused was armed is not supported by the evidence.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​65​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​f.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​submitted​ ​that​​the​​word​​parading​​is​​not​​defined​
​anywhere,​​and​​if​​that​​be​​the​​case,​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​erred​​in​​finding​​the​
​accused guilty for the offences under Section 3(1)(d) of the IPC.​
​g.​ ​Insofar​ ​as​ ​Ext.P80​ ​(FI​ ​statement)​ ​is​ ​concerned,​ ​the​ ​names​ ​of​ ​either​
​Accused​​No.2​​or​​Accused​​No.5​​do​​not​​find​​a​​place​​therein.​​It​​was​​much​​later,​​to​​conceal​
​the​​police​​atrocity​​that​​the​​names​​of​​the​​appellants​​were​​included​​and​​they​​were​​framed​
​in the case.​
​h.​ ​Data​ ​from​ ​the​ ​phone​ ​of​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​5​ ​[MO27(a)],​ ​including​ ​GPS​
​coordinates​ ​and​ ​photographs,​ ​were​ ​extensively​ ​used​​by​​the​​prosecution​​to​​prove​​the​
​incident​​which​​took​​place​​in​​the​​forest.​​The​​FSL​​report​​shows​​that​​MO27(a)​​was​​received​
​at​ ​the​ ​State​ ​Forensic​ ​Science​ ​Laboratory​ ​along​ ​with​​other​​items​​only​​on​​27.03.2018,​
​about​​32​​days​​after​​the​​incident.​​The​​seizure​​mahazar​​(Ext.P63)​​of​​the​​phone​​reveals​
​that​​the​​phone​​was​​seized​​from​​the​​custody​​of​​the​​5th​​accused.​​The​​chain​​of​​custody​
​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​proved,​ ​and​ ​there​ ​is​ ​every​​chance​​that​​the​​data,​​or​​GPS​​location​​data​
​could have been accessed or tampered with during this period.​
​i.​ ​The​ ​private​ ​laptop​ ​of​ ​PW72​ ​was​ ​used​ ​during​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​to​ ​view​ ​the​
​footage. This is an erroneous procedure.​
​j.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​Section​​106​​of​​the​​Evidence​​Act,​
​1872​ ​was​ ​wrongly​ ​applied​ ​by​ ​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​to​​the​​disadvantage​​of​​the​
​accused.​​It​​was​​urged​​that​​Section​​106​​is​​an​​exception​​intended​​for​​truly​​exceptional​
​situations​​where​​the​​prosecution​​cannot,​​without​​disproportionate​​difficulty,​​prove​​facts​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​66​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​peculiarly​ ​within​ ​the​ ​knowledge​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused.​ ​Extending​ ​it​ ​beyond​ ​that​ ​would​
​undermine​​the​​foundational​​principle​​that​​the​​prosecution​​bears​​the​​burden​​of​​proving​
​guilt.​
​9.3.​ ​Sri.​ ​Anil​ ​Mohammed,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​
​accused Nos. 3, 6, and 8 to 10, has advanced the following submissions:​
​a.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​electronic​ ​evidence​ ​was​
​analysed​ ​by​ ​PW95,​ ​an​ ​expert​ ​from​ ​the​ ​forensic​ ​science​ ​Lab​ ​who​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​notified​
​examiner​ ​of​ ​electronic​ ​evidence​ ​as​ ​defined​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​79A​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Information​
​Technology​​Act.​​It​​is​​submitted​​that​​only​​the​​evidence​​of​​an​​examiner​​under​​Section​​79A​
​of the Act can be considered as relevant and accepted as admissible.​
​b.​ ​It​​is​​urged​​that​​if​​the​​prosecution​​version​​that​​Madhu​​had​​sustained​​44​
​injuries,​​including​​a​​rib​​fracture,​​is​​believed​​as​​such,​​he​​could​​not​​have​​behaved​​normally​
​in​​the​​CCTV​​footage,​​which​​is​​profusely​​relied​​on​​by​​the​​prosecution.​​He​​submitted​​that​
​the​​deceased​​can​​be​​seen​​sitting,​​appearing​​alert,​​and​​reacting​​to​​stimuli.​​According​​to​
​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel,​ ​nothing​ ​more​ ​was​ ​required​ ​to​ ​conclude​ ​that​ ​the​ ​injuries​ ​were​
​inflicted by police and not by the accused.​
​c.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​further​ ​urged​ ​that​ ​the​ ​recovery​ ​of​ ​MO24​ ​(wooden​​stick)​​on​​the​
​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​alleged​ ​confessional​ ​statement​ ​of​​Accused​​No.3​​as​​per​​Ext.P52​​recovery​
​mahazar​​ought​​to​​have​​been​​rejected​​on​​multiple​​grounds.​​The​​recovery​​was​​not​​proven​
​in​​accordance​​with​​law​​and​​the​​alleged​​recovery​​of​​an​​ordinary​​stick​​was​​from​​an​​open​
​place​​accessible​​to​​all.​​No​​evidence​​was​​adduced​​to​​establish​​the​​presence​​of​​Madhu's​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​67​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​blood,​​tissue,​​or​​DNA​​on​​MO​​24.​​However,​​without​​carrying​​out​​such​​an​​exercise,​​the​
​prosecution​ ​has​ ​linked​ ​the​ ​rib​ ​injury​ ​found​ ​on​ ​the​ ​body​ ​of​​Madhu​​to​​an​​infliction​​of​
​injury by Accused No. 3 using MO24.​
​d.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​No.​​3​​called​​PW91,​​Sub​
​Inspector​ ​of​ ​Police​ ​(Subin)​ ​once​ ​before​ ​reaching​ ​Mukkali,​ ​informing​ ​him​ ​of​ ​the​
​apprehension​​of​​Madhu​​and​​once​​after​​reaching​​Mukkali​​about​​the​​fact​​that​​Madhu​​had​
​reached​​Mukkali.​​This,​​according​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​would​​reveal​​that​​A3​​did​​not​
​nurse​​any​​intent​​to​​harm​​Madhu.​​The​​conduct​​of​​Accused​​No.3​​negates​​the​​knowledge​
​element​​required​​for​​Section​​304​​Part​​II​​of​​the​​IPC​​and​​this​​aspect​​of​​the​​matter​​was​
​not considered by the learned Sessions Judge.​
​e.​ ​Insofar​​as​​Accused​​No.6​​is​​concerned,​​the​​only​​overt​​acts​​attributed​​to​
​him​​is​​the​​alleged​​fisting​​of​​Madhu​​on​​his​​dorsum​​area.​​However,​​the​​prosecution​​has​
​not​ ​placed​ ​on​ ​record​ ​any​ ​video​ ​or​ ​photograph​ ​specifically​ ​showing​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​6​
​individually​​committing​​an​​act​​of​​violence.​​In​​order​​to​​hold​​that​​the​​6th​​accused​​liable​
​under​​Section​​304​​Part​​II​​of​​the​​IPC​​with​​the​​aid​​of​​Section​​149​​of​​the​​IPC,​​it​​needs​​to​
​be​ ​established​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​6​ ​knew,​ ​as​ ​a​ ​member​ ​of​ ​the​ ​assembly,​ ​that​ ​the​
​collective acts were likely to cause death. That threshold has not been crossed.​
​f.​ ​The​​prosecution​​has​​attempted​​to​​establish​​the​​presence​​of​​Accused​​No.​
​6​​through​​CCTV​​(from​​Ponniyammal​​Gurukulam​​in​​Q3​​file​​from​​12:41:15​​pm​​onwards)​
​and​​the​​inference​​drawn​​from​​the​​Q7​​video.​​It​​is​​submitted​​that​​the​​name​​of​​the​​6th​
​accused​​does​​not​​appear​​in​​any​​CCTV​​identification​​report​​of​​PW95,​​and​​no​​weapon​​or​
​mobile​ ​phone​ ​was​ ​seized​​from​​him.​​In​​other​​words,​​the​​prosecution​​at​​the​​most​​has​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​68​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​established only his presence and not his membership of the unlawful assembly.​
​g.​ ​The​​learned​​counsel​​submitted​​that​​the​​contention​​of​​the​​defence​​that​
​the​ ​electronic​ ​evidence​ ​had​ ​been​ ​tampered​ ​with​ ​was​​not​​properly​​considered​​by​​the​
​Sessions​​Court.​​It​​is​​also​​submitted​​that​​the​​prosecution​​has​​not​​been​​able​​to​​establish​
​that​​the​​mobile​​phones​​seized​​from​​the​​individual​​accused​​in​​fact​​belonged​​to​​them.​​It​​is​
​submitted​ ​that​ ​though​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​8​​was​​arrested​​on​​24.02.2018,​​his​​mobile​​phone​
​MO27(c)​​was​​seized​​only​​on​​05.03.2018,​​as​​is​​evident​​from​​the​​property​​list​​(Ext.P108).​
​The​​authorship​​of​​the​​photos​​and​​media​​in​​the​​phone​​cannot,​​therefore,​​be​​placed​​on​
​Accused No. 8.​
​h.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​specific​ ​identified​ ​acts​ ​of​
​Accused​​No.8​​are​​that​​he​​had​​taken​​photographs​​and​​video​​of​​Madhu​​(Q5​​file​​content​
​from​​his​​phone),​​and​​that​​he​​was​​present​​in​​the​​forest​​and​​at​​Mukkali.​​It​​is​​submitted​
​that​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​has​ ​not​ ​let​ ​in​ ​any​ ​evidence​ ​to​​establish​​that​​Accused​​No.8​​had​
​caused​​any​​injury​​by​​physically​​assaulting​​Madhu.​​A​​person​​whose​​own​​device​​records​
​the​ ​incident​ ​but​ ​who​ ​is​ ​not​ ​himself​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​any​ ​video​ ​or​ ​photograph​ ​personally​
​assaulting​​the​​victim​​occupies​​a​​qualitatively​​different​​position​​from​​those​​who​​physically​
​struck Madhu.​
​i.​ ​Insofar​ ​as​​Accused​​No.​​9​​is​​concerned,​​the​​allegation​​is​​that​​Accused​
​No.9​​provided​​his​​Marshal​​Jeep​​(KL-11-H-8559)​​for​​the​​group's​​journey​​to​​Vandikkadavu.​
​According​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​providing​​a​​vehicle​​for​​a​​journey​​does​​not​​establish​
​that Accused No.9 shared the common object of causing grievous hurt to Madhu.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​69​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​j.​ ​The​ ​finding​ ​against​ ​Accused​ ​No.10​ ​is​ ​that​ ​his​ ​autorickshaw​ ​with​
​Registration​​No.​​KL-50-D-2908​ ​was​​used​​to​​transport​​the​​core​​group.​​It​​was​​also​​found​
​that​​it​​was​​Accused​​No.10​​who​​had​​placed​​the​​sack​​containing​​rice​​and​​stolen​​items​​on​
​Madhu's​​shoulders,​​as​​is​​visible​​from​​Q7​​video​​file.​​The​​prosecution​​further​​alleges​​that​
​Accused​ ​No.​ ​10​ ​fisted​ ​Madhu​ ​on​ ​the​ ​dorsum​ ​at​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​stage​ ​and​​Vandikkadavu.​
​According​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​the​​mere​​fact​​that​​A10's​​autorickshaw​​was​​used​​by​
​the group does not establish that he was a member of the unlawful assembly.​
​k.​ ​The​​accused​​were​​convicted​​under​​Section​​3(1)(d)​​of​​the​​SC/ST​​(PoA)​
​Act​ ​r/w.​ ​Section​ ​149​ ​of​ ​the​​IPC​​for​​parading​​Madhu​​semi-nakedly​​through​​the​​public​
​road.​ ​The​ ​caste​ ​of​ ​each​ ​accused​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​that​ ​they​​were​​not​​members​​of​​SC/ST​
​community was not individually proven for any of them through independent evidence.​
​l.​ ​The​​accused​​were​​convicted​​under​​Section​​367​​r/w.​​Section​​149​​of​​the​
​IPC​ ​after​ ​entering​ ​upon​ ​a​ ​finding​ ​that​ ​they​ ​had​ ​abducted​​Madhu​​for​​the​​purpose​​of​
​causing​​grievous​​hurt.​​According​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​even​​if​​the​​prosecution​​case​​is​
​admitted​​as​​such​​the​​common​​object​​of​​the​​assembly​​was​​to​​apprehend​​Madhu​​and​​to​
​hand​ ​him​ ​over​ ​to​ ​the​ ​police.​ ​In​ ​that​ ​view​​of​​the​​matter,​​the​​necessary​​ingredient​​of​
​Section​​367​​of​​the​​IPC​​that​​Madhu​​was​​abducted​​for​​the​​purpose​​of​​causing​​grievous​
​hurt will be caused.​
​9.4.​ ​Sri.​ ​P.Vijayabhanu,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Senior​ ​Counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​
​A8, A9 and A16 advanced the following submissions:​
​a.​ ​No​ ​evidence​ ​was​ ​let​ ​in​ ​by​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​that​ ​the​ ​8th​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​70​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​accused​​had​​assaulted​​Madhu.​​One​​of​​the​​main​​allegations​​is​​that​​the​​mobile​​phone​​of​
​A8,​​which​​was​​marked​​as​​MO27(c),​​contained​​7​​photographs​​and​​videos​​of​​Madhu​​along​
​with​​the​​accused​​and​​that​​the​​said​​videograph​​contained​​the​​footage​​of​​Accused​​No.6​
​striking​​a​​blow​​with​​his​​knee​​on​​Madhu’s​​back.​​According​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​the​
​integrity​ ​of​ ​MO27(c)​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​verified​ ​and​​the​​same​​could​​not​​have​​been​​relied​
​upon.​
​b.​ ​It​​is​​further​​submitted​​that​​Accused​​No.8​​was​​arrested​​on​​24.02.2018​
​but​ ​his​ ​mobile​ ​phone​ ​was​ ​seized​ ​only​ ​on​ ​05.03.2018​ ​as​ ​is​ ​evident​ ​from​ ​Ext.P108​
​property​ ​list.​ ​The​ ​contents​ ​of​ ​the​ ​phone​ ​cannot,​ ​therefore,​ ​be​ ​used​ ​to​ ​implicate​
​Accused No.8 in the crime.​
​c.​ ​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​rightly​​acquitted​​Accused​​No.8​​of​​the​
​offences​​punishable​​under​​Section​​3(1)(r)​​of​​the​​SC/ST​​(PoA)​​Act​​on​​the​​ground​​that​​the​
​prosecution​ ​has​ ​not​ ​succeeded​ ​in​ ​proving​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​8​ ​had​ ​posted​ ​on​ ​social​
​media​ ​certain​ ​videographs​ ​showing​ ​the​ ​capture​ ​of​ ​Madhu​ ​and​ ​assault.​ ​After​ ​having​
​acquitted​ ​the​ ​accused​​for​​the​​said​​offence,​​there​​was​​no​​justification​​in​​imposing​​the​
​maximum sentence awarded to the other accused to A8.​
​d.​ ​Insofar​ ​as​ ​Accused​ ​No.9​ ​is​ ​concerned,​ ​it​ ​was​ ​argued​ ​by​ ​the​​learned​
​counsel​ ​that​ ​the​ ​mere​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​provided​ ​the​​Marshal​​Jeep​​bearing​​Reg.​​No.​
​KL-11-H​ ​8559​ ​to​ ​the​ ​other​ ​accused​ ​will​ ​not​ ​establish​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​No.9​ ​shared​ ​the​
​common​​object​​of​​the​​unlawful​​assembly.​ ​The​​finding​​of​​the​​court​​that​​Accused​​No.​​9​
​was the organizer of the group was not based on legal evidence.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​71​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​e.​ ​The​​Court​​failed​​to​​note​​that​​none​​of​​the​​videos,​​Q7​​file​​in​​particular,​
​produced​ ​by​ ​the​​prosecution​​before​​the​​court​​showed​​the​​presence​​of​​Accused​​No.9.​
​Instead​ ​of​ ​holding​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​No.9​ ​was​ ​not​ ​present,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​
​concluded​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​No.9​ ​was​ ​capturing​ ​the​ ​videographs.​ ​This,​ ​according​ ​to​ ​the​
​learned counsel, is an erroneous finding.​
​f.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​further​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​the​ ​mere​ ​production​ ​of​
​certain​​call​​records​​from​​the​​mobile​​service​​provider​​would​​not​​mean​​that​​certain​​calls​
​have been made or calls received in the mobile phone of Accused No. 9.​
​g.​ ​The​​prosecution​​has​​not​​placed​​before​​the​​court​​any​​oral​​evidence​​or​
​video​​evidence​​to​​establish​​the​​fact​​that​​Accused​​No.9​​had​​assaulted​​Madhu​​either​​in​
​the​​forest​​or​​at​​Mukkali.​​If​​that​​be​​the​​case,​​there​​was​​no​​justification​​in​​imposing​​the​
​maximum​​sentence​​on​​Accused​​No.9​​as​​in​​the​​case​​of​​the​​accused​​against​​whom​​there​
​was evidence to establish the commission of overt acts.​
​h.​ ​Insofar​​as​​Accused​​No.​​16​​is​​concerned,​​who​​is​​none​​other​​than​​the​​son​
​of​​Accused​​No.​​9,​​the​​court​​concluded​​that​​the​​said​​accused​​did​​not​​join​​the​​unlawful​
​assembly​​and​​found​​him​​guilty​​only​​of​​the​​offences​​punishable​​under​​section​​352​​of​​the​
​IPC. Different standards were applied for Accused No. 9.​
​i.​ ​The​​learned​​counsel​​submitted​​that​​the​​trial​​court​​had​​erred​​in​​coming​
​to​​the​​conclusion​​that​​it​​was​​Accused​​No.​​16​​who​​had​​delivered​​a​​kick​​on​​the​​backside​
​of​​Madhu.​ ​According​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​the​​trial​​court​​has​​assumed​​the​​role​​of​​a​
​witness​ ​and​ ​has​ ​identified​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​16​ ​as​​the​​person​​pictured​​in​​photograph​​S8,​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​72​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​from the ‘S’ series photographs taken by PW38.​
​j.​ ​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​laid​​much​​emphasis​​on​​the​​motive​​of​
​Accused​​No.​​16​​that​​he,​​being​​the​​son​​of​​PW39​​and​​being​​a​​witness​​in​​the​​theft​​case​
​involving​​Madhu,​​had​​every​​reason​​to​​assault​​him.​ ​It​​is​​submitted​​that​​motive​​has​​to​​be​
​specifically proved and cannot be inferred from family relationships.​
​k.​ ​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​erred​​in​​coming​​to​​a​​conclusion​
​that​ ​A16​​did​​a​​thrust​​from​​behind​​causing​​annoyance​​to​​Madhu,​​and​​thereby​​holding​
​that​ ​the​ ​offence​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​352​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC​ ​was​ ​made​ ​out.​ ​The​ ​said​ ​finding​ ​is​
​erroneous.​
​9.5​ .​ ​Sri.​ ​Nireesh​ ​Mathew,​ ​the​​learned​​Counsel​​appearing​​for​​A7​​&​
​A12, advanced the following submissions:​
​a.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​has​
​erred​ ​in​​relying​​on​​the​​contents​​of​​MO27​​mobile​​phone​​to​​attribute​​a​​role​​to​​the​​7th​
​accused.​
​b.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​further​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​applied​ ​the​
​principle​​of​​res​​gestae​​and​​went​​on​​to​​hold​​that​​rising​​of​​Accused​​No.​​7​​from​​the​​place​
​he​​was​​sitting​​and​​pointing​​his​​fingers​​at​​3.36.10​​Seconds​​as​​discernible​​from​​Q2​​CCTV​
​footage​​could​​be​​considered​​as​​a​​contemporaneous​​act​​corroborating​​the​​stamping​​of​
​Accused​​No.1​​at​​that​​moment.​​According​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​the​​reliance​​placed​​by​
​the​​court​​on​​the​​body​​language​​of​​Accused​​No.​​7​​as​​corroborative​​of​​the​​stamping​​of​
​Accused​​No.​​1​​is​​a​​judicial​​inference​​from​​a​​three-second​​CCTV​​image​​and​​not​​a​​direct​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​73​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​proof of any act by Accused No. 7.​
​c.​ ​The​ ​prime​ ​allegation​ ​against​ ​the​ ​7th​ ​accused​ ​is​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​held​
​Madhu's​ ​left​ ​hand​ ​while​ ​they​ ​were​ ​coming​ ​down​ ​from​ ​the​​forest,​​for​​which​​purpose​
​profuse​​reliance​​was​​placed​​on​​Q7​​video​​extracted​​from​​the​​phone​​of​​Accused​​No.​​9.​
​According​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​even​​a​​very​​careful​​perusal​​of​​the​​video​​footage​​will​
​not​ ​reveal​ ​this​ ​fact.​ ​All​ ​that​​can​​be​​seen​​from​​the​​footage​​is​​that​​of​​several​​persons​
​surrounding Madhu during the march.​
​d.​ ​Insofar​​as​​Accused​​No.​​12​​is​​concerned,​​the​​learned​​counsel​​submitted​
​that​​there​​is​​no​​legal​​evidence​​adduced​​by​​the​​prosecution​​to​​show​​his​​involvement​​in​
​the​​crime.​​The​​evidence​​let​​in​​does​​not​​reveal​​that​​any​​mobile​​phone​​or​​weapon​​was​
​seized​ ​from​ ​or​ ​at​ ​the​ ​instance​ ​of​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​12.​ ​No​ ​witness​ ​spoke​ ​about​ ​his​
​involvement,​ ​and​ ​even​ ​the​ ​video​ ​footage​ ​does​ ​not​ ​show​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​12​ ​had​
​committed​​any​​acts​​of​​violence.​​His​​conviction​​rests​​entirely​​on​​Section​​149​​of​​the​​IPC​
​as a member of the unlawful assembly whose group committed the proved offences.​
​9.6.​ ​Sri.​ ​S.K.​​Adityan,​​the​​learned​​counsel,​​advanced​​the​​following​
​submissions on behalf of the 13th accused:​
​a.​ ​As​ ​far​ ​as​ ​the​ ​conviction​ ​of​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​13​ ​is​ ​concerned,​ ​the​ ​Court​
​proceeded​​to​​believe​​the​​prosecution​​version​​that​​Accused​​No.​​13​​arrived​​at​​Mukkali​​in​
​his​​motorcycle​​bearing​​registration​​No.​​KL-05-AJ-498.​​However,​​no​​evidence​​was​​let​​in​​to​
​establish​​that​​the​​13th​​accused​​had​​driven​​the​​bike.​​With​​the​​above​​evidence,​​the​​Court​
​could​ ​not​ ​have​ ​come​ ​to​ ​the​ ​conclusion​ ​that​ ​the​​13th​​accused​​was​​a​​member​​of​​the​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​74​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​unlawful​​assembly​​and​​he​​had​​committed​​any​​overt​​act​​in​​prosecution​​of​​the​​common​
​object.​
​b.​ ​In​ ​order​​to​​establish​​that​​the​​motor​​vehicle​​bearing​​No.​​KL-05-AJ-498​
​was​ ​possessed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​13th​ ​accused,​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​examined​ ​PW44,​ ​an​ ​auto​
​consultant,​ ​whose​ ​evidence​ ​was​ ​thoroughly​ ​insufficient​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​the​ ​said​ ​fact.​
​Furthermore,​​the​​RC​​particulars​​of​​the​​vehicle​​revealed​​that​​the​​registration​​stood​​in​​the​
​name​​of​​Sri.​​Alfin​​Mathew,​​who​​was​​not​​cited​​as​​a​​witness​​or​​examined.​​Relying​​on​​the​
​19​
​law​​laid​​down​​in​ ​Faisal​​U.K.​​v​​State​​of​​Kerala​ ​,​​it​​was​​urged​​that​​the​​failure​​of​​the​
​investigating​ ​officer​ ​to​ ​examine​ ​material​ ​witnesses​ ​will​ ​create​ ​serious​ ​doubt​ ​on​ ​the​
​fairness and credibility of investigation.​
​c.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​further​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​only​ ​other​ ​evidence​ ​linking​ ​the​ ​13th​
​accused​​with​​the​​assembly​​was​​the​​evidence​​let​​in​​by​​PW27,​​who​​stated​​before​​court​
​that​​the​​13th​​accused​​were​​among​​the​​persons​​who​​had​​brought​​Madhu​​down​​from​​the​
​forest.​​Furthermore,​​no​​specific​​act​​of​​violence​​is​​individually​​attributed​​to​​Accused​​No.​
​13.​
​9.7​ ​Sri.​​Varghese,​​the​​learned​​counsel​​appearing​​for​​A14​​and​​A15​​has​
​advanced the following submissions​ :​
​a.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​Nos.​ ​14​​and​​15​​did​​not​
​enter​ ​the​ ​Aandiyallachaal​ ​reserved​​forest​​and​​even​​according​​to​​the​​prosecution​​they​
​had​​no​​part​​in​​assaulting​​Madhu​​after​​his​​apprehension​​inside​​the​​forest.​​According​​to​
​19​
​2026 KHC Online 1578​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​75​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​the​​learned​​counsel,​​if​​Accused​​Nos.​​14​​and​​15​​was​​not​​part​​of​​the​​unlawful​​assembly​​at​
​the inception, they cannot be treated as a member of the unlawful assembly​
​b.​ ​It​​is​​further​​submitted​​that​​the​​only​​evidence​​against​​Accused​​Nos.​​14​
​and​​15​​is​​a​​photograph​​from​​A8's​​phone​​(Q5​​file),​​which​​shows​​Accused​​Nos.​​14​​and​​15​
​and​​the​​Marshal​​Jeep​​of​​Accused​​No.​​9​​at​​Vandikkadavu.​​It​​is​​submitted​​that​​from​​the​
​forensic​​report​​it​​is​​evident​​that​​the​​said​​photograph​​is​​a​​WhatsApp​​forward​​and​​not​​an​
​original photograph captured using the camera of the 8th accused.​
​c.​ ​Mobile​​phone​​of​​the​​Accused​​No.​​14​​(MO25/Q9)​​was​​produced​​before​
​the​ ​police​ ​by​ ​the​ ​relative​ ​of​ ​the​ ​14th​ ​accused​ ​and​ ​was​ ​seized​ ​on​​08.03.2018​​under​
​Ext.P58​​seizure​​mahazar.​​Accused​​No.14​​was​​arrested​​on​​24.02.2018.​​According​​to​​the​
​learned​​counsel,​​the​​question​​of​​what​​happened​​to​​the​​phone's​​contents​​during​​those​
​12​ ​days​ ​was​ ​never​ ​satisfactorily​ ​established​ ​and​ ​proved.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​ ​learned​
​counsel,​​the​​contents​​of​​Q9​​cannot​​be​​relied​​upon​​without​​first​​establishing​​the​​integrity​
​of the device between 22.02.2018 and 08.03.2018.​
​d.​ ​The​​medical​​evidence​​establishes​​that​​the​​fatal​​injuries​​(causing​​brain​
​edema)​​were​​inflicted​​between​​1.00​​p.m.​​and​​2.00​​p.m.,​​that​​too​​while​​inside​​the​​forest.​
​If​​the​​injuries​​that​​caused​​Madhu's​​death​​were​​inflicted​​before​​Accused​​Nos.​​14​​and​​15​
​even​​joined​​the​​assembly,​​their​​liability​​under​​Section​​304​​Part​​II​​of​​the​​IPC​​becomes​
​suspect.​ ​They​ ​can​ ​only​ ​be​ ​attributed​ ​constructive​​liability​​only​​if​​there​​is​​evidence​​to​
​establish​ ​that​ ​when​ ​Accused​ ​Nos.​ ​14​ ​and​ ​15​ ​joined​​at​​Vandikkadavu,​​they​​knew​​or​
​could​ ​reasonably​ ​have​ ​foreseen​ ​that​ ​the​ ​assembly's​ ​acts​ ​up​ ​to​ ​that​ ​point​ ​had​ ​likely​
​caused or would cause death.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​76​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​e.​ ​Insofar​ ​as​ ​Accused​ ​No.15​ ​is​ ​concerned,​​the​​specific​​allegation​​is​​that​
​Accused​​No.​​15​​held​​the​​zip​​tied​​around​​Madhu's​​arms​​during​​the​​march,​​and​​he​​fisted​
​Madhu​ ​on​ ​the​ ​shoulder.​ ​No​ ​evidence​ ​was​ ​let​ ​in​​by​​the​​prosecution​​to​​establish​​both​
​these aspects.​
​10.​ ​Analysis of evidence:​
​We​​have​​carefully​​considered​​the​​submissions​​advanced​​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​
​on​ ​either​​side​​and​​have​​meticulously​​perused​​the​​entire​​record.​​Having​​regard​​to​​the​
​nature​ ​of​ ​the​ ​appeals​ ​before​ ​us—namely,​​appeals​​against​​conviction,​​appeals​​against​
​acquittal,​​as​​well​​as​​challenges​​to​​the​​adequacy​​of​​the​​sentence​​imposed—we​​are​​called​
​upon​ ​to​ ​undertake​ ​a​ ​comprehensive​ ​reappreciation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​on​ ​record.​
​Furthermore,​​a​​contention​​was​​advanced​​before​​us​​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​​appearing​​for​
​both​ ​sides​ ​that​ ​the​ ​oral​ ​evidence​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​properly​ ​appreciated​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​
​Sessions​ ​Judge.​ ​In​ ​that​ ​backdrop,​ ​and​ ​before​ ​proceeding​ ​to​ ​deal​ ​with​ ​the​ ​specific​
​contentions​ ​urged,​ ​we​ ​deem​ ​it​ ​appropriate,​ ​as​ ​a​ ​matter​ ​of​​judicial​​discipline,​​to​​first​
​examine​​in​​detail​​the​​evidence​​adduced​​by​​the​​prosecution.​​This​​foundational​​exercise​​is​
​necessary​​to​​assess​​the​​correctness​​of​​the​​findings​​recorded​​by​​the​​Trial​​Court,​​both​​in​
​respect​​of​​conviction​​and​​acquittal,​​and​​to​​determine​​whether​​the​​conclusions​​reached​
​are sustainable in law and on facts.​
​10.1.​ ​PW1​​(CW1)​​is​​an​​attestor​​to​​Ext.P1​​inquest​​report.​​He​​deposed​​that​​he​
​was​​present​​at​​the​​Agali​​Community​​Health​​Centre​​at​​the​​time​​of​​conducting​​the​​inquest​
​over​​the​​body​​of​​deceased​​Madhu.​​PW1​​further​​stated​​that​​for​​several​​years​​prior​​to​​the​
​incident, Madhu had been residing in the forest area.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​77​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​10.2.​ ​PW2​​(CW10)​​is​​a​​witness​​examined​​by​​the​​prosecution​​to​​testify​​what​
​had​​transpired​​at​​Mukkali​​Junction​​after​​Madhu​​was​​brought​​there.​​He​​deposed​​that​​he​
​had​​visited​​Mukkali​​on​​the​​relevant​​day.​​He​​stated​​that​​he​​saw​​Madhu​​at​​Mukkali,​​and​
​according​ ​to​ ​him,​ ​about​ ​150-200​ ​persons​ ​were​ ​near​ ​him.​ ​He,​ ​however,​ ​stated​ ​that​
​nothing​ ​eventful​ ​was​​seen​​by​​him.​​He​​identified​​all​​the​​accused​​standing​​in​​the​​dock​
​after​​the​​court​​had​​asked​​them​​to​​remove​​the​​masks​​worn​​by​​them.​​It​​is​​clear​​from​​his​
​evidence​​that​​the​​witness​​was​​aware​​of​​the​​identity​​of​​each​​of​​the​​accused​​as​​they​​were​
​all​​residents​​of​​Mukkali​​and​​whereabouts.​​Though​​PW2​​was​​cited​​to​​prove​​the​​overt​​act​
​of​​the​​1st​​accused​​stamping​​on​​Madhu​​while​​he​​was​​seated​​in​​front​​of​​the​​treasure​​box​
​of​ ​Ponmala​ ​Sastha​ ​Temple​ ​situated​ ​near​ ​Sreerag​ ​Bakery​ ​at​ ​Mukkali​ ​Junction,​ ​PW2​
​refused​​to​​depose​​that​​he​​witnessed​​the​​act​​of​​stamping.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​​a​​leading​
​question​​as​​to​​whether​​he​​had​​stated​​to​​the​​police​​that​​one​​individual​​had​​entered​​the​
​crowd​​of​​people​​and​​lifted​​his​​leg​​for​​stamping​​Madhu,​​he​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​stated​​so.​
​The​​court​​ought​​not​​have​​permitted​​the​​prosecution​​to​​put​​such​​a​​question​​as​​it​​is​​hit​​by​
​Section​​162​​of​​the​​Code.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​​whether​​the​​person​​who​​lifted​​the​​leg​​was​
​in​​court,​​he​​stated​​that​​the​​said​​person​​was​​present​​in​​court​​and​​went​​on​​to​​state​​that​​it​
​was​​the​​1st​​accused.​​He​​stated​​that​​he​​then​​went​​towards​​the​​waiting​​shed.​​He​​stated​
​that​​after​​some​​time​​police​​came​​to​​the​​spot.​​Madhu​​got​​up​​and​​entered​​the​​Police​​Jeep.​
​He​ ​did​ ​not​ ​see​ ​whether​ ​any​ ​person​​had​​helped​​him​​to​​enter​​the​​Jeep.​​To​​a​​pointed​
​question​ ​as​ ​to​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​hands​ ​and​​legs​​of​​Madhu​​were​​tied,​​he​​answered​​in​​the​
​negative.​​The​​prosecution​​played​​the​​CCTV​​Footage​​extracted​​to​​Ext.P92(a)​​pen​​drive​​of​
​the​ ​incident​ ​at​ ​Mukkali​ ​on​ ​22.2.2018​ ​from​​3.08​​p.m.​​onwards​​in​​open​​court​​and​​the​
​attention​​of​​the​​witness​​was​​invited​​to​​the​​same.​​PW2​​identified​​all​​the​​accused​​persons​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​78​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​visible​​in​​the​​CCTV​​footage,​​except​​Accused​​No.12​​and​​stated​​that​​they​​could​​be​​seen​​in​
​the​​video.​​He​​admitted​​that​​the​​video​​clipping​​was​​that​​of​​Mukkali​​and​​identified​​Sreerag​
​Bakery​ ​situated​ ​in​​the​​junction.​​He​​was​​able​​to​​identify​​Madhu​​in​​the​​video.​​He​​then​
​identified​​the​​accused​​who​​were​​found​​standing​​around​​Madhu.​​He​​specifically​​identified​
​Accused​​No.15​​(Biju),​​Accused​​No.​​6​​(Aboobacker),​​Accused​​No.​​4​​(Aneesh),​​Accused​
​No.​ ​5​ ​(Radhakrishnan),​ ​Accused​ ​No.3​ ​(Shamsudeen),​ ​Accused​ ​No.14​ ​(Hareesh),​
​Accused​​No.A11​​(Abdul​​Kareen),​ ​Accused​​No.2​​(Marakkar),​ ​Accused​​No.​​9​​(Najeeb)​
​Accused​ ​No.7​ ​(Sidhique),​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​13​ ​(Satheesh),​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​16​ ​(Muneer),​
​Accused​​No.10​​(Jaijumon),​ ​Accused​​No.1​​(Hussain).​​When​​he​​refused​​to​​state​​that​​he​
​had​ ​witnessed​​A1​​stamping​​Madhu,​​the​​prosecution​​sought​​permission​​to​​put​​leading​
​questions​ ​and​ ​the​ ​same​ ​was​ ​allowed​​by​​the​​Court​​and​​the​​confronted​​portions​​were​
​marked​​as​​Exr.​​P2​​series.​​He​​asserted​​that​​he​​had​​no​​occasion​​to​​witness​​Madhu​​being​
​stamped​​by​​any​​person​​but​​added​​that​​he​​was​​able​​to​​notice​​some​​facial​​changes.​​In​
​cross-examination,​​the​​witness​​asserted​​that​​he​​was​​present​​till​​Madhu​​was​​taken​​by​​the​
​police​ ​and​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​also​ ​visible​ ​in​ ​the​ ​CCTV.​ ​The​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​accused​
​confronted​​him​​with​​his​​movements​​as​​captured​​by​​the​​CCTV​​cameras,​​and​​he​​admitted​
​that​​it​​was​​him​​who​​was​​seen​​in​​the​​video.​​He​​stated​​that​​he​​was​​not​​aware​​as​​to​​why​
​Accused​​No.1​​lifted​​his​​leg.​​During​​cross-examination​​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​​appearing​
​for​​Accused​​Nos.​​2​​and​​5,​​the​​witness​​stated​​that​​he​​was​​questioned​​by​​the​​police​​two​
​days​ ​after​ ​the​ ​incident.​ ​He​ ​further​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​police​ ​had​ ​not​ ​required​​him​​to​
​identify​ ​any​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​at​ ​that​ ​stage.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​stated​ ​that​​the​​distance​​between​
​Mukkali​ ​and​ ​Agali​ ​could​ ​ordinarily​ ​be​ ​covered​ ​in​ ​about​ ​25​​minutes.​​In​​the​​course​​of​
​cross-examination​​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​​appearing​​for​​accused​​Nos.​​3,​​6,​​and​​8,​​the​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​79​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​witness​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​when​ ​the​ ​police​ ​arrived​ ​at​ ​the​ ​scene,​ ​the​ ​persons​ ​present​
​approached​​them​​without​​any​​apparent​​fear.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​​several​​individuals​
​seen​​in​​the​​visuals​​are​​not​​included​​in​​the​​array​​of​​accused.​​The​​witness​​also​​expressed​
​his​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​knowledge​ ​as​ ​to​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​police​ ​had​ ​enquired​ ​among​ ​the​ ​assembled​
​persons​​as​​to​​who​​had​​manhandled​​Madhu.​​During​​cross-examination​​by​​the​​counsel​​for​
​Accused​​Nos.​​4,​​7,​​14,​​and​​15,​​the​​witness​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​spoken​​to​​Madhu​​and​​had​
​asked​ ​him​ ​whether​ ​he​ ​wanted​ ​tea,​ ​juice,​ ​a​ ​cigarette,​ ​or​ ​parotta.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​
​witness,​​Madhu​​responded​​by​​stating​​that​​a​​cigarette​​is​​“poison.”​​The​​witness​​further​
​stated​​that​​he​​did​​not​​notice​​any​​injuries​​on​​Madhu’s​​body​​at​​the​​relevant​​time.​​He​​also​
​deposed​​that​​Madhu​​appeared​​to​​be​​in​​a​​normal​​state​​of​​mind,​​had​​laughed​​during​​their​
​interaction,​​and​​did​​not​​seem​​to​​be​​in​​any​​visible​​discomfort.​​The​​witness​​added​​that​
​Madhu’s​​behaviour​​was​​consistent​​with​​what​​he​​had​​observed​​of​​him​​since​​a​​young​​age.​
​The​​witness​​further​​stated​​that​​he​​was​​acquainted​​with​​all​​the​​accused,​​which​​enabled​
​him​ ​to​ ​identify​ ​them.​ ​However,​ ​when​​specifically​​asked​​whether​​Accused​​No.​​13​​was​
​present​​when​​he​​reached​​Mukkali,​​the​​witness​​stated​​that​​a​​large​​number​​of​​persons​
​were​ ​present​ ​and​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​not​ ​certain​ ​whether​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​13​ ​(Satheesh)​ ​was​
​among them.​
​10.3.​ ​PW3​ ​(CW11)​ ​is​ ​another​ ​witness​ ​who​ ​was​ ​examined​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​the​
​incident​ ​at​ ​Mukkali​ ​Junction.​ ​PW3​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​aware​​of​​the​​incident​​which​
​ultimately​​led​​to​​the​​death​​of​​Madhu.​​He​​stated​​that​​on​​22.02.2018,​​at​​about​​3.00​​p.m.,​
​he​​reached​​Mukkali​​Junction.​​According​​to​​him,​​on​​arriving​​in​​front​​of​​Sreerag​​Bakery,​​he​
​noticed​​a​​crowd​​of​​people​​gathered​​there.​​Out​​of​​curiosity,​​he​​entered​​the​​crowd​​and​
​saw​​Madhu​​standing​​within​​it.​​After​​observing​​him​​briefly,​​he​​withdrew​​from​​the​​place.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​80​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​When​​questioned​​about​​the​​condition​​in​​which​​he​​found​​Madhu,​​the​​witness​​stated​​that​
​Madhu’s​​hands​​were​​tied​​and​​that​​he​​was​​standing​​at​​the​​time.​​However,​​when​​asked​​as​
​to​​what​​material​​was​​used​​to​​tie​​his​​hands,​​the​​witness​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​not​​noticed​
​the​ ​same.​ ​He​ ​further​ ​stated​​that​​he​​did​​not​​see​​anyone​​holding​​Madhu​​or​​otherwise​
​restraining​​him.​​The​​witness​​maintained​​that​​he​​did​​not​​observe​​anything​​further​​and​
​did​​not​​identify​​any​​of​​the​​accused​​persons​​present​​at​​the​​scene.​​In​​view​​of​​the​​above​
​responses,​​which​​were​​inconsistent​​with​​his​​earlier​​statement,​​the​​witness​​was​​declared​
​hostile and was thereafter cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor.​
​10.4.​ ​PW4​​(CW12)​​is​​a​​Forest​​Watcher​​stationed​​at​​Pottikkal.​​Although​​PW4​
​admitted​​that​​he​​was​​present​​in​​the​​forest​​on​​the​​relevant​​date​​and​​time,​​he​​denied​​that​
​he​​was​​aware​​of​​the​​incident​​or​​the​​acts​​committed​​by​​the​​accused.​​He​​stated​​that​​on​
​22/3/2018,​ ​he​ ​was​ ​on​ ​duty​ ​at​ ​Pottikkal​ ​and​ ​Panjan​ ​and​ ​Abhilash​ ​were​ ​with​ ​him.​
​Through PW4, Ext.P5 series contradictions were marked.​
​10.5.​ ​PW5​​(CW14)​​is​​an​​employee​​of​​Sreerag​​Bakery​​conducted​​by​​Hareesh​
​(A14).​​He​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​worked​​at​​the​​bakery​​for​​nearly​​three​​years.​​He​​denied​
​having​​furnished​​a​​statement​​to​​the​​police.​​However,​​he​​deposed​​that​​he​​was​​unaware​
​of​ ​the​ ​installation​ ​of​ ​CCTV​ ​cameras​ ​at​ ​the​ ​bakery.​ ​Through​ ​PW5,​ ​Ext.P6​ ​series​
​contradictions​ ​were​ ​marked.​ ​When​ ​confronted​ ​with​ ​the​ ​CCTV​ ​footage​ ​in​​Court,​​PW5​
​denied that he was seen in the same.​
​10.6.​ ​PW6​ ​(CW15)​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​she​ ​goes​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Forest​ ​Area​ ​at​​Pottikkal​​to​
​prepare​​food​​for​​workers.​​She​​denied​​that​​the​​police​​had​​recorded​​her​​statement.​​Ext.P7​
​series contradictions were marked through her.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​81​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​10.7.​ ​PW7​ ​(CW16)​ ​is​ ​a​ ​Forest​ ​watcher.​ ​He​ ​denied​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​given​ ​any​
​statement​ ​in​ ​connection​ ​with​ ​any​ ​incident​ ​to​ ​the​ ​police.​ ​Ext.P8​ ​series​ ​contradictions​
​were​ ​marked.​ ​When​ ​confronted​ ​with​ ​CCTV​ ​footage,​ ​PW7​ ​refused​ ​to​ ​identify​ ​the​
​accused. However, he admitted his signatures on Exts.P9 and P10 scene mahazars.​
​10.8.​ ​PW8​​(CW13)​​is​​a​​loyal​​witness​​for​​the​​prosecution.​​In​​his​​evidence,​​he​
​stated​​that​​he​​was​​aware​​of​​the​​incident​​that​​took​​place​​on​​22/02/2018.​​He​​deposed​
​that​​on​​that​​day,​​he,​​along​​with​​his​​cousin,​​went​​to​​Mannarkkad​​and​​returned​​to​​Mukkali​
​in​​a​​jeep​​and​​reached​​there​​at​​about​​02:30​​p.m.​​They​​got​​down​​at​​Mukkali​​and​​noticed​
​a​​group​​of​​people​​gathered​​near​​the​​treasure​​box​​in​​front​​of​​the​​bakery.​​Out​​of​​curiosity,​
​he​​went​​closer​​and​​saw​​that​​his​​relative,​​Madhu,​​was​​seated​​in​​the​​middle,​​surrounded​
​by​​persons​​questioning​​him.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​​when​​asked​​whether​​Madhu​​had​​any​
​ailments,​​he​​replied​​that​​Madhu​​suffered​​from​​minor​​mental​​ailments.​​When​​questioned​
​about​ ​Madhu’s​ ​clothing,​ ​he​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​Madhu’s​ ​shirt​ ​was​ ​torn​ ​and​ ​open,​ ​with​ ​the​
​buttons​ ​undone.​ ​He​ ​enquired​ ​whether​ ​Madhu​ ​wanted​ ​water​ ​and​ ​also​ ​asked​ ​the​
​assembled​ ​persons​ ​where​ ​Madhu​ ​had​ ​been​ ​brought​ ​from.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​told​ ​that​ ​Madhu,​
​referred​​to​​as​​a​​thief,​​had​​been​​brought​​there.​​He​​reiterated​​that​​Madhu​​was​​seated​​in​
​front​​of​​Sreerag​​Bakery,​​near​​the​​treasure​​box.​​After​​some​​time,​​he​​moved​​and​​stood​
​behind​​the​​treasure​​box.​​He​​deposed​​that​​after​​some​​time,​​Accused​​No.​​1​​(Hussain),​
​who​​was​​running​​a​​shop​​at​​Pakulath,​​arrived​​in​​a​​Xylo​​car,​​got​​down,​​pushed​​aside​​the​
​persons​​present,​​and​​asked​​where​​the​​thief​​was.​​He​​approached​​Madhu,​​lifted​​his​​legs,​
​and​​kicked​​him​​on​​the​​chest.​​On​​receiving​​the​​kick,​ ​due​​to​​the​​force,​​the​​back​​side​​of​
​the​​head​​of​​Madhu​​struck​​the​​treasure​​box​​behind​​him.​​Thereafter,​​Madhu​​was​​taken​​to​
​the​ ​waiting​ ​shed​ ​on​ ​the​ ​opposite​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​road.​ ​By​ ​that​ ​time,​ ​a​ ​police​ ​jeep​ ​had​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​82​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​arrived,​ ​and​ ​some​ ​persons,​ ​who​ ​appeared​ ​to​ ​be​ ​some​ ​among​ ​the​ ​accused,​ ​placed​
​Madhu​​into​​the​​jeep.​​The​​witness​​stated​​that​​he​​did​​not​​see​​Madhu​​thereafter.​​When​
​asked​​whether​​he​​could​​identify​​the​​person​​who​​kicked​​Madhu,​​he​​pointed​​to​​Accused​
​No.1.​ ​On​ ​being​ ​asked​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​present​ ​in​ ​the​ ​dock​ ​were​ ​among​ ​those​
​present,​​he​​replied​​that​​some​​of​​them​​were.​​He​​identified​​Accused​​No.3​​(Shamsudheen)​
​and​​Accused​​No.​​7​​(Siddique)​​in​​court.​​He​​was​​then​​shown​​CCTV​​footage—File​​No.​​2​​in​
​Camera​​No.​​3—and​​he​​identified​​himself​​in​​the​​video​​at​​timestamp​​03:22:15​​p.m.​​dated​
​22/02/2018.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​identified​ ​the​ ​Xylo​ ​car​ ​and​ ​Accused​ ​No.1.​ ​Further​ ​footage​ ​at​
​timestamp​ ​03:36:10​ ​p.m.​ ​from​ ​Camera​ ​No.​ ​3​ ​was​ ​shown,​ ​and​ ​he​ ​again​ ​identified​
​Accused​ ​No.1.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​​footage​​showed​​Madhu​​being​​taken​​to​​the​​waiting​
​shed.​​He​​further​​deposed​​that​​Madhu​​appeared​​very​​tired​​and​​was​​wearing​​torn​​clothes,​
​and​​that​​a​​belt​​was​​tied​​to​​his​​hand.​​He​​identified​​MO1.​​He​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​given​​a​
​statement​ ​to​ ​the​ ​police​ ​two​ ​days​ ​after​ ​the​ ​incident​ ​and​ ​had​ ​also​​given​​a​​statement​
​before​​the​​Magistrate,​​both​​of​​which​​he​​affirmed.​​In​​cross-examination​​by​​counsel​​for​
​accused​​Nos.​​4,​​7,​​14,​​and​​15,​​he​​stated​​that​​he​​was​​present​​at​​Mukkali​​between​​02:30​
​p.m.​​and​​03:00​​p.m.,​​and​​that​​approximately​​10​​to​​100​​people​​were​​present​​when​​he​
​arrived.​​During​​cross-examination​​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​​for​​Accused​​No.1,​​PW8​​stated​
​that​​he​​had​​seen​​Accused​​No.​​1​​manhandling​​Madhu​​and​​that​​the​​same​​was​​visible​​in​
​the​​CCTV​​footage.​​A​​pen​​drive​​containing​​CCTV​​footage​​was​​played​​in​​court.​​Footage​
​from​ ​Camera​ ​No.1​​at​​03:00:02​​p.m.​​dated​​22/02/2018​​was​​shown.​​When​​questioned​
​regarding​​footage​​at​​03:26:26​​and​​03:23:24,​​he​​admitted​​that​​he​​was​​the​​person​​seen​
​proceeding​​towards​​Keeripara​​Road,​​accompanied​​by​​one​​Kunjan.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​
​he​​returned​​to​​Sreeraj​​Bakery​​at​​about​​03:28​​p.m.​​and​​entered​​the​​bakery,​​identifying​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​83​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​himself​ ​in​ ​the​ ​footage.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​at​ ​that​​time,​​many​​people​​were​​still​​gathered​
​around​​the​​treasure​​box.​​Footage​​at​​03:32:20​​p.m.​​was​​played,​​and​​he​​identified​​himself​
​exiting​​the​​bakery​​and​​walking​​away.​​At​​timestamp​​03:35:01,​​he​​confirmed​​that​​he​​was​
​seen​​walking​​towards​​Keeripara,​​where​​Usman​​ran​​a​​shop.​​He​​further​​admitted​​that​​he​
​is​​the​​person​​seen​​in​​the​​footage​​at​​around​​03:50–03:55​​p.m.,​​returning​​from​​Usman’s​
​shop​ ​carrying​ ​two​ ​bags,​ ​though​ ​he​ ​was​ ​unsure​ ​of​ ​the​ ​exact​ ​time.​ ​At​ ​timestamp​
​03:50:57​ ​p.m.,​ ​he​ ​confirmed​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​the​ ​person​ ​shown​ ​carrying​ ​the​ ​two​ ​bags,​
​which​​contained​​items​​purchased​​from​​Usman’s​​shop.​​He​​also​​confirmed​​that​​the​​same​
​was​​visible​​in​​Camera​​No.3.​​When​​questioned​​whether​​the​​footage​​showed​​him​​standing​
​behind​​the​​treasure​​box,​​he​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​nothing​​to​​say.​​When​​asked​​whether​​the​
​footage​​showed​​Hussain​​pushing​​aside​​the​​crowd​​and​​going​​near​​Madhu,​​he​​stated​​that​
​it​​was​​not​​visible​​in​​the​​video.​​Footage​​at​​03:35:34​​p.m.​​was​​played,​​and​​he​​was​​asked​
​whether​​it​​showed​​Hussain​​stamping​​on​​the​​deceased.​​He​​stated​​that​​no​​such​​act​​was​
​visible.​​Further​​footage​​at​​03:36:10​​p.m.​​was​​shown,​​and​​he​​confirmed​​that​​it​​did​​not​
​depict​ ​Hussain​ ​stamping​ ​anyone.​ ​When​ ​asked​ ​whether​ ​he​ ​was​ ​present​ ​during​ ​the​
​inquest,​​he​​answered​​in​​the​​affirmative.​​However,​​he​​admitted​​that​​he​​had​​not​​disclosed​
​to the police the fact that Hussain had stamped on Madhu.​
​10.9.​ ​PW9​​(CW17)​​was​​examined​​to​​prove​​the​​movement​​of​​Madhu​​along​​the​
​road​​in​​front​​of​​his​​kiosk​​shop.​​PW9​​initially​​denied​​witnessing​​the​​incident​​and​​claimed​
​that​​he​​came​​to​​know​​about​​it​​only​​through​​the​​media.​​However,​​he​​admitted​​that​​his​
​shop​​was​​located​​at​​Mukkali​​in​​a​​property​​belonging​​to​​Latheef,​​father​​of​​Accused​​No.9.​
​PW9​ ​further​ ​admitted​ ​familiarity​ ​with​ ​the​ ​business​ ​activities​ ​of​ ​Accused​ ​No.9​ ​and​
​acknowledged​ ​that​ ​after​ ​viewing​ ​CCTV​ ​footage,​ ​he​ ​recollected​ ​a​ ​group​ ​of​ ​persons​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​84​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​passing​ ​through​ ​the​ ​road.​ ​However,​ ​he​ ​was​ ​not​ ​in​ ​a​ ​position​ ​to​ ​identify​ ​any​ ​of​ ​the​
​accused.​​When​​confronted​​by​​the​​learned​​Special​​Public​​Prosecutor,​​PW9​​admitted​​that​
​he​​came​​to​​know​​from​​the​​newspapers​​that​​Madhu​​was​​beaten​​at​​Mukkali​​but​​claimed​
​ignorance regarding the assailants.​
​10.10.​ ​PW10​ ​(CW18)​ ​is​ ​a​ ​Forest​ ​Watcher.​ ​He​ ​is​ ​also​ ​the​ ​Ooru​ ​Mooppan​ ​of​
​Kuttickal.​​PW10​​stated​​that​​several​​persons​​proceeded​​into​​the​​forest​​and​​later​​returned,​
​but​​he​​claimed​​that​​he​​could​​not​​identify​​those​​who​​entered​​and​​came​​back.​​Out​​of​​the​
​sixteen​ ​accused,​ ​PW10​ ​identified​ ​only​ ​one​ ​person,​ ​namely​​Accused​​No.2​​(Marakkar).​
​Such​​identification​​was​​not​​made​​on​​the​​basis​​of​​any​​prior​​acquaintance​​volunteered​​by​
​the​ ​witness;​ ​rather,​ ​in​ ​response​ ​to​ ​a​ ​suggestive​ ​question​ ​put​ ​by​​the​​learned​​Special​
​Public​ ​Prosecutor​ ​as​ ​to​ ​whether​ ​he​ ​could​ ​identify​ ​any​​person​​from​​the​​group,​​PW10​
​answered​​that​​among​​those​​persons​​he​​knew​​only​​Accused​​No.2​​(Marakkar).​​He​​initially​
​stated​​that​​the​​group​​proceeding​​into​​the​​forest​​was​​at​​an​​approximate​​distance​​of​​10​​to​
​70​​metres.​​However,​​he​​later​​stated​​that​​when​​the​​group​​returned​​from​​the​​forest​​he​
​saw​​them​​from​​a​​distance​​of​​about​​1​​kilometre.​​He​​did​​not​​state​​that​​Madhu​​was​​among​
​the​​persons​​who​​had​​come​​down​​from​​the​​forest.​​PW10​​also​​admitted​​the​​existence​​of​​a​
​shed​​at​​Vandikkadavu​​used​​for​​preparation​​of​​food​​for​​forest​​workers.​​At​​the​​instance​​of​
​the​ ​prosecution​ ​PW10​ ​was​ ​recalled.​ ​In​ ​his​ ​examination​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Public​ ​Prosecutor,​ ​he​
​stated​ ​that​ ​on​ ​the​ ​date​ ​of​ ​incident​ ​he​ ​had​ ​occasion​ ​to​ ​witness​ ​a​ ​group​ ​of​ ​people​
​crossing​ ​the​ ​river​ ​and​ ​going​ ​into​ ​the​ ​forest.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​they​ ​were​ ​residents​ ​of​
​Mukkali.​​He​​stated​​that​​he​​was​​aware​​that​​Madhu​​lived​​inside​​the​​forest.​​He​​added​​that​
​on​ ​22.02.2018,​ ​he​ ​had​​witnessed​​the​​accused​​bringing​​down​​Madhu​​from​​the​​forest.​
​However,​ ​in​ ​cross-examination,​ ​he​ ​admitted​ ​that​ ​after​ ​his​ ​earlier​ ​examination​ ​before​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​85​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​court, he was removed from his service in the forest department.​
​10.11.​ ​PW11​​(CW19)​​was​​working​​as​​a​​loading​​employee​​in​​the​​forest​​timber​
​depot​​during​​the​​relevant​​period.​​He​​did​​not​​support​​the​​case​​of​​the​​prosecution​​when​
​examined​​before​​the​​Court.​​As​​in​​the​​case​​of​​PW10,​​the​​said​​witness​​was​​recalled​​at​​the​
​instance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​and​ ​again​ ​examined.​ ​Upon​ ​recall,​ ​he​ ​supported​ ​the​
​prosecution​​case.​​PW11​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​seen​​Madhu​​in​​the​​forest​​and​​that​​Accused​
​No.​​2​​(Marakkar)​​had​​asked​​him​​about​​Madhu.​​PW11​​identified​​Accused​​No.2​​in​​Court.​
​During​ ​the​ ​recalled​ ​examination,​ ​PW11​​admitted​​that​​Madhu​​was​​his​​distant​​relative.​
​PW11​ ​explained​ ​that​ ​he​ ​turned​ ​hostile​ ​during​ ​the​ ​first​ ​examination​ ​because​ ​he​ ​was​
​afraid​​of​​the​​accused​​persons.​​He​​stated​​that,​​at​​the​​time​​of​​his​​second​​examination,​​the​
​accused​​were​​in​​jail​​and​​therefore​​he​​had​​no​​reason​​to​​fear​​them.​​It​​is​​relevant​​to​​note​
​that,​​as​​several​​material​​witnesses​​turned​​hostile,​​the​​prosecution​​filed​​an​​application​​for​
​cancellation​ ​of​ ​bail​ ​granted​ ​to​ ​some​ ​accused,​ ​contending​ ​that​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​had​
​influenced​ ​or​ ​threatened​ ​witnesses​ ​in​ ​violation​ ​of​ ​bail​ ​conditions.​ ​Consequently,​ ​bail​
​granted​​to​​most​​of​​the​​accused​​was​​cancelled​​and​​they​​were​​remanded.​​When​​PW11​
​was​​recalled,​​most​​accused​​were​​in​​jail.​​During​​cross-examination​​at​​the​​second​​stage,​
​PW11​ ​admitted​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​visited​ ​the​ ​office​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Special​ ​Public​ ​Prosecutor​ ​and​
​discussed the case.​
​10.12.​ ​PW12​​(CW20)​​was​​examined​​to​​prove​​that​​he​​witnessed​​Madhu​​being​
​brought​​from​​the​​forest​​by​​the​​accused​​persons.​​PW12​​did​​not​​support​​the​​case​​of​​the​
​prosecution​​and​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​not​​witnessed​​the​​incident.​​Ext.P12​​contradictions​
​were marked through PW12.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​86​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​10.13.​ ​PW13​​(CW21)​​was​​examined​​to​​prove​​that​​he​​had​​seen​​Madhu​​in​​the​
​forest​ ​along​ ​with​ ​the​ ​accused.​ ​Though​ ​he​ ​admitted​ ​that​ ​he​ ​is​ ​a​ ​distant​ ​relative​ ​of​
​Madhu, he did not support the prosecution case.​
​10.14.​ ​PW14​ ​(CW22)​ ​is​​another​​timber​​loader​​who​​had​​been​​working​​in​​the​
​forest​ ​for​ ​several​ ​years.​ ​Though​ ​he​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​he​ ​knew​ ​Kalimooppan,​ ​he​ ​denied​
​acquaintance​ ​with​ ​other​ ​witnesses​ ​examined​ ​in​ ​the​ ​case​ ​and​ ​did​ ​not​ ​support​ ​the​
​prosecution version. Ext.P14 series contradictions were marked through PW14.​
​10.15.​ ​PW15​​(CW​​23)​​stated​​that​​he​​saw​​a​​group​​of​​persons​​passing​​through​
​the​ ​road​ ​along​​with​​a​​person​​in​​shabby​​dress,​​and​​that​​on​​the​​next​​day​​he​​came​​to​
​know​​that​​a​​person​​had​​died.​​Ext.P15​​seizure​​mahazar​​was​​marked​​through​​him.​​As​​per​
​Ext.P15,​​a​​vehicle​​bearing​​No.​​KL-32-B-5959​​was​​seized.​​PW15​​stated​​that​​among​​the​
​group​​members​​he​​knew​​only​​Accused​​No.​​8​​(Ubaid),​​and​​claimed​​that​​he​​identified​​him​
​from​​a​​distance​​of​​about​​200​​metres​​by​​seeing​​his​​backside.​​PW15,​​however,​​identified​
​Accused No. 8 (Ubaid) in Court.​
​10.16.​ ​PW16​ ​(CW2)​​was​​examined​​to​​prove​​that​​the​​accused​​brought​​Madhu​
​to​​Mukkali​​through​​the​​Silent​​Valley–Mukkali​​road.​​PW16​​did​​not​​support​​the​​prosecution​
​and turned hostile.​
​10.17.​ ​PW17​​(CW26)​​is​​engaged​​in​​crane​​service​​business.​​He​​deposed​​that,​
​on​​the​​relevant​​day,​​there​​was​​no​​work​​for​​him​​in​​the​​plantation​​and​​therefore​​he​​spent​
​some​​time​​in​​the​​forest​​with​​other​​workers.​​He​​stated​​that​​he​​saw​​plates,​​food​​items,​
​beedi/cigarettes,​​a​​battery,​​and​​a​​mobile​​charger​​in​​the​​forest,​​and​​inferred​​that​​there​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​87​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​were​​signs​​of​​human​​dwelling​​in​​that​​area.​​He​​stated​​that​​on​​the​​next​​day​​he​​came​​to​
​know about Madhu’s death.​
​10.18.​ ​PW18​​(CW27)​​was​​examined​​to​​prove​​that​​the​​accused​​brought​​Madhu​
​from​ ​the​ ​forest.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​turned​ ​hostile.​ ​Ext.P17​ ​series​ ​contradictions​ ​were​ ​marked​
​through him.​
​10.19.​ ​PW19​​(CW28)​​is​​another​​loyal​​prosecution​​witness.​ ​He​​stated​​that​​on​
​22.02.2018,​ ​he​ ​saw​ ​a​ ​gathering​ ​at​ ​Mukkali​ ​Junction​ ​near​ ​the​​bakery,​​in​​front​​of​​the​
​hundi​ ​installed​ ​there,​ ​and​ ​Madhu​ ​was​ ​sitting​ ​near​ ​it.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​wearing​ ​dirty​ ​clothes.​
​According​​to​​PW19,​​persons​​in​​the​​gathering​​were​​questioning​​Madhu,​​and​​one​​person​
​entered​​the​​gathering​​by​​pushing​​aside​​others​​and​​stamped​​on​​Madhu.​​PW19​​identified​
​that​​person​​as​​Accused​​No.1​​from​​the​​dock.​​PW19​​further​​stated​​that​​the​​1st​​accused​
​was​ ​shown​ ​to​ ​him​ ​at​ ​the​ ​Police​ ​Station.​ ​He​ ​described​ ​Madhu​​as​​being​​in​​a​​pathetic​
​condition​ ​at​ ​that​ ​time.​ ​PW19​ ​reiterated,​ ​even​ ​during​ ​cross-examination,​ ​that​ ​he​
​witnessed​​the​​stamping.​​In​​his​​cross-examination​​by​​the​​counsel​​appearing​​for​​Accused​
​No.​​1,​​the​​witness​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​seen​​a​​person,​​not​​known​​to​​him,​​stamping​​on​
​Madhu.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​remained​​at​​Mukkali​​for​​about​​half​​an​​hour​​and​
​had​​arrived​​there​​in​​an​​autorickshaw.​​According​​to​​him,​​after​​witnessing​​the​​incident,​​he​
​left​ ​Mukkali​ ​in​ ​the​ ​same​ ​autorickshaw.​ ​He​ ​asserted​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​among​​the​​persons​
​assembled​​around​​Madhu​​at​​the​​relevant​​time​​and​​that​​he​​had​​witnessed​​the​​stamping​
​incident.​​When​​asked​​whether​​he​​was​​aware​​that​​the​​entire​​incident​​had​​been​​captured​
​on​​CCTV,​​he​​answered​​in​​the​​negative.​​He​​was​​questioned​​as​​to​​whether​​he​​was​​familiar​
​with​ ​Silent​ ​Valley​ ​Road,​ ​to​ ​which​ ​he​ ​replied​ ​in​ ​the​ ​affirmative.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​his​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​88​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​autorickshaw​​had​​been​​parked​​on​​Silent​​Valley​​Road.​​When​​asked​​about​​the​​distance​
​between​​Sreerag​​Bakery​​and​​the​​place​​where​​the​​autorickshaw​​was​​parked,​​he​​stated​
​that​​it​​was​​approximately​​30​​metres​​and​​denied​​the​​suggestion​​that​​it​​was​​about​​150​​to​
​200​ ​metres.​ ​He​ ​further​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​walked​ ​from​ ​the​ ​place​ ​where​ ​the​
​autorickshaw​​was​​parked​​to​​the​​spot​​where​​the​​incident​​occurred​​and,​​after​​witnessing​
​the​ ​incident,​ ​returned​ ​to​ ​his​ ​autorickshaw​ ​and​ ​left.​ ​The​ ​counsel​ ​then​ ​played​ ​CCTV​
​footage​ ​for​ ​the​ ​timestamp​ ​03:19:28​ ​from​ ​Camera​ ​No.​ ​3,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​attention​ ​of​ ​the​
​witness​ ​was​ ​drawn​ ​to​ ​it.​ ​The​ ​witness​ ​identified​ ​his​ ​autorickshaw​ ​in​ ​the​​footage​​and​
​admitted​ ​that​ ​it​ ​was​ ​being​ ​driven​ ​towards​ ​Silent​ ​Valley​ ​Road.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​
​there​​were​​two​​persons​​inside​​the​​autorickshaw,​​one​​of​​whom​​got​​down​​and​​proceeded​
​on​​foot​​towards​​Mukkali.​​Subsequently,​​footage​​at​​timestamp​​03:24:38​​was​​played,​​and​
​the​​witness​​identified​​himself​​as​​the​​person​​seen​​therein.​​Further​​footage​​at​​timestamp​
​03:27:08​​was​​played,​​and​​he​​admitted​​that​​it​​showed​​him​​walking​​towards​​Silent​​Valley​
​Road.​​He​​was​​then​​asked​​whether​​he​​was​​seen​​in​​the​​footage​​after​​03:07:08,​​and​​a​
​specific​​suggestion​​was​​put​​to​​him​​that​​after​​that​​time​​he​​was​​at​​Silent​​Valley​​Road​​near​
​the​ ​autorickshaw​ ​and​ ​not​ ​at​ ​Mukkali;​ ​he​ ​denied​ ​the​ ​same.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​further​ ​asked​
​whether​​his​​autorickshaw​​had​​been​​parked​​in​​front​​of​​Jolly’s​​shop​​on​​Silent​​Valley​​Road,​
​which​ ​he​ ​admitted.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​admitted​ ​that,​ ​as​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​the​ ​footage​ ​at​ ​timestamp​
​03:39:42,​​the​​person​​who​​had​​walked​​to​​Mukkali​​had​​returned,​​and​​that​​he​​himself​​got​
​into​​the​​autorickshaw​​and​​drove​​away.​​The​​defence​​specifically​​challenged​​his​​assertion​
​that​​he​​was​​present​​at​​Mukkali​​at​​the​​time​​when​​the​​stamping​​took​​place.​​He​​stated​​that​
​he​​had​​given​​his​​statement​​to​​the​​police​​about​​one​​month​​after​​the​​alleged​​incident.​​In​
​re-examination,​ ​he​ ​was​ ​specifically​ ​asked​ ​where​ ​he​ ​was​ ​between​ ​03:23:30​ ​and​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​89​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​03:39:00.​ ​He​ ​responded​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​in​ ​the​ ​vicinity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​area​ ​where​ ​Madhu​ ​was​
​seated.​​He​​was​​also​​asked​​about​​the​​approximate​​distance​​between​​the​​place​​where​​he​
​had​​parked​​the​​autorickshaw​​and​​the​​place​​where​​Madhu​​was​​made​​to​​sit,​​to​​which​​he​
​replied that it was about 30 metres.​
​10.20.​ ​PW20​ ​(CW29)​ ​is​ ​a​ ​Forest​ ​Watcher.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​when​ ​he​ ​reached​
​Mukkali,​​Madhu​​was​​sitting​​near​​the​​treasure​​box.​​He​​did​​not​​support​​the​​prosecution.​
​When​​CCTV​​footage​​seized​​from​​Anavai​​Forest​​Station,​​Sreerag​​Bakery,​​and​​Mukkali​​was​
​played​ ​in​ ​open​ ​court​​using​​electronic​​devices,​​PW20​​denied​​the​​same.​​Ext.P18​​series​
​contradictions were marked through him.​
​10.21.​ ​PW21​ ​(CW31)​ ​was​​examined​​by​​the​​prosecution​​to​​establish​​that​​the​
​accused​​persons​​had​​brought​​Madhu​​to​​Mukkali​​after​​tying​​his​​hands.​​However,​​PW21​
​did​​not​​support​​the​​case​​of​​the​​prosecution.​​The​​contradictions​​in​​his​​earlier​​statements​
​were marked as Ext.P19 series.​
​10.22.​ ​PW22​ ​(CW32)​ ​was​ ​examined​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​the​ ​incidents​ ​that​​occurred​​at​
​Mukkali​​and​​Vandikkadavu,​​including​​the​​act​​of​​bringing​​Madhu​​to​​those​​places.​​He​​did​
​not​​support​​the​​prosecution​​case.​​He​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​only​​witnessed​​Madhu​​being​
​taken​ ​in​​a​​police​​jeep​​and​​the​​presence​​of​​a​​mob​​at​​Mukkali​​Junction.​​He​​refused​​to​
​support the prosecution regarding the events preceding that stage.​
​10.23.​ ​PW23​​(CW33)​​was​​examined​​to​​prove​​the​​incident​​at​​Mukkali​​and​​the​
​existence​ ​of​ ​a​ ​shed​ ​at​ ​Vandikkadavu.​ ​He​ ​did​ ​not​ ​support​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​case.​
​Contradictions in his statements were marked as Ext.P21 series.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​90​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​10.24.​ ​PW24​ ​(CW34),​ ​a​ ​driver​ ​by​ ​profession,​ ​was​ ​examined​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​the​
​incidents​ ​at​ ​Mukkali​ ​Junction​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Vandikkadavu​ ​shed.​ ​He​ ​turned​ ​adverse​ ​to​ ​the​
​prosecution. Contradictions from his previous statements were marked as Ext.P22 series.​
​10.25.​ ​PW25 (CW35), who owns a jeep, also turned hostile.​
​10.26.​ ​PW26​ ​(CW36)​ ​was​ ​examined​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​the​ ​incident​ ​at​ ​Mukkali.​ ​He​
​turned​ ​adverse​ ​to​ ​the​ ​prosecution.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​confronted​ ​with​ ​his​ ​previous​ ​statements​
​which were marked as Ext.P24 series.​
​10.27.​ ​PW27​ ​(CW40)​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​she​ ​was​ ​working​ ​as​ ​a​ ​Kudumbashree​
​Coordinator​ ​at​ ​the​ ​relevant​ ​time.​ ​On​ ​22.02.2018,​ ​she​ ​was​ ​on​ ​her​​way​​to​​the​​office.​
​While​ ​proceeding​ ​towards​ ​Anavayil​​along​​with​​Subrahmaniam​​and​​Sindhusha​​through​
​the​​Mukkali–Silent​​Valley​​Road,​​she​​saw​​a​​group​​of​​persons​​bringing​​Madhu,​​and​​they​
​were​​spotted​​near​​to​​the​​Silent​​Valley​​Information​​Centre.​​She​​stated​​that​​at​​that​​point​
​of​​time​​she​​was​​not​​aware​​that​​the​​exhausted​​person,​​dressed​​in​​shabby​​clothes,​​and​
​carrying​​a​​sack​​on​​his​​shoulders​​was​​Madhu.​​The​​information​​center​​was​​about​​½​​a​​km​
​away​​from​​Mukkali.​​They​​were​​bringing​​Madhu​​from​​the​​Mukkali​​Forest​​Check​​Post​​area​
​to​​Mukkali​​Junction.​ ​A​​jeep​​was​​moving​​alongside​​the​​group.​​The​​driver​​of​​the​​vehicle​
​in​​which​​she​​was​​travelling​​asked​​the​​Driver​​of​​the​​Jeep​​which​​was​​following​​Madhu​​as​
​to​​what​​had​​happened.​​He​​stated​​that​​they​​were​​bringing​​a​​thief.​​She​​further​​deposed​
​that​​she​​saw​​someone​​pouring​​water​​into​​Madhu’s​​mouth.​​Later​​that​​evening,​​around​
​7.00–7.30​ ​p.m.,​ ​she​ ​learned​ ​that​ ​a​ ​person​ ​had​ ​died​ ​and​ ​subsequently​ ​identified​ ​the​
​deceased​​as​​Madhu.​​She​​identified​​the​​CCTV​​visuals​​depicting​​Madhu​​being​​brought​​to​
​Mukkali.​​Upon​​seeing​​the​​accused​​in​​the​​dock,​​she​​identified​​Accused​​Nos.​​13,​​14,​​and​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​91​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​16.​ ​She​ ​also​ ​admitted​ ​that​ ​she​​had​​shared​​information​​with​​media​​personnel​​at​​that​
​time,​ ​and​ ​when​ ​confronted​ ​with​ ​photographs​ ​of​ ​her​ ​addressing​ ​the​ ​media,​ ​she​
​acknowledged​ ​the​ ​same,​ ​stating​ ​that​ ​she​ ​had​ ​spoken​ ​to​ ​Asianet​ ​the​ ​day​ ​after​ ​the​
​incident.​​The​​witness​​was​​subjected​​to​​cross-examination.​​She​​was​​asked​​whether​​she​
​had​ ​given​ ​a​ ​news​ ​byte​ ​to​ ​Asianet​ ​Television​ ​which​ ​she​ ​answered​ ​in​ ​the​​affirmative.​
​Much​ ​of​ ​the​ ​cross​​examination​​was​​directed​​against​​the​​identification​​of​​some​​of​​the​
​accused​​in​​the​​dock​​for​​the​​first​​time.​​Despite​​being​​subjected​​to​​intense​​and​​searching​
​cross-examination​​by​​all​​defence​​counsel,​​nothing​​material​​was​​elicited​​to​​discredit​​her​
​testimony.​​She​​clarified​​that​​she​​had​​witnessed​​the​​gathering,​​including​​Madhu,​​only​​for​
​a​​few​​minutes.​​She​​specifically​​stated​​that​​the​​group​​accompanying​​Madhu​​consisted​​of​
​about 5 to 10 persons.​
​10.28.​ ​PW28​ ​(CW43),​ ​a​ ​grocery​ ​shop​​owner​​at​​Kaklandi,​​deposed​​that​​theft​
​had​​occurred​​in​​his​​shop​​in​​2018,​​involving​​rice,​​coffee​​powder,​​beedis,​​etc.,​​and​​that​​he​
​had​ ​informed​ ​the​ ​police.​ ​Later,​ ​on​ ​hearing​ ​that​ ​a​ ​thief​ ​had​ ​been​ ​apprehended​ ​at​
​Mukkali,​ ​he​ ​went​ ​there​ ​with​ ​another​ ​shop​ ​owner.​ ​He​ ​saw​ ​a​ ​crowd​ ​gathered​ ​near​ ​a​
​treasure​​box​​and​​identified​​Madhu​​there.​​He​​also​​noticed​​the​​rice​​sack​​stolen​​from​​his​
​shop​​and​​identified​​MO3.​​Police​​collected​​his​​details​​at​​the​​scene.​​He​​later​​learned​​of​
​Madhu’s​​death​​at​​Agali​​Police​​Station.​​His​​name​​finds​​place​​in​​Ext.P80​​FIS.​​He​​identified​
​MO3​ ​and​ ​explained​ ​that​ ​police​ ​had​ ​initially​ ​detained​ ​him​ ​under​ ​suspicion​ ​but​ ​later​
​exonerated​ ​him.​ ​In​ ​cross-examination,​ ​the​ ​witness​ ​was​ ​asked​ ​about​ ​the​ ​various​
​hospitals​ ​that​ ​are​ ​functioning​ ​in​ ​between​ ​Mukkali​ ​and​ ​Thavalam.​ ​He​ ​denied​ ​the​
​suggestion​ ​that​ ​theft​ ​did​ ​not​ ​happen​ ​and​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​stating​ ​falsehood​​to​​help​​the​
​prosecution.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​92​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​10.29.​ ​PW29​ ​(CW44)​ ​was​ ​examined​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​theft​ ​in​ ​his​ ​tea​ ​shop​ ​at​
​Kakkuppadi.​​He​​stated​​that​​bakery​​items,​​sugar,​​and​​tea​​powder​​were​​stolen,​​though​​he​
​had​​not​​lodged​​a​​police​​complaint.​​His​​name​​also​​appears​​in​​Ext.P80​​FIS,​​and​​he​​too​
​was later exonerated.​
​10.30.​ ​PW30​ ​(CW45),​ ​a​ ​hotel​ ​owner​ ​at​ ​Kalkkandi,​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​theft​ ​had​
​occurred​​in​​his​​shop​​on​​two​​occasions.​​He​​stated​​that​​the​​thief​​entered​​by​​removing​​roof​
​tiles​​and​​took​​packed​​food​​items.​​On​​hearing​​that​​the​​thief​​had​​been​​apprehended,​​he​
​went​​to​​Mukkali​​and​​saw​​a​​person​​seated​​there.​​He​​shared​​his​​details​​with​​the​​police.​
​His​​name​​also​​appears​​in​​Ext.P80​​FIS.​​He​​was​​initially​​detained​​but​​later​​released.​​He​
​further stated that theft had occurred in neighbouring shops as well.​
​10.31.​ ​PW31​​(CW46)​​was​​examined​​to​​prove​​theft​​in​​his​​shop​​and​​the​​alleged​
​parading​​of​​Madhu.​​While​​admitting​​theft,​​he​​denied​​that​​Madhu​​was​​paraded​​in​​front​​of​
​his​​shop.​​Cross-examination​​revealed​​that​​he​​is​​the​​father​​of​​Accused​​Nos.​​9​​and​​16.​​He​
​admitted​ ​theft​​of​​₹10,000​​and​​other​​items​​and​​that​​CCTV​​footage​​from​​his​​shop​​had​
​been seized. His name appears in Ext.P80 FIS. He was later exonerated.​
​10.32.​ ​PW32​ ​(CW48)​ ​is​ ​the​ ​videographer​ ​who​ ​recorded​ ​the​ ​inquest​ ​at​ ​CHC​
​Hospital,​​Agali.​​He​​was​​examined​​to​​prove​​the​​video,​​CD,​​and​​65B​​certificate​​(Ext.P26​
​series).​ ​He​ ​clarified​ ​that​ ​recording​ ​was​ ​done​ ​in​ ​sequential​ ​slots​ ​and​ ​denied​ ​any​
​manipulation.​
​10.33.​ ​PW33​​(CW49)​​was​​examined​​as​​an​​attesting​​witness​​to​​Ext.P27​​scene​
​mahazar​​dated​​24.02.2018,​​prepared​​in​​connection​​with​​the​​second​​place​​of​​occurrence​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​93​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​at Mukkali. During examination, the witness admitted his signature in Ext.P27.​
​10.34.​ ​PW34​ ​(CW50)​ ​was​ ​also​ ​examined​ ​as​ ​an​ ​attestor​ ​to​ ​Ext.P27​ ​scene​
​mahazar.​ ​He​ ​too​ ​admitted​ ​his​ ​signature​ ​therein.​ ​His​ ​evidence​ ​corroborates​ ​the​
​preparation​ ​and​ ​authenticity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​scene​ ​mahazar​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Mukkali​ ​place​ ​of​
​occurrence.​
​10.35.​ ​PW35​​(CW51)​​was​​examined​​as​​an​​attesting​​witness​​to​​Ext.P28​​seizure​
​mahazar,​​under​​which​​the​​vehicle​​bearing​​Registration​​No.​​KL-11-H-8559​​(Marshal​​Jeep)​
​was​ ​seized.​ ​The​ ​witness​ ​admitted​ ​his​ ​signature​ ​in​ ​the​ ​seizure​ ​mahazar,​ ​and​ ​the​
​document was accordingly marked through him.​
​10.36.​ ​PW36​​(CW53)​​was​​examined​​as​​an​​attestor​​to​​Ext.P29​​seizure​​mahazar​
​relating​​to​​the​​seizure​​of​​vehicle​​bearing​​Registration​​No.​​KL-53-F-722.​​He​​admitted​​his​
​signature in the mahazar. Accordingly, Ext.P29 was marked and proved.​
​10.37.​ ​PW37​​is​​the​​elder​​brother​​of​​Accused​​No.14.​​He​​was​​examined​​as​​an​
​attesting​​witness​​to​​the​​seizure​​mahazar​​prepared​​at​​the​​time​​of​​seizing​​the​​DVR​​from​
​the​ ​shop​ ​of​ ​Accused​ ​No.14.​ ​However,​ ​he​ ​did​ ​not​ ​support​ ​the​ ​prosecution.​ ​During​
​examination,​ ​he​ ​admitted​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​signed​ ​certain​ ​blank​ ​papers​ ​but​ ​denied​ ​his​
​signature​ ​in​ ​the​ ​seizure​ ​mahazar​ ​when​ ​confronted.​​He​​further​​deposed​​that​​Accused​
​No.14 was in the Police Station at the relevant time.​
​10.38.​ ​PW38​ ​(CW56)​ ​is​ ​the​ ​photographer​ ​who​ ​took​ ​photographs​ ​of​ ​the​
​accused​ ​persons,​ ​prepared​ ​printouts,​ ​copied​ ​them​ ​into​ ​CDs,​ ​and​ ​produced​ ​Ext.P30​
​series​​photographs,​​Ext.P30​​CD,​​and​​the​​corresponding​​65B​​certificate.​​He​​categorically​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​94​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​deposed​ ​that​ ​all​ ​photographs​ ​were​ ​taken​ ​and​ ​processed​ ​by​ ​him.​ ​Despite​ ​intense​
​cross-examination,​ ​nothing​ ​was​ ​brought​ ​out​ ​to​ ​discredit​ ​the​ ​genuineness​ ​of​ ​the​
​photographs or the electronic evidence produced through him.​
​10.39.​ ​PW39​ ​(CW57)​ ​was​ ​examined​ ​as​ ​an​ ​attestor​ ​to​ ​the​ ​seizure​ ​mahazar​
​prepared​ ​while​ ​seizing​​the​​DVR​​from​​Ponniyammal​​Gurukulam​​at​​Mukkali.​​Though​​he​
​admitted​​the​​presence​​of​​CCTV​​cameras​​in​​the​​Gurukulam,​​he​​denied​​the​​seizure​​having​
​taken place in his presence.​
​10.40.​ ​PW40​​(CW58)​​was​​examined​​as​​an​​attesting​​witness​​to​​Ext.P15​​seizure​
​mahazar,​​under​​which​​the​​vehicle​​bearing​​Registration​​No.​​KL-32-B-5959​​(Mahindra​​Xylo​
​car)​​was​​seized.​​He​​admitted​​his​​signature​​in​​the​​mahazar.​​The​​seizure​​document​​was​
​accordingly proved through him.​
​10.41.​ ​PW41​​(CW60)​​was​​examined​​as​​an​​attestor​​to​​Ext.P32​​seizure​​mahazar​
​relating​​to​​the​​seizure​​of​​Motorcycle​​bearing​​Registration​​No.​​KL-5-AJ-498.​​He​​admitted​
​his signature, and the mahazar was marked through him.​
​10.42.​ ​PW42​ ​(CW61)​ ​is​ ​an​ ​autorickshaw​ ​driver​ ​who​ ​produced​ ​Autorickshaw​
​bearing​​Registration​​No.​​KL-50-D-2908​​before​​the​​police.​​He,​​however,​ ​did​​not​​support​
​the​ ​prosecution.​ ​He​ ​however​ ​admitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​autorickshaw​ ​belonged​ ​to​ ​Jaijumon​
​(Accused No.10).​
​10.43.​ ​PW43​ ​(CW63)​ ​is​ ​a​ ​close​ ​relative​ ​of​ ​Accused​ ​No.14.​ ​As​ ​per​ ​the​
​prosecution,​​he​​had​​produced​​the​​mobile​​phone​​of​​Accused​​No.14​​before​​the​​police​​on​
​08.03.2018.​ ​However,​ ​he​ ​did​ ​not​ ​support​ ​the​ ​prosecution.​ ​He​ ​admitted​ ​his​ ​close​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​95​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​relationship​ ​with​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​and​ ​further​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​No.14​ ​was​ ​in​ ​police​
​custody on the relevant date.​
​10.44.​ ​PW44​ ​(CW65)​ ​is​ ​conducting​ ​MAM​ ​Auto​ ​Consultant​ ​at​ ​Nellipuzha,​
​Mannarkkad.​ ​He​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​purchased​ ​Bullet​ ​Motorcycle​ ​bearing​ ​No.​
​KL-5-AJ-498​​from​​one​​Albin​​and​​later​​sold​​it​​to​​Accused​​No.13​​(Satheesh).​​He​​clarified​
​that​​registration​​transfer​​had​​not​​been​​completed​​at​​that​​time,​​though​​requisite​​forms​
​had​ ​been​ ​signed.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​examined​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​the​ ​transactional​ ​chain​ ​linking​ ​the​
​vehicle to the accused.​
​10.45.​ ​PW45​​(CW66)​​is​​the​​son​​of​​the​​1st​​accused​​and​​the​​registered​​owner​​of​
​Xylo​ ​car​ ​bearing​ ​Registration​ ​No.​ ​KL-53-F-722.​ ​The​ ​prosecution​ ​case​ ​is​ ​that​ ​the​ ​1st​
​accused​​and​​others​​travelled​​in​​this​​vehicle​​to​​Mukkali​​on​​the​​date​​of​​occurrence.​​PW45​
​admitted​ ​ownership​ ​of​ ​the​ ​vehicle​ ​and​ ​that​ ​he​​had​​taken​​a​​mobile​​connection​​in​​his​
​name.​ ​Though​ ​he​ ​denied​ ​that​ ​his​ ​father​ ​used​ ​the​ ​phone,​ ​he​ ​admitted​ ​that​ ​on​
​22.02.2018​​he,​​his​​father​​(A1),​​brother,​​and​​uncle​​had​​travelled​​to​​Mukkali​​to​​visit​​his​
​sister.​​During​​cross-examination,​​it​​was​​elicited​​that​​they​​had​​come​​there​​to​​purchase​
​bakery items.​
​10.46.​ ​PW46​ ​(CW68)​ ​is​ ​another​ ​photographer​ ​who​ ​took​ ​photographs​ ​and​
​videographs​ ​of​ ​the​ ​place​ ​of​ ​occurrence.​ ​The​​DVD​​and​​photographs​​produced​​by​​him​
​were​ ​identified​ ​and​ ​marked​ ​as​ ​Ext.P33​ ​series.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​later​ ​recalled​ ​and​ ​produced​
​Ext.P33(k) along with the 65B certificate.​
​10.47.​ ​PW47​​(CW69)​​was​​the​​Village​​Assistant​​of​​Kallamala​​Village​​Office.​​He​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​96​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​prepared​ ​Ext.P34​ ​scene​​plan​​of​​Mukkali​​Junction​​under​​the​​instructions​​of​​the​​Village​
​Officer​ ​(PW48).​ ​He​ ​identified​ ​his​ ​signature​ ​and​ ​proved​ ​the​ ​scene​ ​plan​ ​during​
​examination.​
​10.48.​ ​PW48​ ​(CW70)​ ​was​ ​the​ ​Village​ ​Officer​ ​of​ ​Kallamala.​ ​He​ ​supervised​
​preparation​ ​of​ ​Ext.P34​​scene​​plan​​and​​countersigned​​it.​​He​​also​​issued​​Ext.P35​​caste​
​certificates​​of​​Accused​​Nos.1​​to​​5​​and​​7​​to​​16.​​Further,​​he​​prepared​​Ext.P36​​scene​​plan​
​of Vandikkadavu on 06.03.2020.​
​10.49.​ ​PW49​ ​(CW71),​ ​the​ ​then​ ​Village​ ​Officer​ ​holding​ ​charge​ ​of​ ​Padavayal​
​Village,​​prepared​​Ext.P37​​scene​​plan​​of​​the​​place​​of​​occurrence​​at​​Aandiyallachaal​​and​
​identified his signature therein.​
​10.50.​ ​PW50​​(CW72)​​was​​the​​then​​Village​​Officer​​of​​Palakkayam​​Village​​Office.​
​He prepared Ext.P38 caste certificate relating to Accused No.6.​
​10.51.​ ​PW51​ ​(CW73)​ ​is​ ​the​ ​Tahsildar,​ ​Mannarkkad,​ ​who​ ​was​ ​holding​ ​the​
​additional​​charge​​of​​Principal​​Tahsildar,​​Mannarkkad,​​during​​the​​relevant​​period.​​He​​is​
​the​​officer​​who​​issued​​Ext.​​P39​​Caste​​Certificate​​in​​respect​​of​​Madhu.​​According​​to​​his​
​testimony,​ ​the​ ​said​ ​certificate​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​on​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​reports​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​the​
​Village​​Officer​​of​​Padavayal​​Village,​​and​​he​​had​​also​​conducted​​a​​preliminary​​enquiry​​in​
​that​​regard.​​However,​​on​​a​​perusal​​of​​Ext.​​P39,​​it​​is​​evident​​that​​the​​document​​is​​more​
​in​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​of​ ​a​ ​report​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​a​ ​certificate​ ​issued​ ​in​ ​the​ ​prescribed​​statutory​
​format​ ​contemplated​ ​under​ ​the​ ​provisions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Kerala​ ​Scheduled​ ​Castes​ ​and​
​Scheduled Tribes Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​97​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​10.52.​ ​PW52​​(CW76)​​is​​the​​Nodal​​Officer​​of​​Idea​​Cellular​​Limited.​​Through​​this​
​witness,​ ​Ext.​ ​P40​​series,​​Ext.​​P41​​series,​​and​​Ext.​​P42​​series​​—​​comprising​​Call​​Data​
​Records​​(CDRs),​​Customer​​Application​​Forms​​(CAFs),​​and​​certificates​​under​​Section​​65B​
​of​ ​the​ ​Indian​ ​Evidence​ ​Act​ ​—​ ​were​ ​formally​ ​proved​ ​and​ ​marked.​ ​He​ ​deposed​ ​that,​
​during​​the​​relevant​​period,​​one​​Saheel​​Kombath​​and​​P.​​Rajkumar​​were​​functioning​​as​
​Nodal​ ​Officers​ ​of​ ​Idea​ ​Cellular​ ​Limited.​ ​Both​ ​of​ ​them​ ​had​ ​subsequently​ ​left​ ​the​
​Company,​​and​​their​​present​​whereabouts​​could​​not​​be​​traced.​​Since​​PW52​​had​​worked​
​in​ ​close​ ​professional​ ​association​ ​with​ ​them,​ ​he​ ​was​ ​well​ ​acquainted​ ​with​ ​their​
​signatures.​​On​​that​​basis,​​the​​CDRs,​​CAFs,​​and​​allied​​documents​​issued​​and​​signed​​by​
​the​​said​​officers​​—​​namely​​Ext.​​P41​​series​​and​​Ext.​​P42​​series​​—​​were​​identified​​and​
​marked​​through​​this​​witness.​​PW52​​further​​deposed​​that​​he​​is​​the​​present​​Nodal​​Officer​
​of​​Idea​​Cellular​​Limited​​and,​​by​​virtue​​of​​his​​official​​position​​and​​prior​​association,​​he​​is​
​familiar​ ​with​​the​​signatures​​and​​documentation​​practices​​of​​the​​former​​Nodal​​Officers​
​who​​issued​​the​​records​​in​​question.​​The​​witness​​gave​​a​​detailed​​account​​of​​the​​manner​
​in​​which​​the​​data​​was​​stored​​and​​retrieved.​​He​​stated​​that​​the​​data​​is​​extracted​​from​
​the​ ​central​ ​server​ ​of​ ​Idea​ ​Cellular​ ​Limited​​located​​at​​Pune,​​and​​housed​​in​​a​​secured​
​facility.​​According​​to​​him,​​access​​to​​the​​server​​is​​strictly​​regulated​​through​​a​​unique​​user​
​ID​ ​and​ ​password​ ​system.​ ​He​​further​​clarified​​that​​official​​laptops​​alone​​are​​issued​​to​
​Nodal​ ​Officers,​ ​and​ ​only​ ​through​ ​such​ ​secured​ ​devices​ ​can​ ​access​ ​to​ ​the​ ​server​ ​be​
​obtained.​​The​​data​​cannot​​be​​accessed​​through​​any​​external​​laptop​​or​​desktop​​system.​
​Additionally,​ ​the​ ​server​ ​is​ ​protected​ ​by​​a​​three-layer​​password​​security​​protocol.​​This​
​layered​ ​security​ ​architecture,​ ​according​ ​to​ ​the​ ​witness,​ ​effectively​ ​rules​ ​out​ ​the​
​possibility​​of​​unauthorized​​access​​or​​manipulation​​of​​data​​contained​​in​​Exts.​​P40​​to​​P42​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​98​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​series.​​PW52​​was​​cross-examined​​at​​length​​about​​the​​personnel​​involved​​in​​collecting​
​customer​​data​​and​​the​​process​​of​​uploading​​such​​data​​to​​the​​server.​​PW52​​also​​testified​
​that,​​apart​​from​​physical​​verification​​of​​identity​​proof​​and​​application​​forms,​​an​​e-KYC​
​verification​ ​process​ ​is​ ​mandatorily​ ​undertaken.​ ​If​ ​any​ ​discrepancy​ ​is​ ​detected​ ​in​ ​the​
​identification​ ​particulars,​ ​the​ ​SIM​ ​card​ ​is​ ​not​​issued​​to​​the​​applicant.​​This​​procedural​
​safeguard further reinforces the reliability of the customer records.​
​10.53.​ ​PW53​​(CW81)​​is​​the​​Tribal​​Watcher​​attached​​to​​Mukkali​​Forest​​Station.​
​He​ ​accompanied​ ​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the​ ​Scientific​​Officer​​when​​they​
​visited​ ​the​ ​place​ ​of​ ​occurrence​ ​for​ ​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​collecting​ ​samples​ ​and​ ​material​
​objects​​and​​for​​preparing​​the​​scene​​mahazar.​​He​​has​​admitted​​his​​signature​​in​​Ext.​​P43​
​scene​ ​mahazar​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​Aandiyallachaal,​ ​the​ ​first​ ​place​ ​of​ ​occurrence.​ ​He​ ​also​
​identified​​MO3​​series​​to​​MO22,​​being​​the​​material​​objects​​collected​​by​​the​​Investigating​
​Officer​​from​​the​​said​​place​​of​​occurrence,​​namely​​Aandiyallachaal,​​which,​​according​​to​
​the​​prosecution,​​is​​the​​location​​where​​Madhu​​was​​apprehended​​by​​the​​accused​​persons.​
​PW53​ ​further​ ​identified​ ​the​ ​photographs​ ​shown​ ​to​ ​him,​ ​which​ ​contained​ ​images​ ​of​
​Aandiyallachaal​​and​​other​​parts​​of​​the​​Attappadi​​Reserved​​Forest.​​He​​also​​identified​​the​
​video​​footage​​produced​​before​​the​​Court​​when​​they​​were​​played​​using​​an​​LCD​​projector​
​and​​laptop.​​The​​witness​​categorically​​stated​​that​​he​​was​​able​​to​​identify​​all​​the​​locations​
​depicted​​in​​the​​photographs​​and​​video​​recordings​​as​​places​​situated​​in​​Aandiyallachaal​
​within​​the​​Reserved​​Forest.​​During​​cross-examination,​​the​​attempt​​was​​to​​discredit​​the​
​evidence​ ​of​ ​the​ ​witness​ ​and​ ​to​​create​​an​​impression​​that​​the​​locations​​shown​​in​​the​
​photographs​ ​and​ ​mobile​ ​video​ ​recordings​ ​were​ ​not​ ​Aandiyallachaal​ ​but​ ​some​ ​other​
​place.​​However,​​PW53​​firmly​​deposed​​that,​​by​​virtue​​of​​his​​official​​duties,​​he​​regularly​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​99​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​visits​​these​​forest​​areas​​and​​is​​thoroughly​​familiar​​with​​the​​terrain.​​He​​asserted,​​without​
​any​​ambiguity,​​that​​the​​photographs​​and​​videos​​are​​indeed​​of​​Aandiyallachaal​​and​​that​
​he​​has​​no​​doubt​​whatsoever​​in​​that​​regard.​​He​​also​​deposed​​that​​he​​personally​​knew​
​Madhu.​
​10.54.​ ​PW54​​(CW82)​​is​​the​​then​​Beat​​Forest​​Officer​​of​​Anavai​​Forest​​Station.​
​He​​was​​present​​in​​the​​station​​office​​when​​the​​Investigating​​Officer​​and​​his​​team​​arrived​
​to​​seize​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​from​​the​​said​​station.​​He​​is​​a​​signatory​​to​​Ext.​​P44​​seizure​
​mahazar,​ ​under​ ​which​ ​the​ ​DVR,​ ​adaptor,​ ​and​ ​connected​ ​equipment​ ​of​ ​Anavai​ ​Forest​
​Station​​were​​seized.​​The​​witness​​identified​​MO23​​and​​MO23(a)​​—​​the​​DVR​​and​​adaptor​
​—​ ​which​ ​were​ ​seized​​by​​the​​Investigating​​Officer​​with​​the​​assistance​​of​​a​​Cyber​​Cell​
​expert.​
​10.55.​ ​PW55​ ​(CW84)​ ​is​ ​the​ ​then​ ​Forest​ ​Range​ ​Officer​ ​of​ ​Attappadi.​ ​He​
​produced​​the​​relevant​​notification​​and​​plan​​relating​​to​​Aandiyallachaal​​Forest​​to​​establish​
​that​​the​​said​​area​​is​​a​​notified​​Reserved​​Forest.​​These​​documents​​were​​marked​​as​​Ext.​
​P45​​series.​​Despite​​being​​subjected​​to​​extensive​​cross-examination​​by​​counsel​​for​​the​
​accused,​ ​nothing​ ​material​ ​was​ ​elicited​ ​to​ ​discredit​ ​his​ ​testimony.​ ​He​ ​categorically​
​deposed that the place known as Aandiyallachaal falls within his territorial jurisdiction.​
​10.56.​ ​PW56​ ​(CW88)​ ​is​ ​the​ ​then​ ​Casualty​​Medical​​Officer​​of​​the​​Community​
​Health​​Centre,​​Agali.​​On​​22-02-2018,​​she​​examined​​the​​body​​of​​Madhu.​​She​​deposed​
​that​​at​​about​​4:15​​p.m.​​on​​that​​day,​​a​​person​​was​​brought​​before​​her​​on​​a​​stretcher​​by​
​the​​Police​​along​​with​​attenders.​​When​​she​​called​​out​​the​​name​​“Madhu,”​​there​​was​​no​
​response.​​She​​thereafter​​conducted​​a​​preliminary​​clinical​​examination​​and​​also​​took​​an​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​100​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​ECG.​ ​On​ ​such​ ​examination,​ ​it​ ​was​ ​found​ ​that​ ​the​ ​person​ ​was​ ​already​ ​dead.​ ​PW56​
​admitted​​her​​signature​​and​​handwriting​​in​​Ext.​​P46​​OP​​ticket.​​She​​specifically​​deposed​
​that,​​in​​the​​OP​​ticket,​​she​​had​​initially​​written​​the​​time​​as​​4:12​​p.m.,​​but​​upon​​noticing​
​the​​casualty​​clock,​​she​​corrected​​the​​time​​to​​4:15​​p.m.​​The​​overwriting​​seen​​in​​Ext.​​P46​
​was​ ​thus​ ​made​ ​by​ ​her​ ​personally,​ ​and​ ​she​ ​took​ ​full​ ​responsibility​ ​for​​the​​correction.​
​According​​to​​PW56,​​on​​examination,​​the​​patient​​was​​found​​brought​​dead,​​and​​the​​same​
​was​ ​intimated​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Police.​ ​The​ ​death​ ​intimation​ ​letter​ ​issued​ ​in​ ​that​ ​regard​ ​was​
​marked​ ​as​ ​Ext.​ ​P46(a),​ ​which​ ​also​ ​bears​ ​her​ ​signature.​ ​She​ ​clarified​ ​that​ ​the​ ​said​
​intimation​ ​letter​ ​does​​not​​contain​​the​​hospital​​seal,​​as​​office​​hours​​were​​over​​at​​that​
​time​​and​​the​​official​​seal​​could​​not​​be​​affixed.​​She​​further​​deposed​​that​​the​​examination​
​took​​approximately​​5–10​​minutes​​and​​that​​the​​patient​​might​​have​​been​​brought​​to​​the​
​hospital​ ​sometime​ ​between​ ​4:05​ ​p.m.​ ​and​ ​4:10​ ​p.m.​ ​PW56​ ​also​ ​explained​ ​that,​ ​in​
​emergency​​situations,​​medical​​examination​​is​​undertaken​​first,​​and​​only​​thereafter​​are​
​patient​ ​details​ ​elicited.​ ​During​ ​cross-examination,​ ​the​ ​witness​ ​was​ ​asked​ ​the​
​approximate​​distance​​from​​the​​hospital​​to​​the​​Agali​​Police​​Station.​​To​​that​​question,​​she​
​stated​​that​​it​​would​​take​​about​​5​​minutes​​by​​vehicle.​​She​​further​​stated​​that​​at​​the​​time​
​when​​the​​incident​​took​​place,​​entries​​used​​to​​be​​made​​in​​the​​case​​records​​manually,​​as​
​computerisation​ ​was​ ​not​ ​complete.​ ​She​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​Prasad​ ​Varkky​ ​and​ ​certain​ ​other​
​police​​officers​​had​​come​​to​​the​​hospital.​​She​​also​​stated​​that​​she​​is​​not​​aware​​as​​to​​who​
​handles​​the​​OP​​register.​​The​​doctor​​stated​​that​​she​​was​​in​​the​​casualty​​when​​the​​patient​
​was​ ​brought.​ ​She​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​about​​3​​or​​4​​police​​officers​​had​​brought​​Madhu​​to​​the​
​hospital.​ ​She​ ​further​ ​stated​ ​that,​​normally,​​in​​such​​cases,​​she​​would​​ask​​the​​persons​
​who​​brought​​the​​patient​​to​​the​​hospital​​about​​the​​alleged​​cause​​of​​injury.​​In​​the​​case​​on​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​101​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​hand,​​since​​the​​victim​​was​​brought​​in​​that​​condition,​​there​​was​​no​​point​​in​​asking​​the​
​said​ ​question.​ ​She​ ​was​ ​asked​ ​whether,​ ​after​ ​examining​ ​the​ ​body​ ​of​ ​Madhu,​ ​she​
​considered​ ​it​ ​to​ ​be​​a​​medico-legal​​case,​​to​​which​​she​​answered​​in​​the​​negative.​​She​
​stated​​that​​only​​after​​examining​​the​​patient​​for​​about​​5​​to​​10​​minutes​​did​​she​​realise​
​that​​the​​patient​​was​​no​​more.​​Since​​the​​body​​was​​warm,​​she​​felt​​that​​the​​death​​had​
​occurred​​only​​recently.​​She​​stated​​that​​she​​had​​examined​​Madhu​​about​​5​​to​​10​​minutes​
​before​ ​04:15​ ​p.m.​ ​When​ ​she​ ​was​ ​asked​ ​as​ ​to​ ​how,​ ​in​ ​the​​OP​​register,​​the​​name​​of​
​Madhu​​was​​struck​​off​​“Kala”​​was​​written​​in​​its​​place,​​she​​stated​​that​​she​​was​​not​​aware​
​of​ ​the​ ​same​ ​and​​that​​those​​corrections​​were​​not​​made​​by​​her.​​When​​she​​was​​asked​
​whether​​the​​OP​​ticket​​was​​prepared​​falsely​​for​​the​​purpose​​of​​the​​case,​​she​​answered​​in​
​the​​negative.​​In​​cross-examination​​by​​the​​counsel​​appearing​​for​​accused​​Nos.​​2​​and​​5,​
​she​​was​​asked​​whether​​she​​had​​joined​​duty​​at​​about​​02:00​​p.m.,​​to​​which​​she​​answered​
​in​ ​the​ ​affirmative.​ ​She​ ​was​ ​also​ ​asked​ ​about​​the​​injection​​register​​maintained​​in​​the​
​casualty,​​and​​she​​stated​​that​​the​​authority​​to​​maintain​​the​​injection​​register​​is​​with​​the​
​nursing​​assistant.​​The​​Casualty​​Register​​dated​​22.02.2018,​​obtained​​under​​the​​Right​​to​
​Information​​Act,​​was​​confronted​​with​​the​​witness.​​Her​​attention​​was​​drawn​​to​​Serial​​No.​
​2614,​​and​​she​​was​​asked​​as​​to​​why​​the​​name​​of​​Madhu​​was​​struck​​off​​and​​“Kala”​​was​
​written​​in​​its​​place.​​She​​stated​​that​​she​​was​​not​​aware.​​It​​was​​also​​put​​to​​her​​that​​in​​the​
​entry​​corresponding​​to​​No.​​2613,​​there​​were​​corrections.​​She​​stated​​that​​a​​perusal​​of​
​the​​records​​would​​reveal​​that​​the​​time​​at​​which​​Madhu​​was​​brought​​to​​the​​hospital​​has​
​been​ ​corrected​ ​as​ ​4.15​ ​p.m.​ ​from​ ​the​ ​original​ ​entry​ ​which​ ​is​ ​4.25​ ​p.m.​ ​She​ ​also​
​admitted​​that​​there​​were​​corrections​​in​​the​​entries​​corresponding​​to​​Serial​​Nos.​​2611,​
​2612,​​2613,​​2614.​​However,​​she​​denied​​that​​any​​corrections​​had​​been​​made​​in​​the​​entry​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​102​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​corresponding​ ​to​ ​Serial​ ​No.​ ​2614.​ ​She​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​inquest​ ​was​ ​prepared​ ​by​ ​the​
​Sub-Collector​​and​​that​​she​​had​​assisted​​him​​in​​preparing​​the​​same.​​She​​further​​stated​
​that​​she​​had​​pointed​​out​​the​​injuries​​to​​the​​Sub-Collector.​​When​​she​​was​​asked​​whether​
​there​​were​​10​​to​​20​​injuries,​​she​​stated​​that​​she​​does​​not​​remember.​​According​​to​​her,​
​she​​assisted​​by​​providing​​the​​appropriate​​medical​​terminology.​​In​​re-examination,​​she​
​was​​asked​​when​​she​​had​​joined​​service,​​to​​which​​she​​answered​​as​​31.01.2018.​​When​
​she​​was​​asked​​how​​many​​casualty​​duties​​she​​had​​performed​​till​​22.02.2018,​​she​​stated​
​that​ ​she​ ​had​ ​conducted​ ​about​​2​​or​​3​​such​​duties.​​She​​explained​​the​​reasons​​for​​the​
​entries​​made​​in​​the​​injection​​register.​​According​​to​​her,​​whenever​​an​​emergency​​case​​is​
​brought​​in,​​life-saving​​drugs​​have​​to​​be​​administered,​​and​​it​​was​​in​​those​​circumstances​
​that​ ​entries​ ​were​ ​made​​in​​the​​register.​​A​​suggestion​​was​​put​​to​​her​​that​​Madhu​​was​
​brought to CHC, Agali, only at 4:40 p.m. , the same was emphatically denied.​
​10.57.​ ​PW57​​(CW86)​​is​​the​​then​​Joint​​Regional​​Transport​​Officer,​​Mannarkkad.​
​He​​produced​​and​​proved​​the​​registration​​particulars​​of​​the​​vehicles​​involved​​in​​the​​case,​
​which were marked as Ext. P47 series.​
​10.58.​ ​PW58​ ​(CW87)​ ​is​ ​a​ ​doctor​​attached​​to​​the​​Government​​Mental​​Health​
​Centre,​​Kozhikode.​​He​​deposed​​that​​on​​19-11-2012,​​while​​he​​was​​working​​as​​Consultant​
​Psychiatrist​​at​​the​​said​​institution,​​he​​had​​examined​​and​​treated​​Madhu.​​According​​to​
​him,​ ​Madhu​ ​was​ ​suffering​ ​from​ ​paranoid​ ​schizophrenia​ ​—​ ​a​ ​serious​ ​mental​ ​illness​
​requiring​ ​long-term,​ ​and​ ​possibly​ ​lifelong,​ ​treatment.​ ​Ext.​ ​P48​ ​medical​ ​records​ ​were​
​marked​ ​through​ ​the​ ​said​​witness.​​The​​doctor​​further​​opined​​that​​if​​medication​​is​​not​
​taken​ ​regularly,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​every​ ​likelihood​ ​of​ ​worsening​ ​or​ ​recurrence​ ​of​ ​symptoms​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​103​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​associated with the illness.​
​10.59.​ ​PW59​ ​(CW89)​ ​is​ ​the​ ​then​ ​Superintendent​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Tribal​ ​Specialty​
​Hospital,​​Kottathara.​​He​​deposed​​that​​Madhu​​had​​been​​admitted​​to​​the​​said​​hospital​​on​
​13-08-2008​ ​and​ ​was​​discharged​​on​​17-08-2008.​​He​​was​​examined​​by​​the​​witness​​on​
​26-08-2008.​ ​Madhu​ ​had​ ​been​ ​advised​ ​to​ ​continue​ ​treatment​ ​for​ ​psychosis.​ ​Ext.​ ​P49​
​series​ ​of​ ​medical​ ​records​​were​​marked​​through​​the​​said​​witness.​​The​​witness​​further​
​deposed​ ​that,​ ​pursuant​ ​to​ ​a​ ​request​ ​made​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Police​ ​during​ ​the​ ​course​ ​of​
​investigation, blood samples of the accused persons were collected at the hospital.​
​10.60.​ ​PW60​ ​(CW85)​ ​was​ ​the​ ​then​ ​Forest​ ​Range​ ​Officer​ ​of​ ​Mukkali​ ​Forest​
​Station.​​He​​deposed​​that​​forest​​watchers​​such​​as​​Anilkumar,​​Razak,​​and​​Kalimooppan​
​were​ ​deployed​ ​under​ ​his​ ​supervision​ ​in​ ​the​ ​teak​ ​plantation​ ​area,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​another​
​forester,​​namely​​Panjan,​​had​​also​​been​​deputed​​for​​duty​​there.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​
​the​​plantation​​had,​​in​​fact,​​been​​handed​​over​​to​​a​​contractor​​for​​felling​​operations​​nearly​
​one​ ​month​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​22-02-2018.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​PW60,​ ​there​ ​was​ ​also​ ​a​ ​shed​ ​at​
​Vandikkadavu​​where​​food​​was​​being​​prepared​​for​​the​​workers​​engaged​​in​​the​​plantation​
​work.​​He​​deposed​​that​​at​​about​​5:00​​p.m.​​on​​22-02-2018,​​he​​received​​information​​that​
​a​​tribal​​person​​by​​name​​Madhu​​had​​been​​apprehended​​by​​a​​group​​of​​persons.​​Acting​​on​
​the​​said​​information,​​he​​registered​​O.R.​​No.​​1/2018.​​Subsequently,​​the​​accused​​in​​that​
​forest​​offence​​case​​was​​formally​​arrested​​upon​​filing​​Ext.​​P50​​application.​​This​​witness​
​also​ ​identified​ ​the​ ​video​ ​footage​ ​and​ ​confirmed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​locations​ ​depicted​ ​therein​
​formed​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​area​ ​within​ ​Aandiyallachaal​ ​Reserved​ ​Forest.​ ​He​ ​further​
​identified some of the accused persons in the dock.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​104​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​10.61.​ ​PW61​ ​(CW91)​ ​was​ ​the​ ​then​ ​Nursing​ ​Assistant​ ​at​ ​the​ ​Tribal​​Specialty​
​Hospital,​​Kottathara.​​He​​is​​an​​attesting​​witness​​to​​Ext.​​P51​​mahazar,​​which​​was​​prepared​
​at​​the​​time​​of​​seizure​​of​​blood​​samples​​collected​​from​​the​​accused​​persons​​involved​​in​
​the case.​
​10.62.​ ​PW62​ ​(CW80)​ ​was​​the​​then​​Section​​Officer​​of​​Mukkali​​Forest​​Station.​
​He​ ​deposed​ ​in​ ​detail​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​geographical​ ​layout​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Ajumala​ ​and​
​Aandiyallachaal​ ​Reserved​ ​Forest​ ​areas.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​him,​ ​on​ ​24-02-2018,​ ​when​ ​the​
​Investigating​ ​Officer​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Scientific​ ​Officer​ ​visited​ ​Aandiyallachaal​ ​Forest​ ​for​ ​the​
​purpose​​of​​collecting​​evidence,​​he​​accompanied​​them​​along​​with​​Perumal​​and​​Panali.​​He​
​further​​deposed​​that,​​during​​the​​said​​visit,​​the​​Investigating​​Officer​​seized​​food​​articles,​
​a​ ​large​ ​shopper​ ​bag,​ ​spice​ ​powders,​​and​​other​​materials​​from​​the​​location.​​He​​is​​an​
​attesting​ ​witness​ ​to​ ​Ext.​ ​P43​ ​scene​ ​mahazar.​ ​PW62​ ​also​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​on​ ​05.03.2018,​
​when​ ​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer​​again​​visited​​the​​place​​of​​occurrence​​at​​Pottikkal​​Teak​
​Plantation​​along​​with​​one​​Shamsudheen,​​he​​was​​present​​there.​​He​​identified​​accused​
​No.​​3​​in​​the​​dock​​and​​testified​​that​​he​​witnessed​​the​​recovery​​of​​MO24​​wooden​​stick​​at​
​the instance of accused No.3. He is also a signatory to Ext. P52 recovery mahazar.​
​10.63.​ ​PW63​ ​(CW42)​ ​is​ ​a​ ​tailor​ ​by​ ​profession.​ ​He​ ​did​ ​not​ ​support​ ​the​
​prosecution​ ​case​ ​and​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​unaware​ ​of​ ​the​ ​identity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​
​persons​​present​​in​​the​​dock.​​Ext.​​P53​​series​​contradictions​​were​​marked​​through​​him.​​At​
​the​ ​same​ ​time,​ ​PW63​ ​admitted​ ​that​ ​on​ ​the​ ​relevant​ ​day,​ ​while​ ​he​ ​was​ ​present​ ​at​
​Mukkali,​ ​a​ ​group​ ​of​ ​persons​ ​assembled​ ​there​​and​​that​​one​​individual​​present​​among​
​them was identified by others as “Madhu.”​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​105​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​10.64.​ ​PW64​​(CW92)​​was​​the​​Scientific​​Officer​​attached​​to​​the​​District​​Crime​
​Records​​Bureau​​(DCRB),​​Thrissur.​​She​​deposed​​that​​she​​collected​​scientific​​samples​​in​
​connection​ ​with​ ​this​​crime​​on​​23.02.2018.​​As​​part​​of​​the​​evidence​​collection​​process,​
​she​​examined​​and​​collected​​particles​​of​​vomit,​​human​​faeces​​and​​other​​material​​objects​
​from​​the​​police​​jeep​​bearing​​Registration​​No.​​KL-01-BW-5724,​​in​​which​​Madhu​​had​​been​
​transported​​from​​Mukkali.​​She​​also​​collected​​food​​remnants​​and​​related​​material​​objects​
​from​​the​​forest​​area​​at​​Aandiyallachaal.​​All​​such​​material​​evidence​​was​​properly​​packed,​
​sealed,​​and​​labelled​​in​​accordance​​with​​scientific​​evidence​​collection​​protocol,​​and​​the​
​same were thereafter seized by the Investigating Officer under mahazar.​
​10.65.​ ​PW65​ ​(CW93)​ ​was​ ​the​ ​then​ ​Civil​ ​Police​ ​Officer​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​the​ ​SMS​
​Unit,​ ​Agali​ ​Sub​ ​Division.​ ​He​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​he​​was​​present​​when​​PW64​​entrusted​​the​
​material​ ​objects​ ​collected​ ​by​ ​her​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer,​ ​which​ ​process​ ​was​
​documented​ ​under​ ​Ext.​ ​P55​ ​mahazar.​ ​He​ ​is​ ​also​ ​an​ ​attesting​ ​witness​ ​to​ ​Ext.​ ​P54​
​mahazar.​​He​​further​​identified​​MO3​​sack​​and​​stated​​that​​he​​is​​an​​attestor​​to​​Exts.​​P56​
​and P57 seizure mahazars as well.​
​10.66.​ ​PW66​ ​was​​the​​Woman​​Civil​​Police​​Officer​​(WCPO)​​of​​Sholayur​​Police​
​Station,​​who,​​during​​the​​relevant​​period,​​was​​on​​attached​​duty​​at​​the​​office​​of​​the​​Dy.​
​S.P.,​​Agali.​​She​​is​​an​​attesting​​witness​​to​​Exts.​​P54,​​P55,​​and​​P58​​seizure​​mahazars.​​Ext.​
​P58​ ​mahazar​ ​relates​ ​to​ ​the​ ​seizure​ ​of​ ​medical​ ​records.​ ​She​ ​also​ ​attested​ ​Ext.​ ​P60​
​seizure​ ​mahazar,​ ​which​ ​was​ ​prepared​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​seizure​ ​of​ ​the​​OP​​ticket.​​PW66​
​identified Ext. P46 OP ticket in Court.​
​10.67.​ ​PW67​​(CW78)​​is​​the​​then​​Sub​​Collector​​of​​Ottapalam,​​who​​conducted​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​106​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​the​​inquest​​on​​the​​body​​of​​Madhu​​at​​CHC,​​Agali.​​He​​deposed​​that,​​as​​part​​of​​the​​inquest​
​proceedings,​ ​he​ ​recorded​ ​the​ ​statements​ ​of​ ​five​ ​witnesses.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​identified​ ​MO26​
​series​​—​​being​​the​​clothes​​worn​​by​​Madhu​​at​​the​​time​​—​​which​​were​​seized​​during​​the​
​inquest​ ​process.​ ​He​ ​identified​ ​his​ ​signature​ ​in​ ​Ext.​​P1​​inquest​​report.​​Thereafter,​​the​
​body​ ​was​ ​forwarded​ ​for​ ​post-mortem​ ​examination​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Medical​ ​College​ ​Hospital,​
​Thrissur.​​He​​further​​deposed​​that​​he​​was​​present​​and​​accompanied​​the​​doctors​​at​​the​
​time​​of​​conducting​​the​​post-mortem​​examination.​​This​​witness​​was​​subjected​​to​​detailed​
​and​ ​searching​ ​cross-examination.​ ​He​ ​said​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​conducted​ ​the​ ​inquest​ ​to​
​determine​​the​​apparent​​cause​​of​​death.​​He​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​requested​​the​​services​​of​
​Dr.​​Lima​​Francis​​and​​other​​senior​​doctors.​​He​​stated​​that​​the​​injuries​​noted​​in​​column​
​No.7​​were​​noted​​by​​him​​with​​the​​assistance​​of​​the​​Doctors​​at​​the​​time​​of​​conducting​​the​
​inquest.​ ​The​ ​attention​ ​of​ ​the​ ​witness​ ​was​ ​drawn​ ​to​ ​about​ ​14​ ​injuries​ ​noted​ ​in​ ​the​
​inquest.​​He​​was​​asked​​whether​​he​​had​​omitted​​to​​note​​major​​injuries​​to​​make​​it​​appear​
​that​​it​​was​​not​​a​​case​​of​​custodial​​death,​​and​​he​​denied​​the​​said​​suggestion.​​He​​said​
​that​ ​Madhu​ ​had​ ​died​ ​while​ ​he​ ​was​ ​being​ ​brought​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Police​ ​to​ ​the​​Hospital​​and​
​therefore,​ ​he​ ​was​​in​​police​​custody.​​He​​said​​he​​had​​also​​enquired​​whether​​it​​was​​on​
​account​ ​of​ ​assault​ ​by​ ​the​ ​police​ ​that​ ​Madhu​ ​had​ ​died​ ​and​ ​it​ ​was​ ​found​ ​against.​
​Subsequently,​​he​​was​​recalled​​to​​prove​​the​​Magisterial​​Inquiry​​Report​​prepared​​by​​him​
​under​​Section​​176​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C.,​​which​​was​​marked​​as​​Ext.​​P165.​​As​​per​​Exts.​​P165,​
​PW67​​arrived​​at​​the​​conclusion​​that​​the​​death​​in​​question​​was​​not​​a​​case​​of​​custodial​
​torture by the Police.​
​10.68.​ ​PW68​ ​was​​the​​Additional​​Sub-Inspector​​of​​Police​​working​​in​​the​​SMS​
​Unit,​​Agali​​Sub-Division.​​He​​is​​an​​attesting​​witness​​to​​Ext.​​P61​​mahazar​​prepared​​at​​the​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​107​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​time​​when​​the​​material​​objects​​collected​​from​​the​​body​​of​​Madhu​​by​​the​​Sub​​Collector​
​were​ ​entrusted​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer.​ ​He​ ​identified​​MO26​​series​​dress​​worn​​by​
​Madhu.​ ​He​ ​is​ ​also​ ​an​ ​attestor​ ​to​ ​Ext.​ ​P60​ ​seizure​ ​mahazar​ ​prepared​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​
​seizure of Ext. P46 OP ticket by the Investigating Officer.​
​10.69.​ ​PW69​ ​(CW96)​ ​was​ ​working​ ​in​ ​the​ ​office​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Dy.S.P.,​ ​Agali,​ ​on​
​attached​​duty​​from​​the​​Armed​​Reserve​​Camp.​​He​​is​​an​​attesting​​witness​​to​​Exts.​​P62,​
​P63,​ ​P64,​ ​P65,​ ​and​​P66​​seizure​​mahazars​​prepared​​in​​connection​​with​​the​​seizure​​of​
​MO27​​series​​mobile​​phones​​belonging​​to​​the​​accused​​persons.​​He​​is​​also​​an​​attestor​​to​
​Exts.​​P67,​​P48,​​and​​P57​​series​​seizure​​mahazars​​prepared​​in​​connection​​with​​the​​seizure​
​of Ext. P49 series documents.​
​10.70.​ ​PW70​ ​(CW339)​ ​is​ ​the​ ​mother​ ​of​ ​Madhu.​ ​Her​ ​evidence​ ​is​ ​primarily​
​hearsay​​in​​nature​​regarding​​the​​incident.​​She​​deposed​​that​​Madhu​​lived​​with​​her​​until​
​about​​the​​age​​of​​16​​and​​attended​​school​​during​​that​​period.​​Thereafter,​​he​​was​​sent​​to​
​Palakkad​​to​​learn​​carpentry​​work.​​She​​further​​stated​​that​​Madhu​​later​​developed​​mental​
​illness​​and​​had​​undergone​​treatment​​at​​institutions​​including​​the​​Mental​​Health​​Centre​
​at​​Kottathara​​and​​the​​Government​​Mental​​Health​​Centre,​​Kozhikode.​​According​​to​​her,​
​he​ ​was​ ​irregular​ ​in​ ​taking​ ​medication​ ​and​ ​would​ ​often​ ​spend​ ​his​ ​time​ ​wandering​ ​in​
​forest areas and along river banks.​
​10.71.​ ​PW71​ ​(CW37)​ ​is​ ​the​ ​brother-in-law​ ​of​ ​Madhu.​ ​He​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​he​
​belongs​​to​​the​​Kurumba​​community,​​while​​his​​wife​​—​​Madhu’s​​sister​​—​​belongs​​to​​the​
​Mudugar​​community.​​According​​to​​him,​​Madhu​​was​​suffering​​from​​a​​mild​​mental​​illness.​
​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​on​ ​one​ ​occasion​ ​he​ ​had​ ​taken​ ​Madhu​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Mental​ ​Health​ ​Centre,​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​108​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Kozhikode,​​for​​treatment.​​He​​further​​deposed​​that​​he​​had​​produced​​Exts.​​P48​​and​​P49​
​series medical documents before the Police.​
​10.72.​ ​PW72​​(CW97)​​is​​a​​Civil​​Police​​Officer​​attached​​to​​the​​Cyber​​Cell,​​District​
​Police,​​Palakkad.​​He​​assisted​​the​​Investigating​​Officer​​in​​seizing​​MO27​​series​​and​​MO25​
​mobile​​phones​​belonging​​to​​the​​accused​​persons.​​He​​is​​also​​a​​signatory​​to​​Exts.​​P62,​
​P63,​​P64,​​P65,​​and​​P66​​seizure​​mahazars.​​He​​further​​assisted​​in​​the​​seizure​​of​​electronic​
​devices,​ ​including​ ​MO28​ ​series​ ​DVR​ ​and​ ​power​ ​adapter​ ​from​ ​Sreerag​ ​Bakery,​ ​MO23​
​series​ ​DVR​ ​and​ ​adapters​ ​from​ ​Anavai​ ​Forest​ ​Station,​​and​​DVR​​and​​MO29(a)​​adapter​
​from​​Ponniyammal​​Gurukulam​​at​​Mukkali.​​PW72​​also​​collected​​Facebook​​user​​account​
​information​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​Accused​​No.​​8​​(Ubaid)​​and​​Accused​​No.​​4​​(Aneesh).​​The​​said​
​records​​were​​marked​​as​​Ext.​​P68​​series.​​He​​also​​issued​​and​​signed​​the​​corresponding​
​Section 65B certificates, marked as Ext. P68(b).​
​10.73.​ ​PW73​​(CW98)​​was​​the​​then​​CPO​​attached​​to​​Agali​​Police​​Station,​​who​
​had​​been​​deputed​​for​​escort​​duty​​at​​the​​place​​where​​the​​body​​of​​Madhu​​was​​kept.​​After​
​the​​post-mortem​​examination,​​it​​was​​PW73​​who​​released​​the​​body​​to​​the​​relatives.​​He​
​also​ ​entrusted​ ​the​ ​sealed​ ​envelopes​ ​containing​ ​material​ ​objects​ ​collected​ ​during​
​post-mortem by the doctor to the Investigating Officer.​
​10.74.​ ​PW74​​(CW101)​​was​​the​​Gunman​​attached​​to​​the​​Dy.​​S.P.,​​Agali.​​He​​is​
​an​ ​attesting​ ​witness​ ​to​ ​Ext.​ ​P69​ ​seizure​ ​mahazar​ ​prepared​ ​at​ ​the​​time​​of​​seizure​​of​
​photographs​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​​persons​​produced​​by​​photographer​​Jinson.​​His​​testimony​
​supports the seizure of photographic identification material.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​109​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​10.75.​ ​PW75​ ​(CW102)​ ​is​ ​an​ ​attesting​ ​witness​ ​to​ ​Ext.​ ​P70​ ​seizure​ ​mahazar​
​prepared​​at​​the​​time​​of​​seizure​​of​​the​​autorickshaw​​belonging​​to​​Hareesh.​​Through​​his​
​testimony, the seizure of the vehicle stands proved.​
​10.76.​ ​PW76​​was​​the​​Civil​​Police​​Officer​​of​​Ottapalam​​Police​​Station​​who​​was​
​deputed​ ​to​ ​assist​​the​​investigation​​team​​in​​this​​case​​as​​per​​the​​orders​​of​​the​​District​
​Police​​Chief.​​He​​is​​an​​attesting​​witness​​to​​Ext.​​P58​​seizure​​mahazar​​prepared​​at​​the​​time​
​of​​seizure​​of​​the​​mobile​​phone​​of​​Accused​​No.​​14​​(Hareesh),​​which​​was​​produced​​by​​his​
​relative​ ​Anand.​ ​He​ ​is​ ​also​ ​a​ ​signatory​ ​to​ ​Ext.​ ​P71​ ​seizure​ ​mahazar​ ​—​ ​relating​ ​to​
​photographs​ ​and​ ​DVD​ ​produced​ ​by​ ​photographer​ ​Albin,​ ​Ext.​​P72​​seizure​​mahazar​​—​
​relating​​to​​seizure​​of​​DVRs,​​and​​Exts.​​P59,​​P46,​​P73,​​and​​P74​​seizure​​mahazars.​​It​​was​
​PW76​​who​​collected​​the​​OP​​ticket​​of​​Madhu​​from​​the​​hospital​​and​​handed​​it​​over​​to​​the​
​Investigating Officer.​
​10.77.​ ​PW77​​(CW115)​​is​​a​​contractor​​and​​a​​party​​to​​Ext.​​P75​​agreement​​dated​
​27.11.2017,​ ​entered​ ​into​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Divisional​ ​Forest​ ​Officer,​ ​Palakkad,​ ​for​ ​cutting​ ​and​
​transportation​ ​of​ ​teak​ ​wood​ ​from​ ​the​​forest​​department​​plantation​​area.​​He​​deposed​
​that​ ​when​ ​he​ ​reached​ ​Mukkali​ ​on​ ​the​ ​relevant​ ​day,​ ​he​ ​saw​ ​a​ ​group​​of​​about​​seven​
​persons assembled there, and Madhu was present among them.​
​10.78.​ ​PW78​ ​(CW104)​ ​is​ ​a​ ​Civil​ ​Police​ ​Officer​ ​working​ ​in​ ​the​ ​office​ ​of​ ​the​
​Dy.S.P.,​ ​Agali,​ ​on​ ​working​ ​arrangement.​ ​On​ ​17.03.2018,​ ​he​ ​signed​ ​Ext.​ ​P76​ ​seizure​
​mahazar​ ​prepared​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​seizure​ ​of​ ​screenshots​​of​​videos​​circulated​​through​
​WhatsApp,​ ​which​ ​were​ ​produced​ ​by​ ​one​ ​Nikhul.​ ​He​ ​is​ ​also​ ​an​ ​attesting​ ​witness​ ​to​
​Ext.P77​​seizure​​mahazar​​prepared​​in​​connection​​with​​the​​seizure​​of​​the​​vehicle​​diary​​of​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​110​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​the Bolero Jeep bearing Registration No. KL-01-BW-5724.​
​10.79.​ ​PW79​ ​(CW105)​ ​is​ ​the​ ​Writer​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Office​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Assistant​
​Superintendent​​of​​Police,​​Agali.​​He​​deposed​​that​​he​​had​​produced​​the​​Cell​​ID​​decoder​
​details​​and​​Call​​Data​​Records​​(CDRs)​​of​​the​​mobile​​phones​​before​​the​​Dy.​​S.P.​​Office,​
​Agali, after collecting the same from the District Police Office, Palakkad.​
​10.80.​ ​PW80​ ​(CW107)​ ​is​ ​the​ ​official​ ​photographer​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​the​ ​DCRB,​
​Palakkad.​​He​​deposed​​that​​he​​had​​taken​​photographs​​during​​the​​inquest​​conducted​​at​
​CHC,​​Agali,​​and​​that​​the​​said​​photographs​​were​​subsequently​​copied​​and​​preserved​​in​
​Ext. P78 compact disk.​
​10.81.​ ​PW81​ ​(CW108)​ ​was​ ​the​​then​​Sub​​Inspector​​of​​Police​​attached​​to​​the​
​Agali​​SMS​​Unit.​​He​​deposed​​that​​he​​had​​collected​​Ext.​​P75​​agreement​​relating​​to​​the​
​felling​ ​of​ ​teak​ ​timber​ ​entered​ ​into​ ​between​ ​Abbas​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Divisional​ ​Forest​ ​Officer,​
​Mannarkkad,​​from​​the​​office​​of​​the​​DFO,​​Mannarkkad,​​and​​produced​​the​​same​​before​
​the Investigating Officer.​
​10.82.​ ​PW82​ ​(CW109)​ ​was​ ​the​ ​Junior​ ​Sub​ ​Inspector​ ​of​ ​Agali​ ​Police​ ​Station​
​during​​the​​relevant​​period.​​He​​accompanied​​the​​Dy.​​S.P.​​when​​the​​latter​​visited​​the​​place​
​of​​occurrence​​along​​with​​the​​Scientific​​Officer.​​He​​is​​also​​an​​attesting​​witness​​to​​Ext.​​P79​
​seizure​ ​mahazar​ ​prepared​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​when​ ​the​ ​material​ ​objects​ ​collected​ ​by​ ​the​
​Scientific Officer were handed over to the Investigating Officer.​
​10.83.​ ​PW83​​(CW110)​​was​​the​​Additional​​Sub​​Inspector​​of​​Police​​attached​​to​
​Agali​​Police​​Station​​on​​the​​relevant​​date.​​He​​deposed​​that,​​while​​he​​was​​on​​patrol​​duty​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​111​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​at​​about​​2:15​​p.m.​​he​​received​​telephonic​​information​​from​​the​​GD​​Charge​​Officer​​of​
​Agali​​Police​​Station,​​one​​Rejimon,​​that​​a​​person​​by​​name​​Madhu,​​allegedly​​involved​​in​​a​
​theft​ ​case,​ ​had​ ​been​ ​apprehended​ ​at​ ​Mukkali.​ ​Acting​ ​on​ ​the​ ​said​ ​information,​ ​he​
​proceeded​ ​to​ ​the​ ​spot​ ​and​ ​reached​ ​Mukkali​ ​at​​about​​3:00​​p.m.​​On​​arrival,​​he​​found​
​Madhu​​sitting​​in​​the​​CITU​​waiting​​shed​​at​​Mukkali,​​in​​a​​shabby​​and​​exhausted​​condition.​
​Persons​​gathered​​at​​the​​scene​​informed​​him​​that​​Madhu​​was​​a​​thief​​and​​a​​nuisance​​to​
​the​​public​​in​​that​​locality​​and​​they​​had​​gone​​up​​into​​the​​forest​​to​​apprehend​​him.​​PW83​
​deposed​​that​​he​​collected​​the​​name​​and​​address​​of​​Madhu​​directly​​from​​him.​​He​​also​
​stated​ ​that​ ​some​​persons​​present​​there​​furnished​​the​​names​​and​​addresses​​of​​about​
​seven​​persons​​who​​had​​brought​​Madhu​​to​​that​​place.​​Though​​initially​​they​​refused,​​later​
​seven​​among​​the​​people​​assembled​​furnished​​their​​name​​and​​address.​ ​They​​claimed​
​that​​at​​the​​time​​of​​apprehending​​him,​​he​​had​​a​​sack​​with​​him​​and​​the​​said​​sack​​was​
​placed​ ​near​ ​to​​the​​police​​jeep.​​According​​to​​PW83,​​a​​few​​persons​​from​​the​​gathered​
​crowd​ ​escorted​ ​Madhu​ ​to​ ​the​ ​police​ ​jeep.​​Others​​brought​​a​​sack​​containing​​rice​​and​
​certain​ ​items​ ​and​ ​placed​ ​it​ ​near​ ​the​​vehicle,​​which​​was​​also​​taken​​into​​custody.​​The​
​police​​party​​left​​Mukkali​​at​​about​​3:30​​p.m.​​and​​proceeded​​towards​​Agali.​​During​​the​
​journey,​ ​PW83​ ​enquired​ ​with​ ​Madhu​ ​as​ ​to​​what​​had​​happened.​​At​​that​​time,​​Madhu​
​reportedly​​stated​​that​​about​​ten​​persons​​had​​apprehended​​him​​from​​the​​forest,​​tied​​his​
​hands,​​beaten​​him,​​and​​forced​​him​​to​​carry​​a​​sack​​on​​his​​shoulders​​while​​bringing​​him​
​to​​Mukkali.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​​some​​persons​​had​​beaten​​him​​at​​Mukkali​​as​​well​​and​
​that​​one​​person​​had​​stamped​​on​​him.​​However,​​Madhu​​did​​not​​disclose​​the​​names​​or​
​addresses​​of​​those​​persons;​​the​​particulars​​were​​allegedly​​furnished​​only​​by​​members​​of​
​the​ ​gathered​ ​crowd.​ ​When​ ​the​ ​police​ ​party​ ​reached​ ​a​ ​place​ ​called​ ​Mele​ ​Thavalam,​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​112​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Madhu​​informed​​them​​that​​he​​felt​​like​​vomiting.​​The​​vehicle​​was​​stopped,​​and​​Vijulal​
​opened​​the​​left​​side​​quarter​​glass​​to​​enable​​Madhu​​to​​vomit.​​PW83​​deposed​​that​​Madhu​
​appeared​​extremely​​tired​​and​​physically​​weak.​​He​​sat​​on​​the​​sack​​with​​his​​head​​placed​
​on​​the​​back​​seat.​​Thereupon,​​he​​informed​​the​​GD​​Charge​​Officer​​of​​Agali​​Police​​Station​
​to​​prepare​​a​​requisition​​for​​medical​​examination.​​According​​to​​PW83,​​they​​reached​​CHC,​
​Agali,​ ​at​ ​about​ ​4:15​ ​p.m.,​ ​and​ ​Madhu​ ​was​ ​taken​ ​before​ ​the​ ​duty​ ​doctor,​ ​Dr.​ ​Lima​
​Francis,​ ​on​ ​a​ ​stretcher.​ ​After​ ​examination,​ ​the​ ​doctor​ ​certified​ ​that​ ​Madhu​​had​​been​
​brought​​dead.​​PW83​​thereafter​​informed​​higher​​police​​officials​​and​​the​​Police​​Station.​
​After​​shifting​​the​​body​​to​​the​​mortuary,​​the​​police​​party​​returned​​to​​the​​station,​​and​​at​
​about​ ​5:15​ ​p.m.,​ ​he​ ​registered​ ​Crime​ ​No.​ ​87/2018​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​174​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Cr.P.C.​
​concerning​​the​​death​​of​​Madhu.​​He​​further​​deposed​​that,​​owing​​to​​a​​power​​failure​​at​
​the​​Police​​Station​​at​​the​​relevant​​time,​​Ext.P81​​FIR​​was​​registered​​manually.​​Ext.​​P80​​is​
​the​​First​​Information​​Statement​​recorded​​by​​him,​​and​​Ext.​​P81​​is​​the​​FIR​​registered​​on​
​that​​basis.​​He​​identified​​MO26​​series​​dress​​worn​​by​​Madhu.​​He​​stated​​that​​the​​distance​
​to​​Mele​​Thavalam​​from​​Agali​​is​​about​​10​​kilometers​​and​​the​​distance​​from​​there​​to​​the​
​Agali​ ​Police​ ​Station​ ​is​ ​about​ ​8​ ​km.​ ​The​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​subjected​ ​PW83​ ​to​
​lengthy​ ​and​ ​searching​ ​cross-examination.​ ​During​ ​cross-examination​ ​by​ ​the​ ​counsel​
​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​accused,​ ​PW83​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​not​​verified​​the​​number​​of​
​crimes​​in​​which​​Madhu​​was​​involved.​​He​​stated​​that​​it​​was​​Regimon​​who​​had​​recorded​
​the​ ​F.I.​ ​statement​ ​based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​inputs​ ​given​ ​by​ ​him.​ ​He​ ​admitted​ ​that​ ​in​ ​the​ ​F.I.​
​statement,​​it​​has​​been​​mentioned​​that​​Madhu​​is​​an​​accused​​in​​numerous​​cases.​​He​​was​
​asked​​whether​​he​​was​​aware​​of​​the​​procedural​​formalities​​that​​are​​to​​be​​complied​​with​
​when​​a​​person​​is​​taken​​into​​custody,​​and​​he​​answered​​in​​the​​affirmative.​​When​​he​​was​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​113​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​asked​ ​whether​ ​all​ ​those​ ​formalities​ ​were​ ​complied​ ​with​ ​when​ ​Madhu​​was​​taken​​into​
​custody,​ ​he​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​all​​the​​procedural​​formalities​​were​​not​​followed.​​According​​to​
​him,​ ​Madhu’s​ ​condition​ ​was​ ​very​ ​bad​ ​and,​ ​therefore,​ ​he​ ​wanted​ ​to​ ​take​ ​him​ ​to​ ​the​
​hospital​​as​​early​​as​​possible.​​He​​stated​​that​​seven​​persons​​could​​travel​​in​​his​​jeep.​​He​
​further​​stated​​that​​Madhu​​was​​taken​​into​​custody​​on​​the​​basis​​of​​information​​provided​
​by​ ​the​ ​GD​ ​charge.​ ​When​ ​he​​was​​asked​​whether,​​at​​the​​time​​of​​taking​​a​​person​​into​
​custody,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​required​ ​to​ ​ascertain​ ​the​ ​injuries​ ​on​ ​his​ ​body​ ​and​ ​examine​ ​him,​ ​he​
​answered​ ​in​ ​the​ ​affirmative.​ ​However,​​when​​he​​was​​asked​​whether​​the​​injuries​​were​
​noted,​ ​he​ ​answered​ ​in​ ​the​ ​negative.​ ​When​ ​he​ ​was​ ​asked​ ​whether,​ ​while​ ​recording​
​Ext.P81​​and​​Ext.P80,​​the​​fact​​that​​Madhu​​had​​injuries​​on​​his​​body​​was​​noted,​​he​​stated​
​that​​he​​did​​not​​remember.​​A​​suggestion​​was​​put​​to​​the​​witness​​that​​the​​injuries​​found​
​on​​the​​body​​were​​inflicted​​by​​policemen,​​including​​him,​​while​​Madhu​​was​​being​​taken​​to​
​the​ ​Police​ ​Station​ ​and​ ​also​ ​at​ ​the​ ​Agali​ ​Police​ ​Station.​ ​He​ ​denied​ ​the​ ​same.​ ​To​ ​the​
​suggestion​​that​​he​​had​​influenced​​the​​Sub-Collector​​as​​well​​as​​Dr.​​Lima​​Francis​​to​​refrain​
​from​​noting​​the​​injuries​​in​​the​​inquest​​and​​in​​the​​wound​​certificate,​​he​​denied​​the​​same.​
​He​​stated​​that​​the​​crime​​was​​registered​​under​​Section​​174​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C.,​​as​​he​​was​​not​
​aware​​of​​the​​cause​​of​​death​​of​​Madhu.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​​when​​he​​had​​registered​​the​
​crime​​under​​Section​​302​​of​​the​​IPC,​​he​​stated​​that​​he​​did​​not​​remember.​​When​​he​​was​
​asked​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​persons​ ​whose​ ​names​ ​are​ ​mentioned​ ​in​ ​the​ ​FIS​ ​had​ ​themselves​
​given​​their​​names,​​he​​replied​​that​​he​​was​​not​​very​​sure.​​According​​to​​him,​​two​​of​​them​
​had​​given​​their​​names​​and​​addresses.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​​whether​​he​​was​​aware​​of​​the​
​persons​​who​​had​​apprehended​​Madhu​​from​​the​​forest,​​he​​stated​​that​​he​​was​​not​​aware​
​at​​that​​point​​of​​time,​​though​​he​​later​​came​​to​​know.​​He​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​no​​time​​to​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​114​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​verify​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​persons​ ​whose​ ​names​ ​were​ ​furnished​ ​were​​the​​persons​​who​​had​
​beaten​​Madhu.​​He​​admitted​​that​​in​​the​​F.I.​​statement,​​the​​fact​​that​​Madhu​​had​​informed​
​him​​that​​somebody​​had​​kicked​​him​​on​​his​​chest​​was​​not​​mentioned.​​According​​to​​him,​
​that​​was​​an​​important​​fact,​​but​​the​​same​​was​​not​​mentioned.​​He​​stated​​that​​he​​and​​the​
​police​​party​​were​​present​​at​​Mukkali​​from​​03:00​​p.m.​​to​​03:30​​p.m.​​He​​further​​stated​
​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​not​ ​aware​​as​​to​​whether​​any​​of​​the​​relatives​​of​​Madhu​​were​​present​​at​
​Mukkali.​​He​​stated​​that​​he​​was​​aware​​that,​​at​​the​​time​​of​​taking​​a​​person​​into​​custody,​
​the​​relatives​​are​​to​​be​​informed.​​According​​to​​him,​​Madhu​​was​​not​​taken​​into​​custody​
​but​​was​​merely​​taken​​to​​the​​Police​​Station​​along​​with​​the​​police.​​He​​stated​​that​​it​​was​
​Madhu​ ​who​ ​had​ ​informed​ ​him​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​been​ ​beaten​ ​while​​being​​taken​​from​​the​
​forest,​​though​​he​​had​​not​​mentioned​​that​​any​​particular​​persons​​had​​beaten​​him.​​When​
​he​ ​was​ ​asked​ ​whether​ ​he​ ​had​ ​reached​ ​Agali​ ​after​ ​04:40​ ​p.m.,​ ​he​​denied​​the​​same.​
​When​ ​he​ ​was​ ​asked​ ​whether,​ ​in​ ​the​ ​OP​​Register,​​the​​name​​of​​Kala​​was​​deleted​​and​
​Madhu’s​​name​​was​​inserted,​​he​​denied​​the​​same.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​​whether,​​when​​an​
​injured​​person​​is​​taken​​into​​custody,​​the​​injuries​​are​​to​​be​​noted,​​he​​stated​​that​​he​​was​
​aware​​of​​the​​said​​procedure.​​He​​was​​asked​​whether​​he​​had​​checked​​the​​CCTV​​footage​
​at​​the​​Agali​​Police​​Station​​to​​ascertain​​whether​​the​​presence​​of​​Madhu​​in​​the​​station​​was​
​recorded​​therein,​​and​​he​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​not​​checked​​the​​CCTV​​footage.​​When​​it​​was​
​suggested​​that​​there​​was​​no​​disruption​​of​​electricity​​supply​​at​​the​​Agali​​Police​​Station,​
​he​​denied​​the​​same.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​​whether​​there​​were​​injuries​​on​​Madhu’s​​face​
​when​ ​he​ ​was​ ​taken​ ​to​ ​the​ ​doctor,​ ​he​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​it​ ​had​ ​not​ ​come​​to​​his​​notice.​​He​
​further​​stated​​that​​when​​Madhu​​was​​taken​​down​​from​​the​​jeep,​​he​​was​​not​​conscious.​
​In​​the​​cross-examination​​by​​the​​counsel​​appearing​​for​​Accused​​Nos.​​2​​and​​5,​​he​​was​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​115​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​asked​​whether​​Madhu​​was​​questioned​​while​​inside​​the​​jeep.​​He​​stated​​that​​Madhu​​was​
​not​ ​questioned​ ​and​ ​that​ ​only​ ​an​ ​inquiry​ ​was​ ​made.​ ​When​ ​he​ ​was​ ​asked​ ​whether​
​confirmation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​death​ ​was​ ​informed​ ​to​ ​him,​ ​he​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​after​ ​reaching​ ​the​
​hospital,​​within​​about​​5​​minutes,​​he​​was​​informed​​of​​Madhu’s​​death.​​He​​further​​stated​
​that​ ​when​ ​Madhu​ ​vomited,​ ​some​ ​vomit​ ​fell​​inside​​the​​jeep.​​He​​was​​asked​​about​​the​
​details​ ​of​ ​various​ ​hospitals​ ​between​ ​Mukkali​ ​and​ ​Mele​ ​Thavalam.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that,​
​normally,​ ​if​ ​an​ ​injured​ ​person​ ​is​ ​taken​ ​to​ ​any​ ​hospital,​ ​they​ ​would​ ​request​ ​that​ ​the​
​injured​​person​​be​​taken​​to​​a​​Government​​hospital.​​He​​stated​​that​​he​​did​​not​​want​​to​
​delay​ ​the​ ​treatment​ ​that​ ​could​ ​be​ ​given​ ​to​ ​Madhu.​ ​He​ ​further​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​when​ ​he​
​enquired​​with​​Madhu,​​he​​appeared​​very​​tired.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​​whether​​Madhu​​had​
​voluntarily​ ​entered​ ​the​ ​jeep,​ ​he​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​Madhu​ ​was​ ​brought​ ​by​ ​some​ ​persons​
​holding​ ​him​​on​​both​​sides.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​​when​​Madhu​​entered​​the​​jeep,​​the​
​officer​ ​was​ ​not​ ​aware​ ​that​ ​he​ ​required​ ​urgent​ ​medical​ ​attention.​ ​He​ ​stated​​that​​the​
​police​​jeep​​was​​a​​Bolero​​jeep​​and​​that​​there​​was​​a​​third​​row​​with​​two​​seats.​​He​​further​
​stated​​that​​the​​FIR​​was​​registered​​at​​5:15​​p.m.​​He​​stated​​that​​the​​Agali​​Police​​Station​
​had​​a​​UPS​​facility,​​but​​since​​the​​charge​​was​​low,​​when​​the​​power​​went​​off,​​he​​had​​to​
​manually​ ​register​ ​the​ ​FIR.​ ​The​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​other​ ​accused​ ​also​
​cross-examined the said witness on similar lines.​
​10.84.​ ​PW84​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​a​ ​CPO​ ​at​ ​the​ ​Agali​ ​Police​ ​Station​ ​on​
​22.02.2018.​​On​​that​​day,​​he​​was​​on​​driver​​duty.​​He​​stated​​that​​while​​on​​duty,​​at​​about​
​02:15​ ​p.m.,​ ​the​ ​Station​​GD​​charge​​called​​the​​Sub-Inspector​​and​​informed​​him​​that​​a​
​person​ ​involved​ ​in​ ​a​ ​theft​ ​case​ ​had​ ​been​ ​identified,​ ​apprehended,​ ​and​ ​detained​ ​at​
​Mukkali​​Junction.​​As​​directed​​by​​the​​SI,​​they​​reached​​Mukkali​​at​​about​​03:00​​p.m.​​At​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​116​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Mukkali,​ ​in​ ​front​ ​of​ ​a​ ​bus​ ​waiting​ ​shed,​ ​they​ ​saw​ ​a​ ​crowd​ ​of​ ​people.​​The​​jeep​​was​
​stopped,​​and​​when​​they​​looked​​inside,​​they​​found​​a​​person​​wearing​​shabby​​and​​dark​
​clothes​ ​sitting​ ​inside​ ​the​ ​bus​ ​waiting​ ​shed.​ ​He​ ​appeared​ ​very​ ​tired.​ ​The​ ​people​
​assembled​ ​there​ ​told​ ​the​​police​​that​​he​​was​​the​​thief,​​Madhu,​​and​​that​​he​​had​​been​
​apprehended​ ​from​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​and​ ​brought​ ​there.​ ​The​ ​SI​ ​asked​ ​him​ ​his​ ​name​ ​and​
​address,​​and​​Madhu​​gave​​the​​same.​​The​​SI​​recorded​​the​​names​​of​​some​​of​​the​​persons​
​assembled​​there.​​Some​​people​​escorted​​Madhu​​into​​the​​police​​jeep.​​They​​also​​placed​​a​
​sack​​near​​the​​police​​jeep​​and​​stated​​that​​it​​contained​​items​​stolen​​by​​Madhu.​​At​​about​
​03:30​​p.m.,​​they​​left​​Mukkali.​​During​​the​​return​​journey,​​the​​Sub-Inspector​​asked​​Madhu​
​as​​to​​what​​had​​happened.​​Madhu​​stated​​that​​he​​had​​been​​caught​​by​​people​​from​​the​
​forest,​​branded​​as​​a​​thief,​​and​​that​​he​​had​​been​​kicked​​and​​stabbed.​​He​​further​​stated​
​that​​some​​of​​the​​persons​​who​​had​​put​​him​​into​​the​​jeep​​had​​also​​assaulted​​him.​​When​
​they​​reached​​Mele​​Thavalam,​​Madhu​​informed​​them​​that​​he​​wanted​​to​​vomit.​​The​​jeep​
​was​​stopped​​by​​the​​roadside,​​and​​Madhu​​vomited​​through​​the​​side​​window​​on​​the​​left​
​side.​​When​​the​​Sub-Inspector​​asked​​him​​whether​​he​​wanted​​water,​​Madhu​​answered​​in​
​the​​negative.​​Madhu​​then​​sat​​on​​top​​of​​the​​sack​​at​​the​​back​​of​​the​​jeep​​and​​rested​​his​
​head​​on​​the​​seat.​​The​​witness​​stated​​that​​Madhu​​appeared​​very​​tired.​​At​​that​​point​​of​
​time,​​the​​SI​​called​​the​​Police​​Station​​and​​informed​​them​​that​​Madhu​​was​​being​​taken​​to​
​the​ ​hospital​ ​and​ ​asked​ ​them​ ​to​ ​send​ ​a​ ​requisition.​ ​At​ ​about​ ​04:15​ ​p.m.,​ ​the​ ​police​
​reached​​the​​Agali​​CHC.​​Officer​​Kumaran​​was​​present​​at​​the​​hospital​​with​​a​​requisition.​
​The​ ​hospital​ ​staff​ ​took​ ​Madhu​ ​into​ ​the​​hospital​​on​​a​​stretcher.​​The​​Doctor​​examined​
​Madhu​​and​​informed​​them​​that​​he​​was​​no​​more.​​The​​Doctor​​prepared​​an​​intimation​​and​
​sent​ ​it​​through​​Kumaran​​to​​the​​Police​​Station.​​After​​Madhu’s​​body​​was​​shifted​​to​​the​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​117​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​mortuary,​​the​​police​​returned.​​In​​cross-examination​​by​​the​​counsel​​appearing​​for​​the​​1st​
​accused,​ ​when​ ​the​ ​witness​ ​was​ ​asked​ ​whether​ ​PW83​ ​was​ ​constantly​ ​on​ ​the​ ​phone​
​talking​​to​​the​​Police​​Station,​​he​​stated​​that​​he​​was​​not​​aware​​of​​the​​said​​fact.​​He​​denied​
​the​​suggestion​​that​​Madhu​​became​​tired​​due​​to​​questioning​​inside​​the​​police​​jeep.​​He​
​also​​denied​​the​​suggestion​​that​​Madhu​​was​​assaulted​​by​​the​​police​​with​​their​​hands​​and​
​lathi​ ​inside​ ​the​ ​police​ ​jeep.​ ​The​​cross-examination​​by​​the​​other​​accused​​was​​also​​on​
​similar lines.​
​10.85.​ ​PW85​​(CW114)​​was​​the​​then​​Civil​​Police​​Officer​​of​​Agali​​Police​​Station​
​who​​carried​​the​​requisition​​for​​medical​​examination​​of​​Madhu​​from​​the​​Police​​Station​​to​
​CHC,​ ​Agali.​ ​He​ ​deposed​ ​that,​ ​on​​receiving​​instructions​​from​​Rejimon,​​the​​GD​​Charge​
​Officer​​of​​Agali​​Police​​Station,​​he​​immediately​​rushed​​to​​CHC,​​Agali,​​with​​the​​requisition,​
​based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​telephonic​ ​information​​conveyed​​by​​PW83,​​Prasad​​Varkky.​​According​​to​
​him,​​Madhu​​was​​brought​​before​​the​​duty​​doctor​​on​​a​​stretcher​​with​​the​​assistance​​of​
​other​ ​police​ ​personnel​ ​and​ ​hospital​ ​staff.​ ​After​ ​examination,​​the​​Doctor​​certified​​that​
​Madhu​ ​had​ ​been​ ​brought​ ​dead.​ ​This​ ​witness​ ​was​ ​also​ ​subjected​ ​to​ ​thorough​
​cross-examination.​ ​During​ ​the​ ​course​ ​of​ ​his​ ​examination,​ ​MO24​ ​wooden​ ​stick​ ​was​
​shown​​to​​the​​witness.​​He​​identified​​the​​same​​and​​stated​​that​​the​​said​​weapon​​had​​also​
​been​​shown​​to​​him​​by​​the​​Investigating​​Officer​​during​​the​​course​​of​​investigation.​​He​
​further​​deposed​​that​​he​​had​​personally​​visited​​the​​scene​​of​​occurrence​​as​​part​​of​​the​
​investigative process.​
​10.86.​ ​PW86​ ​is​ ​the​ ​Professor​ ​of​ ​Forensic​ ​Medicine​ ​and​ ​Police​ ​Surgeon.​ ​He,​
​along​​with​​a​​team​​of​​surgeons,​​conducted​​an​​autopsy​​on​​the​​body​​of​​Madhu​​and​​issued​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​118​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Ext.P82​ ​postmortem​ ​certificate.​ ​On​ ​examination,​ ​he​ ​noted​​that​​the​​deceased​​was​​an​
​adult​​male​​of​​height​​154​​cm​​and​​weight​​40​​Kg.​​Blood​​stained​​frothy​​fluid​​seen​​at​​nostrils​
​and​ ​mouth.​ ​Tattoos​ ​were​ ​found​ ​on​​the​​inner​​aspect​​of​​the​​right​​forearm​​and​​on​​the​
​front​​of​​the​​right​​forearm.​​There​​were​​numerous​​hypopigmented​​scars​​on​​various​​parts​
​of​ ​his​ ​body.​ ​As​ ​many​ ​as​ ​44​ ​injuries​ ​were​ ​noted​ ​on​ ​various​​parts​​of​​his​​body​​out​​of​
​which,​​Injury​​Nos.1​​to​​29​​were​​found​​to​​be​​fresh​​in​​nature.​​The​​opinion​​of​​the​​Doctors​
​was​​that​​death​​was​​due​​to​​Injury​​Nos.​​1​​to​​15,​​being​​multiple​​blunt​​injuries.​​It​​would​​be​
​appropriate to refer to the said ante mortem injuries at this juncture.​
​1.​ ​Contusion​​5x3x0.5​​cm​​on​​left​​side​​of​​forehead​​just​​above​​eyebrow​​and​​3​​cm​​outer​
​to midline.​
​2.​ ​Contusion​​6x5​​cm,​​full​​thickness,​​on​​left​​side​​of​​back​​of​​head,​​3.5​​cm​​above​​the​
​level of tip of mastoid and 3 cm outer to midline.​
​3.​ ​Contusion​​4x3​​cm,​​full​​thickness​​of​​left​​temporalis​​muscle.​​The​​skull​​was​​intact.​
​Brain​​(1371​​gm)​​showed​​features​​of​​raised​​intracranial​​tension​​with​​flattening​​of​
​gyri, narrowing of sulci and uncal grooving.​
​4.​ ​Contusion 0.8x0.5x0.3 cm on right side of lower lip, 0.5 cm outer to midline.​
​5.​ ​Multiple​​small​​contusions​​over​​an​​area​​2x1.5​​cm​​on​​inner​​aspect​​of​​left​​side​​of​
​lower lip, 0.5 cm outer to midline and 1cm below muco-cutaneous junction.​
​6.​ ​Contusion 2x1x0.5 cm on left side of lower lip, 3 cm outer to midline.​
​7.​ ​Contusion​​14x8x3​​cm​​on​​top​​of​​left​​shoulder​​and​​adjoining​​back​​of​​neck,​ ​3​​cm​
​outer to midline.​
​8.​ ​Contusion​​12x8x4​​cm​​on​​back​​of​​trunk​​across​​midline,​​upper​​extent​​4​​cm​​below​
​root of neck involving the full thickness of para spinal and trapezius muscles.​
​9.​ ​Abraded​ ​contusion​ ​6x4x1​​to​​1.5​​cm​​left​​side​​of​​back​​of​​chest,​​13​​cm​​outer​​to​
​midline, 5 cm below top of shoulder.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​119​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​10.​ ​Contusion​​5x2x0.3​​to​​0.5​​cm,​​oblique​​on​​right​​side​​of​​back​​of​​trunk​​,​​upper​​outer​
​end 10 cm below root of neck and 2 cm outer to midline.​
​11.​ ​Multiple​​small​​contusions​​varying​​in​​sizes​​of​​3x3x1.5​​cm​​to​​4x4x3​​cm​​over​​an​​area​
​13x6​​cm​​on​​right​​side​​of​​back​​of​​chest,​​12​​cm​​below​​top​​of​​shoulder​​and​​3​​cm​
​outer to midline.​
​12.​ ​Tramline​​contusion​​12.5x2.5x1​​to​​2​​cm,​​with​​a​​central​​pale​​area​​of​​1​​cm​​breadth​
​in​​its​​long​​axis,​​obliquely​​placed​​on​​left​​side​​of​​back​​of​​trunk,​​lower​​inner​​end​​6.5​
​cm​​outer​​to​​midline​​and​​32​​cm​​below​​top​​of​​shoulder.​​Underneath,​​the​​XI​​th​​rib​
​was​​seen​​fractured​​on​​back​​aspect​​with​​blood​​infiltration​​over​​an​​area​​of​​8x6​​cm.​
​Perinephric haematoma seen on the lower pole of left kidney.​
​13.​ ​Contusion 2.5x1x0.3 cm vertical on back of left arm, 10 cm above elbow.​
​14.​ ​Contusion 10x8x2 cm on back of left thigh, 13 cm above knee fold,​
​15.​ ​Multiple​​linear​​abrasions​​varying​​in​​seizes​​3.5x0.1​​cm​​to​​4.5x0.1​​cm​​over​​an​​area​
​4.5x1.5​ ​cm​ ​horizontally​​placed​​on​​left​​side​​of​​back​​of​​neck​​with​​an​​underlying​
​contusion 5x4x1.5. cm across midline, just above root of neck.​
​When​​MO24​​wooden​​stick​​was​​shown​​to​​the​​witness,​​he​​identified​​the​​same​​and​
​stated​​that​​the​​same​​was​​shown​​to​​him​​by​​the​​Investigating​​Officer​​during​​the​​course​​of​
​investigation.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​Injury​ ​Nos.​ ​1​​to​​3​​could​​be​​caused​​by​​applying​​a​​blunt​
​force​​by​​a​​blunt​​object​​or​​striking​​on​​a​​blunt​​surface​​forcibly.​​When​​the​​attention​​of​​the​
​Doctor​ ​was​ ​invited​ ​to​ ​injury​ ​No.​​3,​​and​​he​​was​​asked​​how​​much​​time​​it​​would​​have​
​taken​​for​​the​​“uncal​​grooving”​​to​​develop,​​he​​responded​​by​​stating​​that​​it​​would​​take​​a​
​minimum​​of​​two​​or​​three​​hours.​​With​​regard​​to​​Injury​​Nos.​​4​​to​​6,​​the​​Doctor​​stated​
​that​ ​those​ ​are​ ​blunt​​force​​injuries​​caused​​by​​blunt​​force​​or​​fisting​​multiple​​times.The​
​Doctor​​stated​​that​​Injury​​No.​​7​​could​​have​​been​​caused​​by​​the​​application​​of​​blunt​​force,​
​probably​​with​​a​​long​​wooden​​log​​as​​the​​striking​​object.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​​whether​
​MO24​​could​​cause​​such​​an​​injury,​​he​​stated​​that​​the​​said​​weapon​​could​​not​​cause​​such​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​120​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​an​ ​injury.​ ​He​ ​further​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​such​​injuries​​could​​be​​caused​​by​​MO5​​series​​sticks.​
​Insofar​​as​​injury​​No.​​8​​is​​concerned,​​he​​stated​​that​​the​​said​​injury​​could​​be​​caused​​by​
​forcible​​compression​​by​​a​​blunt​​weapon​​or​​by​​compression​​against​​a​​blunt​​surface.​​With​
​regard​​to​​Injury​​No.​​9,​​the​​Doctor​​stated​​that​​it​​is​​also​​a​​blunt​​force​​injury​​caused​​by​​a​
​blunt​​agent​​forcibly​​impacting​​and​​that​​it​​can​​also​​be​​caused​​by​​a​​wooden​​stick​​or​​by​
​hitting​​with​​the​​hand.​​With​​regard​​to​​Injury​​No.​​10,​​the​​Doctor​​stated​​that​​it​​is​​also​​a​
​blunt​ ​injury​ ​and​ ​can​ ​be​ ​caused​ ​by​ ​forcibly​ ​pressing​ ​against​ ​a​ ​blunt​ ​surface​​multiple​
​times.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​​to​​clarify​​the​​tramline​​Injury​​No.​​12,​​he​​stated​​that​​the​​same​
​could​​be​​caused​​by​​a​​long​​rod-like​​weapon.​​He​​also​​added​​that​​MO24​​could​​cause​​such​
​an​​injury.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​​to​​explain​​“perinephric​​hematoma,”​​he​​stated​​that​​hitting​
​with​ ​MO24​​could​​cause​​damage​​to​​the​​kidney​​and​​associated​​structures,​​i.e.,​​adrenal​
​glands,​​etc.,​​on​​the​​lower​​pole​​of​​the​​left​​kidney.​​Insofar​​as​​injury​​No.​​13​​is​​concerned,​
​he​​stated​​that​​the​​said​​injury​​is​​a​​blunt​​force​​injury​​caused​​by​​the​​use​​of​​a​​blunt​​weapon​
​and​​that​​it​​could​​also​​be​​caused​​by​​hitting​​with​​the​​hand.​​Injury​​No.​​14,​​according​​to​
​him,​​could​​be​​caused​​by​​hitting​​with​​a​​blunt​​weapon​​such​​as​​a​​wooden​​log.​​Insofar​​as​
​Injury​​Nos.​​14​​and​​17​​are​​concerned,​​the​​Doctor​​stated​​that​​the​​said​​injuries​​could​​be​
​caused​​by​​wooden​​logs​​such​​as​​MO5​​series.​​Insofar​​as​​Injury​​Nos.​​26,​​28,​​31,​​and​​33​
​are​​concerned,​​the​​Doctor​​stated​​that​​those​​injuries​​could​​be​​caused​​by​​small-stemmed,​
​spiky​ ​plants​ ​which​ ​he​ ​had​ ​seen​ ​while​ ​visiting​ ​the​ ​spot​ ​and​ ​examining​ ​the​ ​scene​ ​of​
​occurrence.​​During​​cross-examination,​​he​​stated​​that​​the​​entire​​autopsy​​procedure​​was​
​videographed.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​​the​​Agali​​DYSP​​was​​present​​outside​​the​​autopsy​
​room.​​He​​stated​​that​​all​​the​​Doctors​​in​​his​​team​​were​​experienced.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​
​whether​​Injury​​Nos.​​1​​to​​3​​could​​be​​caused​​if​​the​​deceased​​was​​subjected​​to​​fisting,​​he​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​121​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​responded​​that​​even​​if​​the​​head​​is​​dashed​​against​​a​​hard​​surface,​​such​​injuries​​could​​be​
​caused.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​​whether​​Injury​​Nos.​​1​​and​​2​​were​​corresponding​​injuries,​
​he​​stated​​that​​the​​same​​could​​not​​be​​said.​​During​​cross-examination,​​the​​trend​​of​​the​
​defence​​was​​to​​suggest​​that​​the​​injuries​​could​​have​​been​​inflicted​​by​​a​​lathi​​by​​police​
​personnel​​while​​transporting​​the​​deceased​​from​​Angamaly​​or​​by​​banging​​his​​head​​on​
​hard​ ​surfaces​ ​inside​ ​the​ ​Jeep​ ​or​ ​at​ ​the​ ​police​ ​Station.​ ​When​ ​he​​was​​asked​​whether​
​Injury​​Nos.​​1​​to​​3​​had​​caused​​brain​​edema,​​he​​answered​​in​​the​​affirmative.​​When​​he​
​was​ ​asked​ ​whether​ ​injury​ ​Nos.​ ​1​ ​to​ ​3​ ​might​ ​have​ ​been​ ​caused​ ​by​ ​hitting​ ​the​​head​
​against​​a​​hard​​surface,​​he​​stated​​that​​it​​could​​be​​so.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​​such​​injuries​
​would​​cause​​damage​​to​​the​​brain​​and​​result​​in​​uneasiness.​​He​​added​​that​​Injury​​Nos.​​1​
​to​​3​​could​​lead​​to​​brain​​damage,​​loss​​of​​consciousness,​​and​​death​​within​​a​​short​​time.​
​He​​stated​​that​​when​​the​​edema​​becomes​​severe,​​the​​victim​​may​​fall​​unconscious​​and​
​die.​ ​When​ ​he​ ​was​ ​asked​ ​whether​ ​Injury​ ​Nos.​ ​3​ ​to​ ​12​ ​could​ ​be​ ​caused​ ​in​ ​a​ ​single​
​transaction,​​he​​stated​​that​​they​​could​​not​​be,​​and​​that​​Injury​​Nos.​​3​​to​​13​​were​​caused​
​due​​to​​different​​transactions.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​​whether,​​after​​sustaining​​such​​injuries,​
​it​​would​​be​​possible​​for​​a​​person​​to​​take​​food​​while​​standing,​​he​​stated​​that​​it​​would​​be​
​possible.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​​whether​​brain​​edema​​develops​​over​​a​​period​​of​​time,​​he​
​stated​​that​​during​​the​​initial​​stages,​​the​​person​​may​​behave​​normally​​and​​may​​consume​
​food.​​He​​further​​clarified​​that​​it​​is​​not​​correct​​to​​say​​that​​after​​sustaining​​such​​injuries,​​a​
​person​ ​cannot​ ​take​ ​food.​ ​When​ ​he​ ​was​​asked​​by​​the​​counsel​​appearing​​for​​Accused​
​Nos.​ ​2​ ​and​ ​5​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​injuries​ ​noted​ ​could​ ​be​ ​those​ ​typically​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​cases​ ​of​
​custodial​ ​torture,​ ​the​ ​Doctor​ ​responded​ ​that​ ​the​ ​injuries​ ​do​ ​not​ ​reflect​ ​a​ ​case​ ​of​
​custodial​​torture.​​When​​he​​was​​asked​​the​​difference​​between​​injuries​​in​​custodial​​torture​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​122​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​and​ ​general​ ​torture,​ ​he​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​many​ ​of​ ​the​ ​injuries​ ​were​ ​not​ ​in​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​of​
​custodial​​torture​​and​​that,​​taken​​together,​​the​​pattern​​of​​injuries​​was​​not​​consistent​​with​
​custodial​​torture.​​During​​re-examination,​​the​​Doctor​​was​​asked​​whether​​he​​had​​noted​
​any​​injuries​​which​​could​​cause​​instantaneous​​death.​​He​​stated​​that​​none​​of​​the​​injuries​
​were​​likely​​to​​cause​​instantaneous​​death.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​​several​​factors​​would​
​contribute​​cumulatively,​​forming​​a​​vicious​​circle,​​ultimately​​leading​​to​​death.​​He​​added​
​that​​none​​of​​the​​injuries​​were​​such​​that​​the​​injured​​person​​was​​likely​​to​​die​​within​​a​
​short​​span​​of​​time,​​such​​as​​within​​one​​hour.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​​the​​impact​​of​​the​
​injuries​ ​would​ ​increase​​over​​a​​period​​of​​time,​​and​​when​​it​​reaches​​a​​critical​​stage,​​it​
​becomes​​a​​medical​​emergency.​​At​​that​​stage,​​if​​the​​patient​​is​​not​​provided​​treatment,​
​death​ ​would​​ensue.​​He​​added​​that​​reaching​​such​​a​​stage​​of​​medical​​emergency​​may​
​take several hours and, in some cases, even several days.​
​10.87.​ ​PW87​ ​(CW77)​ ​was​ ​the​ ​Nodal​ ​Officer​ ​of​ ​Bharti​ ​Airtel,​ ​Kerala​ ​Circle.​
​Through​​this​​witness,​​the​​prosecution​​produced​​Call​​Data​​Records,​​Customer​​Application​
​Forms,​ ​and​ ​certificates​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​65B​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Indian​​Evidence​​Act​​relating​​to​​the​
​mobile​​phone​​used​​by​​Accused​​No.​​6.​​These​​documents​​were​​marked​​as​​Ext.​​P83​​series.​
​In​ ​his​ ​cross-examination,​ ​questions​ ​were​ ​put​ ​by​ ​the​ ​defence​ ​that​ ​the​ ​documents​
​produced by him were fabricated. The said suggestion was denied by the witness.​
​10.88.​ ​PW88​​(CW99)​​was​​the​​then​​Woman​​Civil​​Police​​Officer​​of​​Agali​​Police​
​Station,​​who​​was​​working​​as​​Station​​Writer​​during​​the​​relevant​​period.​​She​​deposed​​that​
​she​ ​had​ ​kept​ ​in​ ​safe​ ​custody​ ​the​ ​notebooks​ ​of​ ​police​ ​personnel​ ​Prasad​ ​Varkky,​
​Mohandas,​​and​​Sujilal,​​as​​entrusted​​by​​the​​Investigating​​Officer.​​She​​stated​​that​​she​​had​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​123​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​produced​​these​​notebooks,​​along​​with​​the​​Manual​​General​​Diary​​of​​Agali​​Police​​Station,​
​before​​the​​Dy.S.P.​​She​​received​​interim​​custody​​of​​the​​Manual​​General​​Diary​​under​​Ext.​
​P84​​receipt​​and​​subsequently​​produced​​the​​same​​before​​Court.​​The​​relevant​​pages​​of​
​the​ ​General​ ​Diary​​were​​marked​​as​​Ext.​​P85(a)​​through​​this​​witness.​​She​​also​​kept​​in​
​safe​ ​custody​ ​the​ ​vehicle​ ​diary​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​Police​ ​Jeep​ ​bearing​ ​Registration​ ​No.​
​KL-01-BW-5724​ ​and​ ​later​ ​produced​ ​the​ ​same​ ​before​ ​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer.​ ​The​
​relevant​ ​pages​ ​of​ ​the​ ​vehicle​ ​diary​ ​were​ ​marked​ ​as​ ​Ext.​ ​P86(a).​ ​The​ ​notebooks​ ​of​
​Prasad​ ​Varkky,​ ​Mohandas,​ ​and​ ​Sujilal​ ​were​ ​marked​ ​as​ ​Ext.​ ​P87​ ​series​ ​through​ ​her​
​testimony.​
​10.89.​ ​PW89​ ​(CW112)​ ​was​ ​working​ ​at​ ​Agali​ ​Police​​Station​​on​​attached​​duty​
​during​​the​​relevant​​period.​​He​​is​​yet​​another​​police​​personnel​​who​​accompanied​​PW83​
​while​​taking​​Madhu​​from​​Mukkali.​​He​​stated​​that​​on​​22.02.2018,​​at​​about​​10:30​​a.m.,​
​he,​ ​along​ ​with​ ​SI​ ​Prasad​ ​Varkky​ ​and​ ​CPO​ ​Mohandas,​ ​went​ ​on​ ​patrol​ ​duty​​in​​a​​jeep​
​bearing​​registration​​No.​​KL-01​​BW-5724.​​According​​to​​him,​​at​​about​​02:15​​p.m.,​​when​
​they​ ​reached​ ​Gulikadavu,​​the​​Sub-Inspector​​received​​a​​telephone​​call​​from​​the​​police​
​station​ ​informing​ ​him​ ​that​ ​one​ ​Madhu,​ ​an​ ​accused​ ​in​ ​a​ ​theft​ ​case,​ ​had​ ​been​
​apprehended​​and​​detained​​at​​Mukkali.​​They​​reached​​Mukkali​​at​​about​​03:00​​p.m.​​They​
​found​​that​​a​​large​​crowd​​had​​assembled​​in​​front​​of​​the​​bus​​stand​​waiting​​shed.​​Madhu​
​was​​sitting​​inside​​the​​waiting​​shed.​​The​​persons​​assembled​​there​​told​​them​​that​​Madhu​
​was​​a​​thief​​and​​that​​he​​had​​been​​apprehended​​by​​the​​locals​​from​​the​​forest.​​The​​SI​
​enquired​​with​​Madhu,​​and​​he​​disclosed​​his​​name​​and​​address.​​The​​persons​​assembled​
​there​​escorted​​Madhu​​to​​the​​jeep​​and​​made​​him​​sit​​on​​the​​back​​seat.​​The​​people​​who​
​had​​assembled​​there​​also​​brought​​a​​sack​​containing​​rice​​and​​informed​​the​​police​​that​​it​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​124​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​had​​been​​seized​​from​​Madhu.​​Mohandas​​took​​the​​sack​​and​​placed​​it​​on​​the​​back​​seat,​
​between​​the​​two​​seats.​​The​​witness​​sat​​in​​the​​middle​​portion​​of​​the​​middle​​row,​​while​
​the​​driver​​and​​the​​Sub-Inspector​​sat​​in​​the​​front​​row.​​At​​about​​03:30​​p.m.,​​they​​started​
​from​ ​Mukkali.​ ​The​ ​SI​ ​enquired​ ​with​ ​Madhu​ ​as​ ​to​ ​what​ ​had​ ​happened,​ ​and​ ​Madhu​
​responded​​that​​he​​had​​been​​caught​​from​​the​​forest​​and​​that​​he​​had​​been​​beaten​​and​
​stamped.​​He​​also​​stated​​that​​the​​persons​​who​​had​​put​​him​​into​​the​​jeep​​had​​kicked​​and​
​stamped​​him.​​When​​they​​reached​​Thavalam,​​Madhu​​told​​them​​that​​he​​wanted​​to​​vomit.​
​The​​witness​​lowered​​the​​left-side​​window​​pane​​to​​enable​​Madhu​​to​​vomit.​​Madhu​​put​
​his​​head​​outside​​the​​window​​and​​vomited.​​Thereafter,​​he​​sat​​on​​the​​sack​​on​​the​​floor,​
​rested​​his​​head​​on​​the​​seat,​​and​​continued​​vomiting.​​He​​was​​moaning​​while​​seated.​​At​
​about​​04:15​​p.m.,​​Madhu​​was​​taken​​to​​CHC​​Agali.​​With​​the​​assistance​​of​​the​​hospital​
​staff,​ ​Madhu,​ ​who​ ​was​ ​unconscious,​ ​was​ ​taken​ ​on​ ​a​ ​stretcher.​ ​The​ ​Doctor,​ ​after​
​examining​​his​​eyes,​​blood​​pressure,​​etc.,​​and​​after​​taking​​ECG,​​stated​​that​​Madhu​​was​
​no​ ​more.​ ​Madhu​​was​​then​​shifted​​to​​the​​mortuary.​​In​​cross-examination,​​the​​witness​
​was​​asked​​about​​the​​distance​​between​​Mukkali​​and​​Gulikadavu.​​He​​stated​​that​​they​​had​
​reached​​Mukkali​​in​​order​​to​​take​​the​​accused​​in​​the​​theft​​case​​to​​the​​forest.​​When​​he​
​was​ ​asked​​whether​​there​​were​​100​​people​​assembled​​there,​​he​​stated​​that​​about​​75​
​persons​​had​​assembled.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​​he​​was​​with​​the​​SI​​throughout.​​When​​he​
​was​ ​asked​ ​whether​ ​he​ ​overheard​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​telling​ ​the​ ​Sub-Inspector​ ​that​ ​the​
​persons​​who​​brought​​him​​from​​the​​forest​​had​​kicked​​and​​assaulted​​him,​​he​​answered​​in​
​the​ ​affirmative.​ ​The​ ​same​ ​line​ ​of​ ​cross-examination​ ​as​ ​was​ ​put​ ​to​ ​the​ ​earlier​ ​police​
​officers​​was​​also​​adopted​​in​​his​​case.​​Questions​​were​​also​​put​​regarding​​the​​procedure​
​followed​​by​​the​​Sub-Inspector​​while​​taking​​Madhu​​to​​the​​Station.​​He​​was​​further​​asked​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​125​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​whether​​he​​overheard​​Prasad​​Varkky​​calling​​several​​persons​​on​​the​​phone,​​to​​which​​he​
​answered in the affirmative.​
​10.90.​ ​PW90​ ​(CW121)​ ​was​ ​the​ ​then​ ​Village​ ​Officer​ ​of​ ​Kallamala​ ​Village.​ ​He​
​prepared​​Ext.​​P88​​series​​—​​two​​scene​​plans​​relating​​to​​the​​places​​connected​​with​​the​
​occurrence.​
​10.91.​ ​PW91(CW​​118)​​was​​the​​then​​Sub​​Inspector​​of​​Police​​attached​​to​​Agali​
​Police​​Station,​​though​​he​​was​​on​​leave​​on​​22-02-2018.​​He​​deposed​​that​​at​​about​​2:00​
​p.m.​​on​​that​​day,​​one​​Shamsudheen​​(A3)​​contacted​​him​​over​​the​​phone​​and​​informed​
​that​​he​​had​​seen​​Madhu.​​Upon​​receiving​​this​​information,​​PW91​​conveyed​​the​​same​​to​
​the​​Police​​Station.​​After​​about​​an​​hour,​​Shamsudheen​​again​​contacted​​him​​and​​informed​
​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​reached​ ​Mukkali​​along​​with​​Madhu.​​During​​examination,​​PW91​​identified​
​Accused​​No.​​3​​in​​the​​dock.​​He​​further​​deposed​​that​​he​​passed​​on​​this​​information​​to​​the​
​Station​ ​as​ ​Madhu​ ​was​ ​an​ ​accused​ ​in​ ​a​ ​theft​ ​case​ ​and​ ​also​ ​instructed​ ​that​ ​police​
​personnel​​be​​deputed​​to​​Mukkali.​​During​​cross-examination,​​PW91​​admitted​​that​​he​​was​
​the​​Investigating​​Officer​​in​​a​​theft​​case​​registered​​against​​Madhu​​—​​Crime​​No.​​524​​of​
​2016​​of​​Agali​​Police​​Station​​—​​involving​​offences​​punishable​​under​​Sections​​457,​​380,​
​and​​461​​of​​the​​IPC.​​He​​had​​filed​​the​​final​​report​​in​​that​​case,​​wherein​​one​​Muneer​​was​
​the​ ​complainant.​ ​Ext.​ ​P89​ ​is​ ​the​ ​Final​ ​Report​ ​on​ ​that​ ​crime.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​admitted​ ​that​
​Witness​​No.​​2​​cited​​in​​Ext.​​P89​​Final​​Report​​is​​none​​other​​than​​Accused​​No.​​16​​in​​the​
​present​​case.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​​he​​knew​​Madhu​​personally​​in​​connection​​with​​that​
​earlier investigation.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​126​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​10.92.​ ​PW92​​(CW113)​​was​​the​​Grade​​Senior​​Civil​​Police​​Officer​​of​​Agali​​Police​
​Station​ ​who​ ​was​ ​on​ ​GD​​Charge​​duty​​on​​22-02-2018.​​He​​deposed​​that​​at​​about​​2:00​
​p.m.​ ​on​ ​that​ ​day,​ ​Sub​ ​Inspector​ ​Subin​ ​contacted​ ​him​ ​over​ ​the​ ​Station​ ​phone​ ​and​
​informed​​that​​Madhu​​was​​being​​brought​​to​​Mukkali​​by​​members​​of​​the​​public​​and​​that​
​patrol​ ​police​ ​personnel​ ​were​ ​to​ ​be​ ​despatched.​ ​He​ ​informed​ ​Prasad​ ​Varkky​ ​(PW83).​
​Thereafter,​​PW83​​informed​​him​​that​​Madhu​​was​​being​​taken​​to​​Agali​​and​​that,​​on​​the​
​way,​​Madhu​​had​​vomited​​inside​​the​​police​​jeep.​​He​​was​​also​​informed​​that​​a​​requisition​
​for​ ​medical​​examination​​was​​required.​​PW92​​accordingly​​prepared​​the​​requisition​​and​
​sent​ ​it​ ​to​ ​CHC,​ ​Agali,​​through​​Kumaran​​(PW85).​​He​​further​​deposed​​that​​PW83​​later​
​informed​ ​him​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Doctor​ ​had​ ​examined​ ​Madhu​ ​and​ ​certified​ ​that​ ​he​​was​​dead.​
​These​​facts​​were​​entered​​by​​him​​in​​the​​General​​Diary.​​Thereafter,​​PW83​​returned​​to​​the​
​Police​​Station​​and​​registered​​Crime​​No.​​87​​of​​2018​​manually,​​owing​​to​​power​​failure​​at​
​the​​Station.​​Ext.​​P85​​series​​—​​the​​Manual​​GD​​entries​​made​​by​​PW92​​—​​were​​proved​
​through​​him.​​He​​also​​deposed​​that​​the​​details​​were​​subsequently​​entered​​in​​the​​CCTNS​
​system.​
​10.93.​ ​PW93​ ​was​ ​the​ ​then​ ​Inspector​ ​Station​ ​House​ ​Officer​ ​(ISHO)​ ​of​ ​Agali​
​Police​ ​Station.​ ​He​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​produced​ ​the​ ​CCTNS​ ​General​ ​Diary​ ​extracts​
​before​​the​​Investigating​​Officer​​along​​with​​the​​requisite​​Section​​65B​​certificate,​​which​
​were​​marked​​as​​Exts.​​P90​​and​​P90(a).​​According​​to​​him,​​on​​22-02-2018,​​he​​was​​on​​duty​
​but​ ​engaged​ ​in​​law​​and​​order​​work​​at​​another​​location.​​He​​came​​to​​know​​about​​the​
​incident​​at​​about​​4:20​​p.m.,​​when​​PW83​​(Prasad​​Varkky)​​informed​​him​​over​​the​​phone.​
​After​​reaching​​the​​Police​​Station,​​he​​made​​arrangements​​for​​the​​Magisterial​​enquiry​​and​
​also​ ​requisitioned​ ​the​ ​services​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Scientific​ ​Expert,​ ​Fingerprint​ ​Bureau,​ ​and​ ​Dog​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​127​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Squad.​ ​He​ ​further​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​eight​ ​accused​ ​persons​ ​were​ ​brought​ ​to​ ​Agali​ ​Police​
​Station​​and​​kept​​under​​surveillance.​​He​​was​​cross-examined​​in​​detail​​to​​substantiate​​the​
​defence version that the death of Madhu was consequent to torture by the police.​
​10.94.​ ​PW94​ ​was​ ​the​ ​then​ ​Nodal​ ​Officer​ ​of​ ​Vodafone​ ​Idea​ ​Cellular​ ​Limited.​
​Through​​him,​​Ext.​​P91​​series​​—​​comprising​​Call​​Data​​Records,​​call​​details,​​and​​Section​
​65B​ ​certificates​ ​—​ ​were​ ​produced.​ ​He​​deposed​​that​​the​​documents​​had​​in​​fact​​been​
​issued​​by​​the​​then​​Nodal​​Officer,​​Rajesh​​M.R.,​​whose​​signature​​he​​was​​acquainted​​with.​
​On​ ​that​ ​basis,​ ​Ext.​ ​P91​ ​series​ ​were​ ​marked​ ​through​ ​him.​ ​Subsequently,​ ​PW94​ ​was​
​recalled,​​and​​further​​records​​—​​Exts.​​P91(b)​​to​​P91(d)​​series,​​including​​additional​​call​
​details,​​Customer​​Application​​Forms,​​and​​65B​​certificates​​—​​were​​also​​marked.​​He​​was​
​cross-examined​​in​​detail​​to​​challenge​​the​​credibility​​and​​genuineness​​of​​the​​documents​
​produced by him.​
​10.95.​ ​PW95​ ​(CW116)​ ​stated​​that​​as​​on​​05.05.2018,​​he​​was​​working​​as​​the​
​Assistant​ ​Director​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Forensic​ ​Science​ ​Laboratory,​ ​Thiruvananthapuram.​ ​While​
​working​​as​​aforesaid,​​he​​had​​examined​​3​​digital​​video​​recorders​​and​​6​​mobile​​phones.​
​He​ ​had​ ​also​ ​examined​ ​25​ ​photographs​ ​which​ ​were​ ​sent​ ​to​ ​him​ ​for​ ​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​
​comparison.​​The​​hard​​disks​​found​​in​​the​​DVR​​were​​marked​​as​​Q1​​to​​Q3​​and​​the​​mobile​
​phones​ ​were​ ​marked​ ​as​​Q4​​to​​Q9.​​The​​standard​​photographs​​were​​marked​​as​​S1​​to​
​S25.​​He​​stated​​that​​after​​examining​​the​​entire​​records,​​he​​had​​prepared​​Ext.P92​​report.​
​Along​ ​with​ ​the​ ​report,​ ​he​ ​had​ ​also​ ​submitted​ ​to​ ​the​ ​court​ ​the​ ​pendrive​ ​which​ ​was​
​marked​ ​as​ ​Ext.P92(a).​ ​The​ ​Section​ ​65B​ ​certificate​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​him​ ​in​ ​respect​ ​of​ ​the​
​pendrive​​is​​marked​​as​​Ext.P92​​(b).​​He​​stated​​that​​the​​examined​​videographs​​and​​the​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​128​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​photographs​​have​​been​​extracted​​to​​Ext.P92(a)​​pendrive.​​S1​​to​​S25​​photographs​​which​
​were​​sent​​to​​him​​were​​separately​​marked​​as​​Ext.P30​​(a)​​to​​(i).​​Those​​photographs​​were​
​the​​photographs​​of​​individuals​​except​​for​​Accused​​No.​​1.​​Exts.P33(c)​​to​​P33(j)​​are​​the​
​backgrounds.​​He​​stated​​that​​the​​photographs​​which​​were​​forwarded​​to​​him,​​which​​are​
​Ext.P30(a)​​to​​(i)​​were​​examined​​by​​him​​and​​in​​the​​visuals,​​he​ ​had​​occasion​​to​​fix​​the​
​identity​​of​​all​​other​​accused​​except​​Accused​​No.​​1.​​They​​were​​found​​in​​the​​hard​​disk​​and​
​mobile​ ​phone,​ ​videographs​ ​and​ ​photographs​ ​as​ ​well.​ ​Those​ ​videos​ ​and​ ​photographs​
​were​​extracted​​and​​saved​​in​​the​​pendrive.​​He​​then​​proceeded​​to​​peruse​​the​​video​​file​
​and​​the​​time​​slots​​therein​​and​​identified​​the​​photographs​​and​​the​​visuals​​showing​​the​
​deceased​ ​as​​well​​as​​the​​accused.​​He​​stated​​specifically​​that​​the​​person​​shown​​in​​the​
​video​​corresponds​​to​​the​​S1​​series​​photographs​​which​​were​​forwarded​​to​​him​​for​​the​
​purpose​ ​of​ ​comparison.​​During​​cross-examination,​​a​​challenge​​was​​raised​​against​​the​
​manner​​in​​which​​he​​had​​submitted​​Ext.​​P92​​report​​and​​its​​scientific​​basis.​​He​​stated​​that​
​it​​took​​about​​2​​to​​3​​days​​for​​him​​to​​examine​​Q1​​to​​Q9,​​if​​not​​more.​​He​​stated​​that​​he​
​had​ ​meticulously​ ​examined​ ​the​ ​videographs​ ​and​ ​the​ ​photographs.​ ​The​ ​counsel​
​appearing​​for​​the​​accused​​put​​pointed​​questions​​with​​regard​​to​​the​​presence​​of​​Accused​
​No.​​1​​in​​the​​Q2​​file.​​He​​referred​​to​​the​​presence​​of​​PW8​​and​​PW19​​in​​the​​video​​and​​the​
​timestamps.​​The​​learned​​counsel​​appearing​​for​​the​​rest​​of​​the​​accused​​also​​challenged​
​him​ ​with​ ​regard​ ​to​ ​the​ ​technique​ ​adopted​ ​for​ ​the​​purpose​​of​​comparison.​​They​​also​
​challenged his capacity and competence to compare the photographs.​
​10.96.​ ​PW96​ ​was​ ​the​ ​then​ ​Judicial​ ​First​ ​Class​ ​Magistrate,​ ​Mannarkkad,​​who​
​conducted​ ​the​ ​Magisterial​ ​Inquiry​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​176(1)(A)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Cr.P.C.​ ​His​ ​enquiry​
​report​​was​​marked​​as​​Ext.​​P94.​​The​​conclusion​​arrived​​at​​in​​the​​said​​inquiry​​was​​that​​the​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​129​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​death​​of​​Madhu​​was​​not​​attributable​​to​​police​​torture.​​Insofar​​as​​PW97​​is​​concerned,​​the​
​steps​​taken​​by​​him​​in​​the​​course​​of​​investigation​​have​​been​​narrated​​in​​paragraph​​No.​​4​
​above​​and​​the​​challenges​​raised​​by​​the​​accused​​will​​be​​dealt​​with​​while​​dealing​​with​​the​
​issues.​
​10.97.​ ​PW98​​was​​the​​Nodal​​Officer​​of​​BSNL.​​Through​​him,​​Ext.​​P161​​series​​—​
​comprising​​call​​data​​records,​​customer​​application​​forms,​​and​​Section​​65B​​certificates​​—​
​were marked.​
​10.98.​ ​PW99​ ​was​ ​the​ ​Nodal​ ​Officer​ ​of​ ​Reliance​ ​Jio​ ​Infocom.​ ​Through​ ​this​
​witness,​ ​Ext.​ ​P162​ ​series​ ​—​ ​including​ ​call​ ​details,​ ​customer​ ​identification​ ​forms,​​and​
​Section 65B certificates — were marked.​
​10.99.​ ​PW100​ ​is​ ​the​ ​present​ ​Attappadi​ ​Tribal​ ​Taluk​ ​Tahsildar.​ ​He​ ​issued​
​Ext.P163​​Caste​​Certificate​​of​​Madhu​​in​​response​​to​​summons​​issued​​under​​Section​​91​​of​
​the​ ​Cr.P.C.​ ​He​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​Madhu​ ​belonged​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Hindu-Mudugar​ ​community,​ ​a​
​notified​ ​Scheduled​ ​Tribe.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​​this​​conclusion​​was​​arrived​​at​​on​​the​
​basis​ ​of​ ​his​ ​official​ ​enquiry​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the​ ​report​​of​​the​​Village​​Officer.​​The​​back​​file​
​relating​​to​​the​​caste​​certificate​​was​​marked​​as​​Ext.​​P163(a),​​which​​contained​​supporting​
​documents​​such​​as​​the​​school​​admission​​register​​of​​Madhu​​and​​the​​ration​​card​​records.​
​According​​to​​the​​witness,​​Madhu’s​​father​​also​​belonged​​to​​the​​Hindu-Mudugar​​Scheduled​
​Tribe community, and Madhu followed the caste status of his father.​
​10.100.​ ​PW101​ ​is​​the​​successor​​of​​PW97​​and​​conducted​​the​​further​​stage​​of​
​investigation​ ​in​ ​this​​case.​​He​​produced​​Ext.​​P88​​series​​sketches​​and​​scene​​plans​​and​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​130​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​also​ ​prepared​ ​Exts.​ ​P9​ ​and​ ​P10​ ​scene​ ​mahazars​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​additional​ ​places​ ​of​
​occurrence.​​It​​is​​evident​​from​​his​​testimony​​that​​the​​substantial​​and​​foundational​​portion​
​of​ ​the​ ​investigation​ ​had​ ​already​ ​been​ ​completed​ ​by​ ​PW97,​ ​and​ ​PW101’s​ ​role​ ​was​
​confined​ ​to​ ​supplementary​ ​investigation,​ ​including​ ​preparation​ ​and​ ​production​ ​of​
​additional sketches, plans, and mahazars concerning certain connected locations.​
​10.101.​ ​PW102​ ​is​ ​the​ ​Assistant​ ​Superintendent​​of​​Police,​​Palakkad,​​who​​was​
​holding​ ​charge​ ​of​ ​Dy.​ ​S.P.,​ ​Agali,​ ​during​ ​the​ ​period​ ​from​ ​06.12.2022​ ​to​ ​12.12.2022.​
​During​ ​that​ ​period,​ ​the​ ​SD​ ​card​ ​containing​ ​the​ ​video​ ​recording​ ​of​ ​the​ ​postmortem​
​examination​ ​of​ ​Madhu​ ​—​ ​which​ ​had​ ​earlier​ ​been​ ​forwarded​ ​to​ ​the​ ​National​ ​Human​
​Rights​​Commission​​—​​was​​traced​​and​​retrieved.​​In​​response​​to​​summons​​issued​​under​
​Section​​91​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C.,​​the​​SD​​card​​was​​produced​​before​​Court.​​The​​covering​​letter​
​issued​​by​​the​​National​​Human​​Rights​​Commission​​was​​marked​​as​​Ext.​​P166,​​and​​the​​SD​
​card​ ​itself​ ​was​ ​marked​ ​as​ ​Ext.​ ​P167.​​The​​forwarding​​letter​​submitted​​by​​PW102​​was​
​marked as Ext. P166(a).​
​10.102.​ ​PW103​​is​​the​​Police​​Photographer​​attached​​to​​DCRB,​​Thrissur​​(Rural).​
​He​​deposed​​that​​it​​was​​he​​who​​videographed​​the​​postmortem​​examination​​conducted​
​on​​the​​body​​of​​Madhu.​​He​​identified​​Ext.​​P167​​SD​​card​​as​​the​​storage​​device​​containing​
​the​ ​original​ ​recording.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​issued​ ​Ext.​ ​P168​ ​Certificate​​under​​Section​​65B​​of​​the​
​Indian​​Evidence​​Act.​​He​​clarified​​during​​examination​​that​​postmortem​​videography​​is​​not​
​recorded​​in​​one​​continuous​​stretch​​but​​is​​done​​in​​segments,​​part​​by​​part,​​in​​order​​to​
​conserve​ ​storage​ ​space​ ​in​ ​the​ ​recording​ ​device.​ ​Ext.​ ​P167​ ​memory​ ​card​ ​was​​played​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​131​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​before​​the​​Court​​using​​a​​laptop,​​and​​the​​witness​​identified​​the​​contents​​as​​the​​recording​
​made by him.​
​11.​ ​Defence Witnesses:​
​a.​ ​DW1​​was​​the​​then​​Senior​​Nursing​​Officer​​of​​Agali​​CHC,​​who​​produced​
​Ext.D13​ ​Casualty​ ​Injection​ ​Register​ ​of​ ​Agali​​CHC​​during​​the​​relevant​​period.​​She​​has​
​also​​deposed​​about​​Ext.D6​​postmortem​​register,​​Ext.D12​​casualty​​OP​​Register,​​etc.,​​of​
​Agali​​CHC​​during​​the​​relevant​​period.​​The​​evidence​​given​​by​​DW1​​along​​with​​Exts.D6,​
​D12​​and​​D13​​documents​​reveal​​that​​there​​are​​some​​corrections​​in​​Ext.D12​​OP​​register.​
​It​​was​​also​​brought​​out​​that​​apart​​from​​the​​correction​​in​​the​​relevant​​entries,​​there​​are​
​corrections​ ​in​​several​​other​​entries​​also.​​Likewise,​​in​​Ext.D13​​Injection​​Register,​​there​
​are corrections. It is found that instead of 4.25 p.m., it is written as 4.15 pm.​
​b.​ ​DW2​​is​​the​​present​​Assistant​​Engineer​​of​​Agali​​Section,​​KSEB;​​he​​has​
​proved​ ​Ext.D7​ ​invoice​ ​issued​ ​by​​KSEB,​​produced​​Ext.D14​​complaint​​register​​of​​KSEB,​
​Agali​​dated​​22.02.2018,​​Ext.D15​​LT​​interruption​​register​​of​​KSEB​​Agali​​dated​​22.02.2018​
​and​ ​Ext.D16​ ​HT​ ​interruption​ ​register​ ​of​ ​KSEB​ ​Agali​ ​dated​ ​22.02.2018.​ ​As​ ​per​ ​the​
​evidence​​given​​by​​DW2,​​no​​complaint​​is​​registered​​with​​regard​​to​​power​​failure​​in​​the​
​Agali​​Police​​Station​​at​​the​​relevant​​time.​​At​​the​​same​​time,​​he​​admitted​​that​​invariably​​in​
​all cases consumers will not make complaints during the time of power failure.​
​c.​ ​DW3​​is​​the​​Assistant​​Engineer​​of​​11​​KV​​Sub​​Station,​​Mannarkkad,​​who​
​has​​produced​​Ext.D17​​Interruption​​Register​​of​​33​​KV​​Sub​​Station​​of​​Agali​​and​​Ext.D18​
​Operator’s​ ​Daily​ ​Register​ ​of​ ​33​​KV​​Sub​​Station,​​Agali​​dated​​22.02.2018.​​According​​to​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​132​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​DW3,​​there​​was​​no​​power​​interruption​​in​​Mannarkkad​​11​​KV​​Sub​​Station​​during​​5–5.30​
​pm​​on​​22.02.2018.​​It​​was​​also​​brought​​out​​that​​there​​was​​interruption​​between​​6.35​
​p.m​​and​​7.13​​p.m.​​Exts.D17​​and​​D18​​are​​with​​regard​​to​​major​​power​​failure​​in​​11​​KV​
​and​ ​33​ ​KV​ ​Sub​ ​Stations.​ ​Details​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​power​ ​failure​ ​in​ ​transformer​ ​level/LT​
​connection interruption will not be borne out from the said record.​
​d.​ ​DW4​​is​​the​​present​​Taluk​​Legal​​Services​​Committee​​Secretary,​​through​
​whom​ ​Ext.D19​ ​petition​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​PW70,​ ​the​ ​mother​ ​of​ ​Madhu,​ ​for​ ​deputing​​a​​Special​
​Public Prosecutor was marked.​
​e.​ ​DW5​​is​​the​​son-in-law​​of​​A1.​​He​​has​​produced​​Ext.D20​​to​​D24​​(a)​​series​
​documents​​to​​prove​​that​​the​​daughter​​of​​Accused​​No.1​​is​​married​​to​​DW5​​at​​Mukkali​
​and​​to​​show​​that​​the​​daughter​​of​​the​​1st​​accused​​is​​staying​​at​​Mukkali.​​DW5​​deposed​
​that​​his​​daughter​​fell​​in​​love​​with​​another​​boy​​and​​later​​that​​girl​​eloped​​with​​her​​fiancee.​
​According​ ​to​ ​him,​ ​his​ ​house​ ​is​ ​beside​ ​Mukkali-Anakatty​ ​road​ ​at​ ​a​ ​distance​ ​of​​25–30​
​metres​​from​​Mukkali​​junction​​towards​​Anakatty.​​DW5​​further​​identified​​the​​surroundings​
​of Mukkali by watching the CCTV footage shown to him.​
​f.​ ​DW6​​is​​the​​younger​​brother​​of​​Accused​​No.1,​​whose​​name​​and​​details,​
​including​​mobile​​number​​found​​a​​place​​in​​Ext.P80​​FIS.​​According​​to​​him,​​the​​house​​of​
​DW5​ ​is​ ​situated​ ​at​ ​a​ ​distance​ ​of​ ​10–15​ ​metres​ ​away​ ​from​ ​Mukkali​ ​junction​ ​beside​
​Mukkali-Anakatty​​road.​​According​​to​​DW6,​​he​​along​​with​​his​​elder​​brother​​(Accused​​No.​
​1)​ ​and​ ​two​ ​children—PW45​ ​and​ ​DW8—reached​ ​Mukkali​ ​on​​22.02.2018​​in​​connection​
​with​ ​some​ ​family​ ​affairs.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​pertinent​​to​​note​​that​​DW6​​has​​given​​evidence​​before​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​133​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​court​​stating​​that​​his​​brother​​(Accused​​No.1)​​has​​shared​​his​​name​​and​​address​​to​​the​
​police. Likewise, he has also shared his name and other details to the Police.​
​g.​ ​DW7,​ ​the​ ​Secretary​ ​of​ ​Badariya​ ​Juma​ ​Masjid​ ​Committee,​ ​Mukkali​
​through​​whom​​Ext.D25​​minutes​​book​​of​​Juma​​Masjid​​Committee,​​Mukkali​​was​​marked.​
​This​​witness​​was​​examined​​to​​prove​​that​​on​​26.08.2020​​some​​settlement​​talk​​was​​made​
​with​ ​regard​ ​to​ ​the​ ​love​ ​affair​ ​of​​grand-daughter​​of​​Accused​​No.1,​​Sadariya,​​with​​her​
​boyfriend.​ ​He​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​house​ ​of​ ​DW5​ ​is​ ​situated​ ​at​ ​a​ ​distance​ ​of​ ​200–300​
​metres​​away​​from​​Mukkali​​junction​​beside​​Mukkali-Anakatty​​road.​​According​​to​​him,​​for​
​reaching​​the​​house​​of​​DW5​​while​​coming​​from​​Anakatty​​side​​there​​is​​no​​need​​to​​come​
​to Mukkali junction.​
​h.​ ​DW8​​is​​the​​son​​of​​Accused​​No.1,​​who​​accompanied​​Accused​​No.1​​at​​the​
​time​​when​​the​​1st​​accused​​reached​​Mukkali​​on​​22.02.2018.​​He​​has​​also​​given​​a​​similar​
​version as that of DW5.​
​12.​ ​Issues for determination:​
​12.1.​ ​Was the death homicidal?​
​a.​ ​To​ ​determine​ ​the​ ​question​ ​as​ ​to​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​death​ ​of​ ​Madhu​ ​was​
​homicidal,​ ​reference​ ​need​ ​to​ ​be​ ​made​ ​to​ ​Ext.P82​ ​postmortem​ ​certificate​ ​and​ ​the​
​evidence​​of​​PW86,​​Professor​​of​​Forensic​​Medicine​​and​​Police​​Surgeon,​​who​​conducted​
​the​ ​autopsy​ ​on​ ​24.02.2018​ ​along​ ​with​ ​a​ ​team​ ​of​ ​Doctors.​ ​The​ ​entire​ ​postmortem​
​examination​​was​​video-recorded​​and​​photographed.​​The​​video​​recording​​is​​Ext.P167.​​In​
​his​ ​evidence,​ ​he​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​death​ ​was​ ​due​ ​to​ ​multiple​ ​blunt​ ​injuries​ ​sustained;​ ​i.e.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​134​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Injury​​numbers​​1​​to​​15.​​This​​opinion​​was​​given​​after​​a​​thorough​​autopsy​​by​​a​​team​​of​
​Doctors,​ ​a​ ​visit​ ​to​ ​the​ ​scene​ ​of​ ​occurrence,​ ​examination​ ​of​​MO24​​(the​​wooden​​stick​
​recovered​​from​​A3),​​and​​an​​evaluation​​of​​each​​of​​the​​forty-four​​injuries.​​Injury​​Nos.​​1​​to​
​29​ ​were​ ​fresh​ ​in​ ​nature.​ ​Injury​ ​Nos.​ ​30​ ​to​ ​44​ ​showed​ ​varying​ ​degrees​ ​of​ ​healing,​
​indicated​​by​​the​​presence​​of​​brown​​scab,​​reddish-brown​​scab,​​or​​brownish​​scab,​​which​
​reveals​​that​​some​​injuries​​were​​sustained​​earlier,​​over​​the​​days​​preceding​​death.​​These​
​injuries​ ​are​ ​consistent​ ​with​ ​Madhu's​ ​life​ ​in​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​where​ ​natural​ ​abrasions​ ​from​
​vegetation can occur.​
​b.​ ​In​​his​​oral​​evidence​​before​​the​​court,​​PW86​​narrated​​how​​each​​category​
​of​​injury​​was​​caused.​​He​​stated​​that​​Injury​​Nos.​​1​​to​​3​​were​​caused​​by​​blunt​​force​​from​
​a​​blunt​​object​​or​​by​​the​​head​​being​​forcibly​​struck​​against​​a​​hard​​surface​​by​​another​
​person.​​Injury​​No.​​12,​​according​​to​​the​​Doctor,​​was​​caused​​by​​a​​long​​rod-like​​weapon,​
​consistent​ ​with​ ​MO24.​ ​Injuries​ ​Nos.​ ​13​ ​and​ ​14​ ​could​ ​have​ ​been​ ​caused​ ​by​ ​a​ ​blunt​
​weapon.​​Injury​​No.​​18​​was​ ​caused​​by​​stamping​​with​​foot​​and​​injuries​​Nos.​​26,​​28,​​31,​
​and​​33​​would​​have​​been​​caused​​by​​spiky​​stemmed​​plants​​in​​the​​forest.​​The​​opinion​​was​
​that​​the​​nature​​and​​distribution​​of​​the​​injuries​​suggest​​an​​inference​​that​​these​​injuries​
​were caused by two or more persons.​
​c.​ ​We​​also​​find​​from​​the​​evidence​​of​​the​​doctor​​and​​the​​report​​that​​even​
​the​​external​​presentation​​carried​​the​​unmistakable​​markers​​of​​ante-mortem​​violence​​and​
​neurological​​deterioration.​​The​​presence​​of​​blood-stained​​frothy​​fluid​​at​​the​​nostrils​​and​
​mouth​ ​is​ ​a​ ​sign​ ​of​ ​pulmonary​ ​haemorrhage​ ​or​ ​severe​ ​pulmonary​ ​oedema​ ​which​ ​is​
​consistent​​with​​the​​Acute​​Respiratory​​Distress​​Syndrome​​(ARDS)​​subsequently​​confirmed​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​135​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​in​​the​​lung​​findings.​​The​​presence​​of​​this​​fluid​​at​​the​​nostrils​​and​​mouth​​of​​a​​deceased​
​person​​points​​to​​a​​process​​of​​acute​​systemic​​physiological​​collapse.​​This​​reveals​​that​​it​​is​
​not​​a​​sudden​​cardiac​​event​​and​​not​​a​​natural​​death.​​The​​cyanosis​​of​​the​​fingernails​​is​​a​
​clear​​sign​​of​​prolonged​​hypoxia​​thereby​​indicating​​that​​the​​body​​had​​been​​deprived​​of​
​adequate​​oxygen​​supply​​for​​a​​significant​​period​​before​​death.​​This​​again​​is​​inconsistent​
​with​ ​sudden​ ​or​ ​instantaneous​ ​death​ ​and​ ​consistent​ ​with​ ​a​ ​protracted​ ​process​ ​of​
​neurological and respiratory deterioration consequent on severe traumatic injuries.​
​d.​ ​PW86,​ ​in​ ​his​ ​evidence​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​not​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​forty-four​ ​injuries,​
​taken​ ​individually,​ ​was​​sufficient​​to​​cause​​death.​​The​​Doctor​​specifically​​deposed​​that​
​even​ ​Injury​ ​Nos.​ ​1​ ​to​ ​15,​ ​which​ ​were​ ​identified​ ​as​ ​the​ ​cause​ ​of​ ​death,​ ​were​ ​not​
​individually​​fatal.​​It​​was​​their​​conjoint​​effect​​forming​​a​​vicious​​cycle​​in​​which​​each​​injury​
​contributed​ ​to​ ​the​ ​progressive​ ​deterioration​ ​of​ ​the​ ​victim's​ ​condition​ ​that​ ​resulted​ ​in​
​Madhu's​​death.​​The​​opinion​​of​​PW86​​is​​categoric,​​unshaken​​by​​cross-examination,​​and​
​supported​​by​​the​​physical​​evidence.​​In​​that​​view​​of​​the​​matter,​​we​​have​​no​​hesitation​​in​
​coming to a conclusion that the death of Madhu was homicidal.​
​12.2.​ ​Whether it is a case of custodial torture?​
​a.​ ​It​ ​would​ ​be​ ​appropriate​ ​at​ ​this​ ​juncture​ ​to​ ​address​ ​one​ ​of​​the​​most​
​persistent​​contentions​​advanced​​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​​for​​the​​accused.​​According​​to​
​them,​ ​if​ ​Madhu​​had​​truly​​sustained​​forty-four​​ante-mortem​​injuries​​of​​the​​nature​​and​
​severity​​described​​in​​Ext.P82,​​he​​could​​not​​possibly​​have​​been​​seen​​walking,​​eating,​​and​
​behaving​ ​with​ ​any​ ​degree​ ​of​ ​normalcy​ ​at​ ​Mukkali​ ​junction​ ​as​ ​captured​ ​in​ ​the​ ​CCTV​
​footage.​​According​​to​​them,​​the​​injuries​​were​​inflicted​​after​​3.30​​p.m.,​​while​​Madhu​​was​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​136​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​in​ ​the​ ​custody​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Police.​ ​They​ ​contend​​that​​Madhu​​was​​beaten​​up​​while​​he​​was​
​being​​taken​​to​​the​​Police​​Station,​​and​​it​​was​​only​​when​​his​​condition​​worsened​​that​​he​
​was​​taken​​from​​the​​Station​​to​​the​​CHC.​​They​​also​​contend​​that​​if​​Madhu's​​condition​​was​
​that​ ​bad,​ ​nothing​ ​prevented​ ​the​ ​police​ ​personnel​ ​from​ ​admitting​ ​him​ ​to​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​
​numerous​ ​hospitals​ ​on​ ​the​ ​way​ ​to​ ​Thavalam.​ ​This​ ​contention,​ ​attractive​ ​on​ ​first​
​impression, falls to the ground on a careful evaluation of the evidence.​
​b.​ ​PW86​ ​had​ ​deposed​ ​in​​categorical​​terms​​that​​even​​after​​sustaining​​all​
​these​​injuries,​​including​​the​​head​​injuries,​​initiating​​the​​fatal​​brain​​edema​​the​​victim​​can​
​behave​​normally,​​and​​he​​would​​be​​in​​a​​position​​to​​stand​​up,​​walk,​​drink​​and​​take​​food.​
​The​​reason​​is​​rooted​​in​​the​​physiology​​of​​traumatic​​brain​​injury​​itself.​​Brain​​edema​​does​
​not​ ​reach​ ​its​​fatal​​threshold​​instantaneously.​​It​​is​​a​​progressive​​biological​​process.​​As​
​explained​​by​​the​​Doctor,​​the​​swelling​​of​​brain​​tissue​​consequent​​to​​injury​​develops​​over​
​a​ ​period​ ​of​ ​two​ ​to​ ​three​ ​hours​​before​​attaining​​that​​saturated,​​critical​​level​​at​​which​
​consciousness​ ​is​ ​lost,​ ​and​ ​death​ ​follows.​ ​In​​the​​interval​​between​​the​​infliction​​of​​the​
​head​​injury​​and​​that​​terminal​​threshold,​​the​​victim​​may​​present​​to​​any​​lay​​observer​​as​
​being​ ​in​ ​a​ ​relatively​ ​normal​ ​or​ ​merely​ ​distressed​ ​condition.​ ​The​ ​lethal​ ​nature​ ​of​​the​
​injury is internal and invisible.​
​c.​ ​But​ ​the​ ​answer​ ​to​ ​this​ ​contention​ ​does​ ​not​ ​rest​ ​on​ ​medical​ ​science​
​alone.​ ​To​ ​fully​ ​appreciate​ ​why​ ​Madhu​ ​walked,​ ​sat,​ ​ate,​ ​and​ ​endured​​what​​he​​did​​at​
​Mukkali​​without​​immediately​​collapsing,​​one​​may​​have​​to​​look​​beyond​​the​​physiology​​of​
​brain​​edema​​and​​look​​at​​who​​Madhu​​was,​​what​​his​​life​​was,​​and​​what​​was​​being​​done​
​to​​him​​in​​those​​final​​hours.​​Madhu​​was​​a​​member​​of​​the​​Mudugar​​Scheduled​​Tribe.​​He​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​137​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​was​​approximately​​30​​years​​of​​age.​​His​​mother,​​who​​was​​examined​​as​​PW70,​​and​​his​
​brother-in-law​ ​(PW71)​​stated​​that​​he​​was​​mentally​​ill.​​He​​had​​been​​wandering​​in​​the​
​Aandiyallachaal​​forest​​for​​years,​​living​​a​​nomadic​​life​​and​​surviving​​on​​whatever​​food​​he​
​could​​find​​or​​take​​from​​shops​​in​​the​​area.​​He​​was​​severely​​malnourished,​​which​​fact​​is​
​discernible​​from​​the​​postmortem​​certificate.​​His​​body​​weight​​was​​just​​40​​kg​​at​​a​​height​
​of​​154​​centimetres.​​He​​had​​no​​friends​​or​​family​​members​​to​​come​​to​​his​​aid.​​He​​had​​no​
​understanding​​of​​his​​legal​​rights,​​no​​capacity​​to​​articulate​​his​​distress​​in​​terms​​that​​the​
​world​ ​around​ ​him​ ​would​ ​recognise,​​and​​no​​power​​whatsoever​​over​​the​​situation​​into​
​which​​he​​had​​been​​delivered.​​When​​he​​was​​apprehended​​in​​the​​forest​​by​​the​​group​​of​
​accused,​​who​​are​​all​​healthy​​adult​​men,​​his​​hands​​were​​tied​​behind​​his​​back​​with​​a​​zip.​
​This​​fact​​is​​discernible​​from​​the​​CCTV​​footage.​​If​​the​​postmortem​​report​​and​​whatever​​is​
​visible​​from​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​are​​any​​indication,​​he​​was​​beaten​​with​​a​​wooden​​stick,​
​fisted​​on​​his​​back​​repeatedly,​​he​​was​​stripped,​​and​​a​​sack​​of​​the​​goods​​he​​had​​allegedly​
​stolen​​was​​placed​​on​​his​​shoulder.​​He​​was​​then​​bound,​​stripped​​and​​paraded​​carrying​
​the​​sack,​​with​​his​​hands​​tied,​​for​​approximately​​three​​kilometres​​through​​a​​public​​road​
​from​ ​Vandikkadavu​ ​to​ ​Mukkali​ ​junction.​ ​Madhu​​was​​not​​voluntarily​​walking​​down​​the​
​forest​​path​​by​​exercising​​his​​volition.​​He​​was​​compelled​​to​​do​​so​​and​​he​​had​​no​​choice.​
​He​ ​walked​ ​because​ ​stopping​ ​would​ ​have​ ​invited​ ​further​ ​violence​ ​from​ ​the​ ​men​​who​
​were​​after​​him.​​He​​walked​​because​​his​​mental​​illness​​denied​​him​​the​​capacity​​to​​fully​
​process​​what​​was​​being​​done​​to​​him,​​to​​formulate​​resistance,​​or​​to​​call​​out​​for​​help​​in​
​any​​organised​​way.​​At​​Mukkali​​junction,​​he​​was​​made​​to​​sit​​against​​the​​treasure​​box​​of​
​the​ ​Ponmala​ ​Dharmasasta​ ​Temple.​ ​The​ ​CCTV​ ​footage​ ​from​ ​Sreerag​ ​Bakery​ ​(Q2)​
​captures​ ​what​ ​followed.​ ​He​ ​is​ ​seen​ ​sitting​ ​passive​ ​with​ ​an​ ​innocent​ ​child-like​ ​look,​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​138​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​exhausted,​​surrounded​​by​​hostile​​men.​​Accused​​No.​​3​​gave​​him​​a​​plantain​​and​​Accused​
​No.14​​offered​​him​​a​​cup​​of​​juice,​​which​​he​​consumed.​​That​​act​​of​​eating,​​which​​was​
​highlighted​​by​​the​​defence​​as​​evidence​​that​​he​​could​​not​​have​​been​​seriously​​injured,​​is​
​in​​truth​​among​​the​​most​​telling​​facts​​in​​the​​case.​​A​​mentally​​ill,​​malnourished​​tribal​​man,​
​who​​had​​spent​​years​​scrounging​​for​​food​​in​​a​​forest​​and​​from​​unattended​​shops,​​was​
​given​ ​food​​by​​the​​very​​persons​​who​​had​​beaten​​him.​​He​​ate​​the​​crumbs​​of​​food​​not​
​because​ ​he​ ​was​ ​well​ ​or​ ​because​ ​the​​injuries​​were​​minor.​​He​​ate​​because​​his​​mental​
​condition​ ​robbed​ ​him​ ​of​ ​the​​capacity​​to​​refuse,​​to​​protest,​​or​​to​​understand​​that​​the​
​hand​​offering​​him​​food​​was​​the​​same​​hand​​that​​had​​fractured​​his​​rib​​and​​hit​​him​​with​
​sticks.​ ​The​ ​stomach​ ​contained​ ​pieces​ ​of​​plantain​​in​​brownish​​mucoid​​fluid​​which​​fact​
​corroborates​​this​​reality.​​The​​plantain​​that​​Accused​​No.3​​gave​​him​​at​​Mukkali​​was​​still​​in​
​his​ ​stomach​ ​when​ ​the​ ​Doctors​ ​conducted​ ​the​ ​autopsy​ ​by​ ​cutting​ ​him​ ​open​ ​on​
​24.02.2018.​​PW86​​confirmed​​that​​in​​the​​initial​​stages​​of​​developing​​brain​​edema,​​the​
​person​​behaves​​normally.​​What​​the​​CCTV​​shows—a​​frail,​​mentally​​ill,​​bound​​man​​sitting​
​against​​a​​wall,​​accepting​​food​​from​​his​​tormentors,​​surrounded​​by​​a​​crowd​​of​​men—is​
​not​​evidence​​of​​a​​healthy​​or​​lightly​​injured​​man.​​It​​is​​evidence​​of​​a​​man​​whose​​body​
​was​​still​​ambulatory​​while​​his​​brain​​was​​dying,​​whose​​mental​​illness​​prevented​​him​​from​
​understanding​ ​or​ ​resisting​ ​what​ ​was​ ​being​ ​done​ ​to​ ​him.​ ​The​ ​30​ ​years​​of​​his​​utterly​
​powerless​​life​​on​​the​​margins​​of​​society​​had​​conditioned​​him​​to​​passivity​​and​​compliance​
​in​​the​​face​​of​​the​​authority​​that​​men​​like​​the​​accused​​represented​​to​​him.​​The​​defence​
​contention​​that​​a​​man​​with​​such​​injuries​​would​​have​​collapsed​​immediately​​and​​could​
​not have walked or eaten cannot, therefore, be accepted.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​139​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​d.​ ​We​​shall​​now​​consider​​the​​contention​​of​​the​​accused​​that​​Madhu​​had​
​died​ ​while​ ​in​ ​police​ ​custody​ ​and​​the​​injuries​​found​​on​​his​​body​​were​​inflicted​​by​​the​
​Police while on the way to the hospital and at the Police Station.​
​e.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​already​ ​noted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​postmortem​ ​examination​ ​was​
​conducted​​on​​24.02.2018​​by​​PW86,​​Professor​​of​​Forensic​​Medicine​​and​​Police​​Surgeon.​
​The​​finding​​of​​the​​Doctor​​is​​that​​Injury​​Nos.​​1​​to​​3​​caused​​brain​​edema.​​Injury​​No.​​3​
​specifically​​is​​“uncal​​grooving”,​​a​​life-threatening​​neurological​​emergency​​characterised​
​by​​raised​​intracranial​​tension​​with​​flattening​​of​​gyri,​​narrowing​​of​​sulci,​​and​​herniation​​of​
​the​​uncus​​of​​the​​temporal​​lobe​​across​​the​​tentorium​​cerebelli.​​The​​Doctor​​stated​​that​
​this​​is​​not​​a​​sudden​​event.​​PW86​​categorically​​deposed​​that​​for​​this​​uncal​​grooving​​to​
​form​​and​​for​​the​​consequential​​brain​​edema​​to​​develop​​to​​a​​fatal​​level,​​it​​takes​​at​​least​
​two​​to​​three​​hours.​​He​​further​​clarified​​that​​until​​the​​edema​​reaches​​its​​saturated,​​peak​
​level,​ ​the​ ​victim​ ​can​ ​continue​ ​to​ ​perform​ ​normal​ ​activities.​ ​Only​ ​when​ ​the​ ​edema​
​reaches​​that​​critical​​threshold​​does​​the​​victim​​become​​unconscious​​and​​death​​follows.​
​The​​medical​​evidence​​tendered​​by​​the​​Doctor​​delivers​​a​​precise​​answer​​to​​the​​question​
​of causation.​
​f.​ ​Madhu​​was​​pronounced​​dead​​by​​Dr.​​Lima​​Francis​​(PW56)​​at​​Agali​​CHC​
​at​​approximately​​4:15​​pm.​​Working​​back​​by​​the​​minimum​​development​​period​​of​​two​
​hours​​as​​stated​​by​​PW86,​​the​​injuries​​initiating​​the​​fatal​​brain​​edema​​must​​have​​been​
​inflicted​​at​​or​​before​​2:15​​pm.​​Working​​back​​by​​the​​maximum​​development​​period​​of​
​three​​hours:​​the​​initiating​​injuries​​must​​have​​been​​inflicted​​at​​or​​before​​1:15​​pm.​​The​
​police​​took​​Madhu​​into​​custody​​at​​Mukkali​​at​​3:30​​pm.​​The​​window​​of​​time​​during​​which​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​140​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​the​​police​​had​​any​​custody​​of​​Madhu​​at​​all,​​from​​3:30​​p.m.​​to​​approximately​​4:10​​p.m.​
​when​​they​​arrived​​at​​Agali​​CHC,​​is​​40​​-​​45​​minutes​​at​​the​​most.​​PW86's​​uncontroverted​
​expert​ ​evidence​ ​establishes​ ​that​ ​even​ ​if​ ​a​​fresh​​injury​​had​​been​​inflicted​​at​​the​​very​
​moment​ ​of​ ​police​ ​custody​ ​at​ ​3:30​ ​pm,​ ​the​ ​resulting​ ​brain​ ​edema​ ​would​ ​not​ ​have​
​matured​​to​​a​​fatal​​level​​until​​at​​least​​5:30​​pm​​to​​6:30​​pm,​​an​​hour​​to​​two​​hours​​after​
​Madhu​​was​​already​​dead.​​Death​​at​​4:15​​p.m.​​from​​injuries​​inflicted​​after​​3:30​​p.m.​​is​
​medically impossible under the development timeline established by PW86.​
​g.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​yet​ ​another​ ​pertinent​​indication.​​By​​the​​time​​the​​police​​took​
​custody​​of​​him​​at​​Mukkali​​at​​3:30​​p.m.,​​he​​had​​already​​been​​subjected​​to​​several​​hours​
​of​ ​sustained​ ​mob​ ​violence,​ ​had​ ​walked​ ​or​ ​been​ ​paraded​​several​​kilometres​​from​​the​
​forest​​to​​Mukkali​​junction,​​and​​was​​described​​by​​PW83​​as​​sitting​​in​​the​​CITU​​waiting​
​shed​ ​at​ ​Mukkali​ ​in​ ​a​ ​shabby​ ​and​ ​tired​ ​condition.​ ​A​ ​40​ ​kg​ ​mentally​ ​ill​ ​man​ ​in​ ​this​
​condition​ ​presented​ ​no​ ​threat,​ ​no​ ​resistance,​ ​and​ ​no​ ​reason​ ​for​​any​​police​​response​
​other​​than​​the​​medical​​attention​​that​​PW83​​was​​already​​arranging​​by​​phone.​​When​​the​
​police​ ​jeep​ ​reached​ ​Mele​ ​Thavalam,​ ​approximately​​10​​kilometres​​from​​Mukkali​​and​​8​
​kilometres​ ​from​ ​Agali​ ​CHC,​ ​Madhu​​informed​​the​​police​​that​​he​​wanted​​to​​vomit.​​The​
​jeep​​was​​stopped.​​Madhu​​then​​vomited​​through​​the​​quarter​​glass​​of​​the​​jeep.​​He​​was​
​seated​​in​​the​​back​​row​​and​​vomited​​outward​​through​​the​​quarter​​window.​​The​​report​​of​
​PW64,​​the​​scientific​​expert​​reveals​​that​​Madhu​​had​​also​​defecated​​while​​inside​​the​​Jeep.​
​The​​act​​of​​vomiting​​is​​itself​​a​​significant​​neurological​​symptom.​​Vomiting​​of​​this​​nature​
​in​​a​​person​​sustaining​​a​​serious​​head​​injury​​—​​particularly​​in​​the​​context​​of​​developing​
​raised​​intracranial​​pressure​​—​​is​​a​​classical​​sign​​of​​the​​neurological​​deterioration​​already​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​141​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​in​​progress.​​It​​is​​a​​clinical​​sign​​that​​the​​brain​​edema​​was​​already​​at​​an​​advanced​​stage​
​of development approximately 45 minutes before his death was declared at the CHC.​
​h.​ ​When​​specifically​​asked​​in​​cross-examination​​whether​​the​​injuries​​could​
​have​​been​​caused​​in​​a​​custodial​​torture​​scenario,​​PW86​​answered​ ​unequivocally​​that​
​when​​all​​injuries​​are​​taken​​together​​as​​a​​pattern,​​these​​are​​not​​of​​a​​nature​​of​​custodial​
​torture.​​Another​​very​​pertinent​​opinion​​of​​PW86,​​which​​has​​direct​​bearing​​on​​the​​legal​
​analysis​​of​​culpability​​is​​that​​not​​a​​single​​one​​of​​the​​forty-four​​injuries,​​taken​​individually,​
​was​​sufficient​​to​​cause​​death.​​The​​Doctor​​specifically​​deposed​​that​​even​​injuries​​Nos.​​1​
​to​​15​​identified​​as​​the​​cause​​of​​death​​were​​not​​individually​​fatal.​​It​​was​​their​​conjoint​
​effect​ ​forming​ ​a​ ​vicious​ ​cycle​ ​in​ ​which​ ​each​ ​injury​ ​contributed​ ​to​ ​the​ ​progressive​
​deterioration​​of​​the​​victim's​​condition​​that​​resulted​​in​​Madhu's​​death.​​From​​the​​evidence​
​adduced​​by​​PW86,​​it​​can​​be​​seen​​that​​the​​head​​injuries​​(Nos.​​1–3)​​initiated​​the​​cascade​
​of​ ​brain​ ​edema​ ​and​ ​rising​ ​intracranial​ ​pressure.​ ​The​ ​rib​ ​fracture​ ​and​ ​perinephric​
​haematoma​​from​​Injury​​No.​​12​​caused​​internal​​bleeding​​that​​compounded​​the​​systemic​
​physiological​ ​stress.​ ​The​ ​large​ ​contusions​​across​​the​​back​​and​​shoulders​​(Injury​​Nos.​
​7–11)​ ​caused​ ​significant​ ​blood​ ​loss​ ​from​ ​the​ ​muscular​ ​tissue​ ​and​ ​added​ ​to​ ​the​
​physiological​​burden.​​The​​aspiration​​of​​food​​particles​​into​​the​​airways​​as​​a​​consequence​
​of​ ​the​ ​neurological​ ​deterioration​ ​added​ ​a​ ​respiratory​ ​component​ ​to​ ​the​ ​multi-organ​
​failure.​​Each​​of​​these​​elements​​contributed​​to​​the​​progressive​​deterioration.​​None​​alone​
​would​ ​necessarily​ ​have​​killed.​​PW86​​also​​gave​​an​​overall​​evaluation​​of​​the​​pattern​​of​
​forty-four​ ​injuries​ ​on​ ​Madhu's​ ​body​ ​and​ ​specifically​ ​opined​ ​that​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​of​ ​the​
​injuries,​​their​​distribution,​​and​​their​​pattern​​collectively​​reveal​​that​​this​​is​​not​​a​​case​​of​
​police​​torture.​​It​​has​​also​​come​​out​​from​​the​​evidence​​tendered​​by​​the​​Forensic​​Surgeon​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​142​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​that​​PW86​​visited​​the​​place​​of​​occurrence​​at​​Aandiyallachaal,​​and​​during​​his​​journey​​to​
​that​​location​​he​​personally​​observed​​spiky-stemmed​​herbs​​in​​that​​forest​​area​​which​​are​
​capable​ ​of​ ​causing​ ​exactly​ ​those​ ​categories​ ​of​ ​injuries.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​forest​
​environment​​itself​​left​​its​​marks​​on​​Madhu's​​body,​​and​​those​​marks​​are​​documented​​and​
​catalogued in the forty-four injuries.​
​i.​ ​The​ ​police​ ​transit​ ​from​ ​Mukkali​​to​​Agali​​CHC​​was​​conducted​​in​​Police​
​Bolero​ ​Jeep​ ​bearing​ ​No.​ ​KL-01-BW-5724.​ ​The​ ​vehicle​ ​diary​ ​of​ ​this​ ​jeep​ ​is​ ​Ext.P86,​
​produced​ ​and​ ​proved​​by​​PW88.​​Ext.P54​​is​​the​​body​​mahazar​​of​​the​​vehicle​​that​​was​
​prepared​​on​​23.02.2018​​by​​which​​time​​the​​vehicle​​had​​been​​preserved​​as​​an​​exhibit​​in​
​the​ ​investigation.​ ​Three​ ​police​ ​officials​ ​were​ ​in​ ​the​ ​vehicle:​ ​PW83​ ​(Additional​ ​Sub​
​Inspector​​Prasad​​Varkky),​​PW84​​(the​​driver),​​and​​PW89​​(​​a​​CPO​​attached​​to​​Agali​​Police​
​Station​​on​​duty).​​PW83,​​the​​Additional​​Sub​​Inspector,​​was​​in​​the​​front​​passenger​​seat.​
​PW84​​was​​in​​the​​driver's​​seat.​​PW89,​​the​​third​​officer,​​was​​in​​the​​middle​​row.​​Madhu​
​was​​placed​​in​​the​​rear/last​​row​​of​​the​​vehicle.​​This​​seating​​arrangement​​is​​established​
​from​​the​​evidence​​and​​is​​not​​in​​dispute.​​The​​expert​​who​​examined​​the​​Jeep​​has​​stated​
​in​​her​​evidence​​that​​she​​was​​able​​to​​detect​​vomit​​and​​human​​faeces​​inside​​the​​Jeep.​​For​
​any​​injury​​to​​have​​been​​inflicted​​by​​the​​police​​inside​​the​​vehicle,​​it​​would​​be​​necessary​
​for​​a​​police​​officer​​to​​physically​​assault​​a​​person​​in​​the​​rearmost​​row​​of​​a​​moving​​jeep.​
​PW83,​​in​​the​​front​​seat,​​could​​not​​reach​​the​​rear​​row​​without​​physically​​climbing​​over​
​the​​middle​​row.​​PW84​​was​​driving​​and​​he​​was​​responsible​​for​​navigating​​the​​road​​to​
​Agali​​and​​could​​not​​have​​left​​the​​driver's​​seat.​​PW89​​in​​the​​middle​​row​​would​​have​​had​
​limited​ ​space​ ​to​ ​turn​ ​and​ ​assault​ ​a​ ​person​ ​behind​ ​him​ ​in​ ​a​ ​moving​ ​vehicle.​ ​More​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​143​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​fundamentally,​​it​​has​​come​​out​​from​​the​​cross-examination​​of​​the​​accused​​that​​PW83​
​was on the phone throughout the transit.​
​j.​ ​Evidence​ ​also​ ​reveals​ ​that​ ​PW83,​ ​as​​the​​senior​​officer​​in​​the​​vehicle,​
​conveyed​ ​telephonic​ ​information​ ​to​ ​GD​ ​charge​ ​Officer,​ ​Rejimon,​ ​that​ ​Madhu​ ​had​
​vomited.​ ​PW83​ ​directed​ ​Rejimon​ ​to​ ​prepare​ ​a​ ​requisition​ ​for​ ​medical​​examination​​of​
​Madhu​​and​​to​​bring​​it​​to​​the​​Agali​​CHC.​​The​​GD​​Charge​​Officer,​​Rejimon,​​relayed​​this​
​information​​to​​CPO​​Kumaran​​at​​the​​Police​​Station,​​who​​then​​rushed​​to​​Agali​​CHC​​with​
​the requisition form.​
​k.​ ​Even​​leaving​​out​​the​​seating​​configuration​​and​​the​​phone​​engagement,​
​Madhu's​ ​condition​ ​in​ ​the​ ​vehicle​ ​provides​ ​yet​ ​another​ ​layer​ ​of​ ​evidence​ ​entirely​
​inconsistent​​with​​any​​police​​assault.​​The​​hypothesis​​that​​the​​police​​needed​​to​​assault​
​this​​individual​​in​​the​​back​​seat​​of​​a​​jeep,​​while​​one​​officer​​drove​​and​​the​​senior​​officer​
​was​ ​on​ ​the​ ​phone​ ​for​ ​any​​purpose​​whatsoever​​is​​not​​supported​​by​​a​​single​​piece​​of​
​evidence​​in​​the​​record.​​The​​absence​​of​​motive,​​the​​absence​​of​​opportunity,​​combined​
​with​​the​​medical​​impossibility​​as​​per​​the​​timing​​as​​per​​the​​available​​evidence,​​together​
​constitute​ ​a​ ​complete​ ​answer​ ​to​ ​the​ ​custodial​ ​torture​ ​allegation.​ ​Furthermore,​ ​the​
​timeline​ ​does​ ​not​ ​accommodate​ ​a​ ​stoppage​ ​at​ ​the​ ​police​ ​station.​ ​The​ ​police​ ​took​
​custody​​at​​Mukkali​​at​​3:30​​p.m.​ ​Madhu​​was​​examined​​by​​Dr.​​Lima​​Francis​​at​​Agali​​CHC​
​at​​4:15​​pm.​​The​​distance​​from​​Mukkali​​to​​Agali​​is​​approximately​​18​​kilometres.​​Travelling​
​this​​distance,​​stopping​​at​​the​​Police​​Station,​​conducting​​an​​alleged​​torture​​session,​​and​
​then travelling the additional distance from the station to the CHC is an impossible task.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​144​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​l.​ ​The​​defence​​has​​also​​urged​​that​​there​​were​​private​​hospitals​​available​
​between​ ​Mukkali​ ​and​ ​Agali​ ​and​ ​that​ ​the​ ​failure​ ​to​ ​stop​ ​at​ ​any​ ​of​ ​these​ ​hospitals​
​evidenced​​either​​police​​indifference​​to​​Madhu's​​condition​​or​​a​​deliberate​​choice​​to​​take​
​him​ ​to​ ​a​ ​Government​ ​hospital​ ​where​ ​police​ ​influence​ ​could​ ​be​ ​exercised​ ​over​ ​the​
​medical​​records.​​However,​​the​​evidence​​available​​before​​the​​court​​establishes​​that​​there​
​is​ ​no​ ​hospital​ ​of​ ​comparable​ ​quality​ ​to​ ​Agali​ ​CHC​ ​at​ ​Mele​ ​Thavalam,​ ​where​ ​Madhu​
​vomited.​​After​​going​​through​​the​​evidence,​​we​​are​​inclined​​to​​believe​​the​​version​​of​​the​
​PW86​ ​that​ ​his​ ​choice​ ​of​ ​Agali​ ​CHC​ ​as​ ​the​ ​hospital​ ​where​ ​medical​ ​aid​ ​could​ ​be​
​administered​​is​​rational.​​Under​​no​​circumstances​​could​​the​​police​​officers​​have​​known​
​that​​Madhu​​was​​suffering​​from​​developing​​brain​​edema​​and​​raised​​intracranial​​pressure.​
​The​ ​external​ ​presentation​ ​of​ ​Madhu​ ​at​ ​that​ ​point​ ​gave​ ​no​ ​visible​ ​indication​ ​of​ ​the​
​neurological​​emergency​​within.​​The​​postmortem​​evidence​​and​​the​​evidence​​tendered​​by​
​the​​Doctor​​establishes​​that​​the​​dark​​complexion​​of​​Madhu​​made​​his​​contusions​​entirely​
​invisible​​to​​the​​naked​​eye,​​as​​confirmed​​by​​the​​postmortem​​video​​Ext.P167,​​which​​shows​
​the​​Doctors​​having​​to​​surgically​​incise​​the​​body​​at​​multiple​​points​​—​​file​​numbers​​0530,​
​0531,​​0532,​​0536,​​0538,​​0575,​​0596,​​0877​​onwards​​—​​to​​reveal​​contusions​​lying​​below​
​the​ ​skin​ ​surface​ ​that​ ​were​ ​invisible​ ​on​ ​external​ ​examination.​ ​PW86​ ​specifically​
​confirmed​ ​in​ ​his​ ​evidence​ ​that​ ​even​ ​the​ ​doctors​ ​conducting​ ​the​ ​post-mortem​
​examination​​had​​to​​cut​​open​​doubtful​​portions​​of​​the​​body​​to​​understand​​the​​nature​​and​
​depth​​of​​the​​injuries.​​Some​​were​​skin​​level​​and​​others​​muscle​​deep.​​If​​trained​​Forensic​
​Doctors​​conducting​​a​​formal​​postmortem​​examination​​found​​the​​injuries​​invisible​​without​
​surgical​​incision,​​police​​officers​​without​​medical​​training​​observing​​a​​fatigued​​man​​who​
​was​​unable​​to​​communicate​​could​​not​​have​​been​​expected​​to​​recognise​​the​​severity​​of​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​145​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​his​ ​condition.​ ​The​ ​police​ ​officers​​transported​​him​​to​​the​​nearest​​Government​​medical​
​facility​​capable​​of​​treating​​him.​​These​​are​​the​​actions​​of​​officers​​who​​were​​attending​​to​
​a​​person​​in​​distress​​with​​the​​resources​​available​​and​​the​​knowledge​​available​​to​​them​​at​
​the​​time.​​Mele​​Thavalam​​is​​a​​small​​settlement​​on​​the​​Mukkali-Agali​​road.​​The​​CHC​​is​​a​
​Government​ ​community​ ​health​ ​centre​ ​with​ ​round-the-clock​ ​medical​ ​staff,​ ​emergency​
​facilities,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​capacity​ ​to​ ​examine​ ​and​ ​treat​ ​a​ ​patient​ ​in​​distress.​ ​When​​Madhu​
​vomited​​at​​Thavalam,​​the​​police​​party​​was​​already​​10​​kilometres​​into​​the​​journey​​with​
​only​​8​​kilometres​​remaining​​to​​the​​CHC.​​The​​police​​officers​​cannot​​be​​said​​to​​have​​made​
​an incorrect decision in the facts and circumstances.​
​m.​ ​There​​is​​a​​piece​​of​​evidence​​on​​the​​record​​that​​actually​​came​​from​​the​
​accused's​​own​​phones​​rather​​than​​the​​police.​​File​​VID-20180222-WA0094,​​found​​in​​the​
​Q5​​file​​in​​Ext.P92(a)​​pen-drive,​​is​​a​​video​​recording​​taken​​while​​Madhu​​was​​being​​taken​
​from​​Mukkali​​by​​the​​police.​​The​​audio​​recording​​captured​​in​​this​​video​​file​​reveals​​that​
​as​​the​​police​​were​​taking​​Madhu​​away,​​PW83​​was​​audibly​​collecting​​from​​the​​gathered​
​crowd​ ​the​ ​names​ ​and​ ​details​ ​of​ ​shop​ ​owners​ ​from​ ​whose​ ​establishments​​thefts​​had​
​taken​​place.​​This​​is​​the​​source​​of​​the​​names,​​addresses,​​and​​phone​​numbers​​that​​PW83​
​subsequently​​wrote​​in​​the​​FIS​​(Ext.P80),​​which​​is​​attributed​​by​​the​​defence​​to​​Madhu.​
​The​ ​significance​ ​of​ ​this​ ​video​ ​for​ ​the​ ​custodial​ ​torture​​question​​is​​two-fold.​​Firstly,​​it​
​demonstrates​ ​that​ ​PW83​ ​was​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​the​ ​entirely​ ​ordinary​ ​and​ ​legitimate​ ​police​
​activity​ ​of​ ​gathering​ ​preliminary​ ​information​ ​from​ ​bystanders​ ​at​ ​the​ ​scene​ ​and​ ​not​
​engaged​​in​​any​​conspiratorial​​activity.​​Secondly,​​the​​video​​was​​not​​taken​​by​​the​​police.​​It​
​was​ ​on​ ​the​ ​accused's​ ​own​ ​phone.​ ​It​ ​was​ ​an​ ​unintentional​ ​recording​ ​by​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​
​accused​​of​​a​​scene​​at​​Mukkali​​as​​the​​police​​were​​leaving.​​The​​fact​​that​​this​​recording​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​146​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​captured​ ​PW83's​ ​voice​ ​asking​ ​bystanders​ ​for​ ​shop​ ​theft​ ​details​ ​is​ ​itself​ ​exculpatory​
​evidence​ ​against​ ​the​ ​custodial​ ​torture​ ​theory.​ ​The​ ​accused,​​who​​recorded​​everything​
​else​ ​that​ ​day,​ ​recorded​ ​PW83​ ​at​​Mukkali​​engaged​​in​​the​​act​​of​​collecting​​preliminary​
​information.​
​n.​ ​In​​this​​context,​​serious​​contentions​​were​​advanced​​by​​the​​defence​​that​
​the​​medical​​records​​were​​corrected​​to​​conceal​​the​​actual​​facts.​​DW1,​​the​​Senior​​Nursing​
​Officer​ ​of​ ​Agali​ ​CHC,​ ​produced​ ​the​ ​OP​ ​register​ ​(Ext.D12)​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Injection​ ​Register​
​(Ext.D13).​ ​The​ ​defence​ ​highlighted​ ​that​​in​​Ext.D13,​​the​​time​​of​​Madhu's​​examination​
​had​ ​been​ ​corrected​ ​from​ ​4:12​ ​pm​ ​or​ ​4:25​ ​pm​ ​to​ ​4:15​ ​pm.​ ​This​ ​was​​highlighted​​as​
​evidence​​of​​manipulation​​with​​a​​view​​to​​shorten​​the​​window​​of​​police​​custody.​​We​​find​
​that​​Dr.​​Lima​​Francis​​(PW56)​​explained​​that​​she​​made​​the​​correction​​by​​reference​​to​​the​
​casualty​​clock​​—​​changing​​the​​time​​to​​4:15​​p.m.​​to​​accord​​with​​the​​accurate​​clock​​time.​
​We​​have​​examined​​the​​registers​​of​​the​​mofussil​​hospital​​and​​find​​that​​the​​corrections​
​appear​​throughout​​the​​registers​​and​​are​​not​​confined​​to​​the​​entry​​relevant​​to​​Madhu.​
​We​​find​​that​​though​​there​​are​​corrections​​in​​the​​name​​column,​​the​​fact​​remains​​that​​the​
​gender​​and​​age​​are​​correctly​​mentioned​​in​​the​​relevant​​columns.​​DW1​​confirmed​​this​
​during​​examination.​​We​​are​​of​​the​​view​​that​​routine​​corrections​​in​​the​​working​​registers​
​of​​a​​busy​​government​​hospital,​​made​​by​​the​​examining​​Doctor​​by​​reference​​to​​a​​clock,​
​are​​not​​evidence​​of​​manipulation.​​The​​defence's​​attempt​​to​​construct​​a​​conspiracy​​from​
​an​ ​ordinary​ ​clinical​ ​notation​ ​correction​ ​finds​ ​no​ ​support​ ​in​ ​the​ ​evidence.​​Though​​Dr.​
​Lima​​Francis​​was​​subjected​​to​​vehement​​cross-examination​​by​​the​​defence​​to​​establish​
​that​​she​​had​​been​​influenced​​by​​senior​​police​​officials​​to​​minimise​​or​​omit​​injury​​findings​
​in​​her​​examination​​notes.​​Nothing​​was​​elicited​​from​​her​​to​​support​​this.​​She​​maintained​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​147​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​throughout​​that​​she​​examined​​Madhu​​at​​4:15​​p.m.,​​that​​she​​found​​him​​brought​​dead,​
​and​​that​​she​​recorded​​what​​she​​observed​​in​​her​​clinical​​notes.​​The​​absence​​of​​injury​
​notation​​in​​her​​clinical​​record​​is​​fully​​explained​​by​​the​​physical​​impossibility​​of​​detecting​
​sub-surface​​contusions​​on​​a​​darkly​​complexioned​​body​​without​​surgical​​incision.​​We​​also​
​find​​that​​the​​Sub-Divisional​​Magistrate,​​Ottapalam​​conducted​​a​​mandatory​​inquiry​​under​
​Section​​176​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C.​​into​​custodial​​death.​​The​​inquiry​​concluded​​that​​this​​was​​not​​a​
​case​ ​of​ ​police​ ​torture.​ ​Separately,​ ​the​ ​Judicial​ ​First​ ​Class​ ​Magistrate,​ ​Mannarkkad​
​conducted​ ​an​ ​inquiry​ ​under​ ​Section​​176(1A)​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C.​​This​​inquiry​​also​​found​​no​
​evidence​ ​of​ ​police-inflicted​​injuries.​​The​​SDM​​inquiry​​report,​​along​​with​​Ext.P167​​(the​
​postmortem​ ​video),​ ​was​ ​forwarded​ ​to​ ​the​ ​National​ ​Human​ ​Rights​ ​Commission.​ ​The​
​NHRC​​reviewed​​both​​the​​inquiry​​report​​and​​the​​postmortem​​video​​footage​​and,​​by​​its​
​letter​ ​Ext.P166​ ​addressed​ ​to​ ​the​ ​District​ ​Police​ ​Chief,​ ​Palakkad,​ ​confirmed​ ​that​ ​it​
​accepted​​the​​findings​​of​​the​​Sub-Divisional​​Magistrate​​and​​found​​no​​evidence​​of​​police​
​torture.​​Three​​independent​​authorities,​​examining​​the​​same​​facts,​​have​​all​​reached​​the​
​same​​conclusion:​​this​​was​​not​​a​​case​​of​​custodial​​torture.​​Though​​the​​reports​​are​​not​
​binding​​on​​us,​​we​​have​​no​​difficulty​​in​​concluding​​that​​the​​intracranial​​tension​​leading​​to​
​brain​ ​edema​ ​was​ ​caused​ ​by​ ​injuries​ ​inflicted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​and​ ​not​ ​by​ ​injuries​
​sustained during police transit.​
​o.​ ​Another​ ​contention​ ​advanced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​defence​ ​is​ ​with​ ​regard​ ​to​ ​the​
​noting​​of​​certain​​injuries​​by​​the​​SDM​​at​​the​​time​​of​​inquest​​which​​were​​apparently​​not​
​noted​ ​by​ ​Dr​ ​Lima​ ​Francis​ ​who​ ​declared​ ​Madhu​ ​died.​ ​This​​gradation​​—​​from​​nothing​
​visible​​at​​Mukkali​​(3:30​​pm),​​to​​nothing​​visible​​at​​CHC​​(4:15​​pm),​​to​​some​​minor​​bruises​
​visible​ ​at​ ​inquest​ ​(23.02.2018)​ ​is​ ​actually​ ​consistent​ ​with​ ​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​the​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​148​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​prosecution.The​ ​progression​ ​reflects​ ​the​ ​natural​ ​post-mortem​ ​process​ ​by​ ​which​
​subcutaneous​​contusions​​that​​were​​not​​visible​​on​​the​​surface​​of​​dark​​skin​​at​​the​​time​​of​
​death​ ​gradually​ ​manifest​ ​as​ ​the​ ​biological​ ​processes​ ​following​ ​death​ ​allow​ ​them​ ​to​
​become​ ​visible​ ​on​ ​the​​external​​surface​​of​​the​​skin.​​This​​is​​a​​well-established​​forensic​
​phenomenon​ ​as​ ​it​ ​is​ ​commonly​ ​accepted​ ​that​ ​lividity​ ​and​​the​​development​​of​​visible​
​contusion​​markings​​continue​​after​​death.​​The​​minor​​bruises​​that​​the​​SDM​​noted​​during​
​the​ ​inquest​ ​on​ ​23.02.2018​ ​were​ ​the​​same​​pre-existing​​sub-surface​​contusions,​​which​
​had become progressively more visible after death.​
​p.​ ​In​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​discussion​ ​above,​ ​we​ ​hold​ ​that​ ​the​ ​contention​ ​of​​the​
​defence​​that​​the​​death​​of​​Madhu​​was​​on​​account​​of​​assault​​by​​the​​police​​while​​he​​was​
​in their custody is only to be rejected.​
​12.3.​ ​Tribal identity of Madhu:​
​a.​ ​The​​prosecution​​examined​​PW70,​​the​​mother​​of​​Madhu,​​to​​establish​​the​
​fact​​that​​he​​was​​a​​member​​of​​the​​Scheduled​​Tribe.​​She​​stated​​that​​they​​belong​​to​​the​
​Kurumba​ ​community.​ ​Kurumba​ ​is​ ​a​ ​Scheduled​ ​Tribe​ ​notified​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Constitution​
​(Scheduled​ ​Tribes)​ ​Order,​ ​1950,​ ​as​ ​applicable​ ​to​ ​the​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Kerala.​ ​PW71​ ​is​ ​the​
​brother-in-law​ ​of​ ​Madhu.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​Madhu​ ​belongs​ ​to​ ​the​​Mudugar​​community,​
​which is also a Scheduled Tribe community.​
​b.​ ​The​​prosecution​​has​​placed​​on​​record​​Ext.P39,​​a​​caste​​certificate​​that​
​was​​issued​​by​​PW51​​in​​his​​capacity​​as​​the​​Tahsildar​​at​​Mannarkkad​​at​​the​​relevant​​time.​
​PW51​​testified​​that​​he​​was​​serving​​as​​the​​Principal​​Tahsildar​​at​​Mannarkkad​​when​​he​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​149​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​issued​​this​​certificate.​​He​​stated​​that​​his​​decision​​was​​based​​on​​the​​reports​​furnished​​by​
​the​​Village​​Officer​​of​​Padavayal​​Village,​​and​​that​​he​​had​​also​​conducted​​an​​independent​
​enquiry​ ​before​ ​issuing​ ​the​ ​document.​ ​Through​ ​this​ ​enquiry,​ ​PW51​ ​determined​ ​that​
​Madhu​​belongs​​to​​the​​Hindu​​Mudugar​​community,​​which​​is​​recognised​​as​​a​​Scheduled​
​Tribe.​​However,​​the​​defence​​raised​​a​​serious​​challenge​​to​​the​​admissibility​​and​​validity​​of​
​Ext.P39.​​Their​​objection​​rested​​on​​the​​specific​​ground​​that​​the​​certificate​​had​​not​​been​
​prepared​​in​​the​​prescribed​​Form​​No.​​III,​​as​​strictly​​required​​under​​the​​provisions​​of​​the​
​Kerala​ ​Scheduled​ ​Caste​ ​and​ ​Scheduled​ ​Tribe​ ​Regulation​ ​for​ ​Issue​ ​of​ ​Community​
​Certificate Act, 1996.​
​c.​ ​The​ ​prosecution​ ​thereafter​ ​examined​ ​PW100,​ ​the​ ​present​ ​Attappadi​
​Tribal​​Taluk​​Tahsildar,​​who​​produced​​Ext.P163,​​the​​Caste​​Certificate​​of​​Madhu.​​Ext.P163​
​is​​a​​certificate​​issued​​in​​the​​prescribed​​Form​​No.​​III​​under​​the​​Kerala​​Scheduled​​Castes​
​and​​Scheduled​​Tribes​​Regulation​​for​​Issue​​of​​Community​​Certificate​​Act,​​1996.​​It​​was​
​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Attappadi​ ​Tribal​ ​Taluk​ ​Tahsildar,​ ​the​ ​competent​ ​statutory​ ​authority​
​authorised​ ​to​ ​issue​ ​community​ ​certificates​ ​for​ ​members​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tribal​ ​communities​
​residing​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Attappadi​ ​area.​ ​The​ ​certificate​ ​clearly​ ​and​ ​unequivocally​ ​states​ ​that​
​Madhu​ ​belonged​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Hindu-Mudugar​ ​community,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​a​​recognised​​Scheduled​
​Tribe​​community.​​Ext.P163(a)​​is​​the​​back​​file​​relating​​to​​the​​issuance​​of​​the​​certificate​
​and​​contains​​the​​materials​​relied​​upon​​by​​PW100​​in​​arriving​​at​​his​​conclusion​​regarding​
​the​​community​​status​​of​​Madhu.​​These​​records​​include​​the​​enquiry​​report​​submitted​​by​
​the​​concerned​​Village​​Officer,​​a​​xerox​​copy​​of​​Madhu’s​​school​​admission​​register​​showing​
​the​​community​​entered​​at​​the​​time​​of​​his​​admission​​to​​school,​​and​​a​​copy​​of​​Madhu’s​
​ration​ ​card​ ​reflecting​ ​the​ ​community​ ​recorded​ ​in​ ​the​ ​official​ ​civil​ ​supplies​ ​records.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​150​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​PW100​​deposed​​that​​the​​caste​​of​​Madhu​​was​​recorded​​based​​on​​the​​caste​​of​​his​​father,​
​following​​the​​well-established​​and​​accepted​​principle​​that,​​in​​the​​ordinary​​course,​​a​​child​
​follows​ ​the​ ​caste​ ​and​ ​community​ ​status​ ​of​​the​​father​​unless​​there​​are​​circumstances​
​proving​ ​otherwise.​ ​The​ ​records​ ​revealed​ ​that​ ​Madhu’s​ ​father​ ​belonged​ ​to​ ​the​
​Hindu-Mudugar​ ​community​ ​and,​ ​accordingly,​​Madhu​​was​​also​​treated​​as​​belonging​​to​
​the​​same​​community.​​PW100​​was​​subjected​​to​​detailed​​and​​lengthy​​cross-examination.​
​However,​​nothing​​could​​be​​elicited​​to​​discredit​​his​​testimony,​​cast​​any​​doubt​​upon​​the​
​authenticity​ ​of​ ​Ext.P163,​ ​or​ ​impeach​ ​the​ ​materials​ ​forming​ ​part​ ​of​ ​Ext.P163(a).​ ​The​
​school​ ​admission​ ​register​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​Madhu,​ ​which​ ​forms​ ​part​ ​of​ ​Ext.P163(a),​ ​is​ ​a​
​contemporaneous​ ​official​ ​record​ ​maintained​ ​in​ ​the​ ​ordinary​ ​course​ ​of​ ​school​
​administration​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​his​ ​admission.​ ​The​ ​entry​ ​regarding​ ​his​​community​​was​
​made​ ​long​ ​prior​ ​to​​the​​present​​incident​​and​​much​​before​​the​​commencement​​of​​any​
​investigation​ ​or​ ​litigation.​ ​Likewise,​ ​the​ ​ration​ ​card​ ​records​ ​independently​ ​reflect​
​Madhu’s​ ​community​ ​status​ ​in​ ​official​ ​government​ ​records​ ​maintained​ ​in​ ​the​ ​ordinary​
​course​​of​​public​​administration.​​The​​prosecution​​has​​also​​produced​​Ext.P67,​​the​​seizure​
​mahazar​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​hospital​ ​records,​ ​Ext.P48,​ ​the​ ​records​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Mental​ ​Health​
​Centre,​ ​Kozhikode,​ ​and​ ​Ext.P49,​ ​the​ ​records​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​Tribal​ ​Specialty​
​Hospital,​ ​Kottathara,​ ​all​​of​​which​​relate​​to​​the​​medical​​treatment​​imparted​​to​​Madhu.​
​These​​records​​further​​reveal​​that​​Madhu​​had​​undergone​​treatment​​at​​the​​Government​
​Tribal​ ​Specialty​ ​Hospital,​ ​Kottathara,​ ​a​ ​hospital​ ​specifically​ ​established​ ​for​ ​providing​
​medical​ ​care​ ​to​ ​members​ ​of​ ​the​ ​tribal​ ​communities​ ​of​ ​Attappadi.​ ​PW58,​ ​the​ ​doctor​
​attached​​to​​the​​Mental​​Health​​Centre,​​Kozhikode,​​deposed​​that​​Madhu​​was​​treated​​there​
​for​​paranoid​​schizophrenia.​​PW59,​​the​​Superintendent​​of​​the​​Tribal​​Specialty​​Hospital,​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​151​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Kottathara,​​confirmed​​that​​Madhu​​had​​been​​admitted​​to​​the​​said​​hospital​​on​​13.08.2008​
​and​ ​discharged​ ​on​ ​26.08.2008​ ​after​ ​treatment​ ​for​ ​psychosis.​ ​These​ ​medical​ ​records​
​were​​seized​​under​​Ext.P67​​mahazar​​and​​were​​subsequently​​produced​​before​​the​​Court​
​in accordance with law.​
​d.​ ​We​​find​​that​​the​​mother,​​while​​examined​​as​​PW70,​​stated​​that​​Madhu​
​belonged​ ​to​ ​the​ ​"Kurumba"​ ​Tribe​ ​whereas​ ​PW71​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​he​ ​belonged​ ​to​ ​the​
​"Mudugar"​​tribe.​ ​Ext.P163​​Caste​​Certificate​​conclusively​​establishes​​that​​Madhu​​belongs​
​to​​the​​Hindu-Mudugar​​community.​​The​​mere​​fact​​that​​PW70​​used​​the​​term​​"Kurumba",​
​which​​is​​also​​a​​Scheduled​​Tribe​​and​​a​​name​​locally​​used​​for​​certain​​sections​​of​​the​​Tribal​
​community​​in​​Attappadi,​​would​​not​​make​​any​​difference​​insofar​​as​​the​​Tribal​​identity​​of​
​Madhu​​is​​concerned.​​In​​that​​view​​of​​the​​matter,​​we​​hold​​that​​the​​prosecution​​has​​been​
​able​​to​​establish​​that​​Madhu​​is​​a​​member​​of​​the​​Scheduled​​Tribe​​and​​specifically​​of​​the​
​“Mudugar” Tribe.​
​12.4.​ ​Non-Tribal status of the accused:​
​In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​the​ ​caste​ ​identity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused,​ ​the​ ​prosecution​
​examined​​PW48,​​the​​Village​​Officer,​​Kallamala​​Village.​​The​​said​​witness​​has​​issued​​caste​
​certificates​​of​​accused​​Nos.​​1​​to​​5​​and​​7​​to​​16.​​These​​certificates​​were​​issued​​in​​PW48's​
​official​​capacity​​as​​Village​​Officer​​and​​are​​documents​​prepared​​in​​the​​ordinary​​course​​of​
​official​ ​duty.​ ​They​ ​establish​ ​the​ ​community​ ​identities​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respective​ ​accused​ ​as​
​recorded​​in​​official​​village​​records.​​PW50,​​the​​Village​​Officer,​​Palakkayam​​Village​​Office,​
​has​ ​issued​​Ext.P38,​​the​​Caste​​certificate​​of​​Accused​​No.​​6​​(Aboobacker).​​These​​caste​
​certificates,​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respective​ ​Village​ ​Officers​ ​having​ ​jurisdiction​ ​over​ ​the​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​152​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​residential​​areas​​of​​the​​accused,​​collectively​​establish​​that​​the​​accused​​persons​​belong​
​to​ ​communities​ ​that​ ​are​ ​not​ ​Scheduled​ ​Castes​ ​or​​Scheduled​​Tribes.​​The​​accused​​are​
​drawn​ ​from​ ​Muslim​ ​communities​ ​(A1-Hussain,​ ​A2-Marakkar,​ ​A3-Shamsudheen,​
​A6-Aboobacker​ ​@​ ​Backer,​ ​A7-Sidhique,​ ​A8-Ubaid,​ ​A9-Najeeb,​ ​A14-Hareesh,​ ​A15-Biju,​
​A16-Muneer)​ ​and​ ​Hindu​ ​communities​ ​(A5-Radhakrishnan,​ ​A10-Jaijumon,​ ​A12-Sajeev,​
​A13-Satheesh).​ ​The​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​they​ ​belong​ ​to​ ​communities​ ​not​ ​notified​ ​as​ ​Scheduled​
​Castes​​or​​Scheduled​​Tribes​​under​​the​​Constitution​​(Scheduled​​Castes)​​Order,​​1950​​or​​the​
​Constitution​ ​(Scheduled​ ​Tribes)​ ​Order,​ ​1950,​ ​as​ ​applicable​ ​to​ ​Kerala,​ ​has​ ​also​ ​been​
​established.​ ​The​ ​Caste​ ​certificates,​ ​Ext.P35​ ​and​ ​Ext.P38,​​as​​documents​​prepared​​by​
​officials​ ​in​ ​their​ ​official​ ​capacity,​ ​carry​ ​the​ ​presumption​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​114​ ​of​ ​the​
​Evidence​ ​Act​ ​that​ ​official​ ​acts​ ​have​ ​been​ ​regularly​ ​performed.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​no​ ​material​
​before​​the​​court​​to​​rebut​​this​​presumption.​​The​​accused​​have​​taken​​a​​contention​​that​
​the​​mere​​marking​​of​​the​​said​​document​​will​​not​​establish​​that​​they​​are​​not​​members​​of​
​the​​Scheduled​​Tribe.​​We​​are​​not​​inclined​​to​​agree.​​If​​any​​of​​the​​accused​​was​​a​​member​
​of​​the​​Scheduled​​Tribe,​​nothing​​prevented​​the​​said​​accused​​from​​challenging​​the​​record​
​placed​​before​​the​​court​​by​​the​​official​​witnesses​​or​​in​​adducing​​evidence​​on​​their​​side.​
​The bare denial of the accused is of no consequence.​
​12.5.​ ​Knowledge of Madhu’s Tribal identity:​
​a.​ ​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Court​​acquitted​​the​​accused​​of​​the​​charges​​under​
​Sections​​3(2)(v)​​and​​3(2)(va)​​of​​the​​SC/ST​​(PoA)​​Act​​by​​holding​​that​​knowledge​​on​​the​
​part​​of​​the​​accused​​regarding​​the​​caste​​or​​tribal​​identity​​of​​the​​victim​​is​​a​​mandatory​
​ingredient​ ​for​​attracting​​the​​said​​provisions.​​According​​to​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge,​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​153​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​such​ ​knowledge​ ​had​ ​to​ ​be​ ​established​ ​exclusively​ ​through​ ​the​ ​oral​ ​testimony​ ​of​
​witnesses.​​The​​court​​further​​held​​that​​the​​available​​electronic​​evidence​​and​​surrounding​
​circumstances​​could​​not,​​by​​themselves,​​give​​rise​​to​​any​​inference​​or​​presumption​​that​
​the​​accused​​were​​aware​​of​​Madhu’s​​tribal​​identity.​​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​was​​also​
​of​​the​​view​​that​​the​​statutory​​presumption​​contained​​in​​Section​​8​​of​​the​​SC/ST​​(PoA)​​Act​
​could​​not​​be​​invoked​​in​​the​​present​​case​​on​​the​​ground​​that​​there​​was​​no​​“foundational​
​evidence”​​to​​establish​​that​​the​​accused​​had​​prior​​acquaintance​​with​​Madhu​​or​​his​​family​
​members.​​Reliance​​was​​further​​placed​​on​​the​​decision​​of​​the​​Supreme​​Court​​reported​​in​
​20​
​Patan​​Jamal​​Vali​​v.​​State​​of​​Andhra​​Pradesh​ ​to​​hold​​that​​mere​​knowledge​​of​​the​
​caste​​identity​​of​​the​​victim​​would​​not,​​by​​itself,​​be​​sufficient​​to​​attract​​the​​provisions​​of​
​Sections​​3(2)(v)​​and​​3(2)(va).​​Proceeding​​on​​that​​reasoning,​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​
​concluded​​that,​​since​​the​​motive​​alleged​​by​​the​​prosecution​​related​​to​​the​​accusation​​of​
​theft​​and​​not​​directly​​to​​caste​​identity,​​the​​provisions​​of​​the​​SC/ST​​(PoA)​​Act​​would​​not​
​be attracted.​
​b.​ ​In​ ​our​ ​considered​ ​view,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​committed​ ​a​
​fundamental​ ​error​ ​in​ ​applying​ ​the​ ​legal​ ​principles​ ​governing​ ​the​ ​pre-amendment​
​provision​ ​to​ ​a​ ​case​​which​​admittedly​​arose​​after​​the​​statutory​​amendment​​to​​Section​
​3(2)(v)​ ​of​​the​​SC/ST​​(PoA)​​Act.​​The​​reasoning​​adopted​​by​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​
​reflects a clear misapplication of the law. We shall give our reasons.​
​c.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​undisputed​ ​that​ ​Mukkali​ ​is​ ​a​ ​ward​ ​within​ ​the​ ​Agali​ ​Grama​
​Panchayat​​in​​the​​Attappady​​region​​of​​Palakkad​​district.​​It​​is​​from​​the​​Mukkali​​Junction​
​20​
​AIR 2021 SC 2190​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​154​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​that​​the​​road​​to​​the​​Silent​​Valley​​Reserved​​Forests​​commences​​and​​it​​is​​the​​entry​​point​
​to​​one​​of​​the​​most​​well-known​​Scheduled​​Tribe​​dominant​​areas​​in​​the​​State​​of​​Kerala.​
​The​​Aandiyallachaal​​Reserved​​Forest​​from​​which​​Madhu​​was​​apprehended​​is​​within​​the​
​Attappadi​​tribal​​belt.​​The​​accused​​were​​shopkeepers,​​traders,​​and​​long-term​​residents​​of​
​Mukkali.​​PW31,​​the​​father​​of​​accused​​A9​​and​​A16,​​deposed​​that​​he​​had​​been​​conducting​
​a​​shop​​at​​Mukkali​​junction​​for​​the​​last​​14​​years.​​The​​Attappadi​​block​​is​​administratively​
​identified​​as​​a​​Tribal​​area.​​The​​Scheduled​​Tribe​​communities​​of​​Mudugar,​​Kurumba,​​and​
​Irula​​have​​inhabited​​this​​region​​for​​generations.​​The​​Government​​of​​Kerala​​specifically​
​established​ ​the​ ​Attappadi​​Tribal​​Taluk​​Tahsildar,​​the​​officer​​who​​issued​​Ext.P163,​​as​​a​
​dedicated​ ​administrative​ ​authority​ ​for​ ​the​ ​tribal​ ​population​ ​of​ ​Attappadi.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​a​
​Government​​Tribal​​Specialty​​Hospital​​specifically​​for​​the​​tribal​​community​​at​​Kottathara​
​within​​the​​Attappadi​​area​​and​​Madhu​​was​​a​​patient​​there.​​Any​​person​​who​​has​​lived​​and​
​traded​ ​in​ ​Mukkali​ ​for​ ​years​ ​knows​ ​that​ ​the​ ​surrounding​ ​forest​ ​and​ ​hills​ ​are​ ​tribal​
​habitation​​zones​​and​​that​​persons​​found​​dwelling​​in​​those​​forests​​are​​members​​of​​the​
​tribal​​community.​​It​​would​​be​​difficult​​to​​accept​​the​​proposition​​that​​shopkeepers​​who​
​had​​operated​​in​​the​​Mukkali​​area​​for​​years​​were​​unaware​​that​​persons​​dwelling​​in​​the​
​Aandiyallachaal reserved forest were members of the Scheduled Tribe.​
​d.​ ​The​​evidence​​of​​PW28,​​PW29,​​PW30,​​and​​PW31​​collectively​​establishes​
​that​​theft​​from​​shops​​in​​the​​Mukkali​​and​​Chindakki​​area​​had​​been​​occurring​​repeatedly​
​over​ ​the​ ​period​ ​2017-2018​ ​and​​that​​Madhu​​was​​identified​​as​​the​​person​​responsible.​
​PW28​​testified​​that​​the​​theft​​occurred​​from​​his​​grocery​​shop​​at​​Kakkandi.​​PW29​​deposed​
​that​​theft​​occurred​​from​​his​​tea​​shop​​at​​Kakkuppadi.​​PW30​​stated​​that​​theft​​occurred​​on​
​two​ ​separate​ ​occasions​​from​​his​​shop​​at​​Mukkali,​​with​​the​​thief​​entering​​through​​the​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​155​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​roof​​tiles​​and​​taking​​food​​items.​​PW31​​confirmed​​that​​theft​​occurred​​from​​his​​shop​​and​
​that a formal complaint was registered.​
​e.​ ​The​​WhatsApp​​group​​"Voice​​of​​Attappadi",​​which​​has​​been​​marked​​as​
​Ext.P143​​series,​​contained​​a​​message​​stating​​that​​a​​person​​involved​​in​​more​​than​​300​
​theft​ ​cases​ ​had​ ​been​ ​apprehended​ ​at​ ​Mukkali.​ ​Whatever​​the​​precise​​accuracy​​of​​the​
​number​ ​300,​​the​​message​​reflects​​the​​scale​​of​​local​​knowledge​​about​​Madhu​​and​​his​
​activities.​​The​​accused​​persons​​were​​apprehending​​a​​person​​they​​had​​complained​​about​
​to​ ​the​ ​police​ ​and​ ​whose​ ​identity​ ​they​ ​had​ ​shared​ ​in​ ​their​ ​WhatsApp​ ​group.​ ​The​
​knowledge​ ​of​ ​a​ ​person​ ​that​ ​necessarily​ ​accompanies​ ​awareness​ ​of​ ​that​ ​person's​
​repeated​​activities​​in​​one's​​own​​locality​​includes​​knowledge​​of​​who​​that​​person​​is,​​which​
​community​ ​he​ ​belongs​ ​to,​ ​where​ ​he​ ​comes​ ​from,​ ​and​ ​what​ ​his​ ​background​ ​is.​​In​​a​
​tribal-dominant​​area​​like​​Attappadi,​​where​​the​​demography​​is​​known​​to​​every​​resident,​
​knowing​​that​​a​​person​​has​​been​​living​​in​​the​​reserved​​forest​​for​​years​​and​​repeatedly​
​stealing food items from local shops is knowing that that person is a tribal.​
​f.​ ​In​​Crime​​No.​​524​​of​​2016​​of​​Agali​​Police​​Station,​​a​​case​​involving​​the​
​offence​ ​of​ ​theft,​ ​Madhu​ ​was​ ​arrayed​ ​as​ ​the​ ​accused.​ ​PW91​ ​(SI​ ​Subin)​ ​was​ ​the​
​Investigating​​Officer.​​The​​Final​​Report​​in​​the​​said​​case​​is​​Ext.P89.​​In​​Ext.P89,​​Accused​
​No.​​16​​(Muneer)​​was​​cited​​as​​CW2.​​He​​was​​cited​​as​​a​​witness​​to​​identify​​the​​accused​
​(Madhu)​ ​in​ ​CCTV​ ​footage​ ​of​ ​the​ ​theft.​ ​In​ ​other​ ​words,​ ​A16​ ​(Muneer)​ ​had​ ​formally​
​participated​​in​​a​​criminal​​investigation​​in​​which​​Madhu's​​identity​​was​​specifically​​at​​issue.​
​A​​person​​who​​has​​viewed​​CCTV​​footage​​in​​a​​criminal​​investigation​​for​​the​​purpose​​of​
​formally​​identifying​​Madhu​​knows​​exactly​​who​​Madhu​​is.​​No​​doubt,​​he​​would​​be​​aware​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​156​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​of​ ​Madhu's​ ​existence​ ​in​ ​the​ ​locality​ ​in​ ​the​ ​context​ ​of​ ​a​ ​tribal​ ​man​ ​living​ ​in​ ​the​
​Aandiyallachaal​ ​forest​ ​and​ ​stealing​ ​food​​items​​from​​shops​​in​​the​​Attappadi​​area.​​The​
​personal​​knowledge​​of​​Accused​​No.16​​is​​imputable​​to​​the​​assembly​​of​​which​​he​​was​​a​
​member,​​and​​specifically​​to​​his​​father​​Accused​​No.​​9,​​who​​organised​​the​​entire​​operation​
​based on information about Madhu.​
​g.​ ​Furthermore,​​PW91​​was​​the​​Investigating​​Officer​​in​​both​​the​​prior​​theft​
​case​​(Cr.No.​​524​​of​​2016)​​and​​was​​called​​by​​Accused​​No.​​3​​to​​inform​​him​​that​​Madhu​
​was​​being​​brought​​to​​Mukkali.​​PW91​​himself​​deposed​​that​​"he​​knows​​Madhu"​​for​​the​
​reason​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer​ ​in​ ​the​ ​theft​​case​​against​​Madhu.​​If​​the​
​Police​​Officer​​who​​was​​called​​deposed​​that​​he​​already​​knew​​who​​Madhu​​was​​from​​the​
​prior​​investigation,​​the​​accused​​persons​​who​​informed​​him​​about​​Madhu's​​apprehension​
​can​​be​​no​​less​​informed.​​A3's​​call​​to​​PW91​​was​​a​​call​​between​​people​​who​​already​​had​​a​
​shared​​understanding​​of​​who​​Madhu​​was.​​When​​Accused​​No.3​​(Shamsudheen)​​called​​SI​
​Subin​​(PW91)​​before​​the​​group​​reached​​Mukkali,​​he​​described​​the​​person​​being​​brought​
​as​ ​someone​ ​found​ ​in​ ​"Aandiyallachaal​ ​forest".​ ​This​ ​description​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​neutral​
​geographic​ ​reference.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​context​ ​of​ ​Attappadi,​ ​a​ ​person​ ​found​ ​dwelling​ ​in​ ​the​
​Aandiyallachaal​​Reserved​​Forest​​is,​​in​​the​​common​​understanding​​of​​every​​person​​who​
​lives​ ​and​ ​trades​ ​in​​that​​area,​​a​​tribal​​person.​​The​​Reserved​​Forest​​areas​​surrounding​
​Mukkali​ ​are​ ​protected​ ​tribal​ ​habitation​ ​zones.​ ​A3's​ ​choice​ ​of​ ​that​ ​specific​ ​description​
​reflects​ ​his​ ​own​ ​understanding​ ​that​ ​the​ ​person​ ​being​ ​brought​ ​belonged​ ​to​ ​the​
​forest-dwelling​​tribal​​community.​​His​​own​​words​​in​​his​​call​​to​​the​​police​​officer​​establish​
​his​​constructive​​knowledge​​of​​Madhu's​​tribal​​identity.​​Accused​​No.​​3​​was​​with​​the​​rest​​of​
​the accused when he had made the call.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​157​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​h.​ ​The​​evidence​​of​​PW1,​​PW10,​​and​​PW70​​clearly​​establishes​​that​​Madhu​
​had​​been​​residing​​and​​wandering​​in​​the​​Aandiyallachaal​​reserved​​forest​​area​​for​​several​
​years​​prior​​to​​the​​incident.​​Their​​testimony​​reveals​​that​​Madhu​​was​​not​​an​​unknown​​or​
​unfamiliar​​person​​in​​the​​locality.​​He​​was​​a​​constant​​presence​​in​​and​​around​​the​​forest​
​region​ ​and​ ​was​ ​known​ ​to​ ​the​​local​​inhabitants​​and​​persons​​residing​​in​​the​​Attappadi​
​area.​​The​​evidence​​further​​indicates​​that​​he​​survived​​in​​and​​around​​the​​forest​​for​​years,​
​frequently​​moving​​through​​nearby​​settlements​​and​​shops​​in​​search​​of​​food​​and​​shelter.​
​His​​continued​​presence​​in​​the​​locality​​over​​a​​long​​period​​of​​time​​assumes​​significance​
​while​​appreciating​​the​​question​​as​​to​​whether​​the​​accused​​persons​​were​​aware​​of​​his​
​identity and tribal background.​
​i.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​watched​ ​the​ ​video​ ​footage​
​VID-20180222-WA0034​​in​​the​​Q7​​file​​and​​opined​​that​​knowledge​​is​​a​​personal​​feeling​​of​
​a​​person,​​and​​the​​same​​cannot​​be​​perceived​​from​​video​​footage.​​We​​have​​also​​carefully​
​watched​​the​​video​​and​​heard​​the​​audio.​​It​​is​​perfectly​​possible​​to​​hear​​the​​conversation​
​of​​the​​accused,​​and​​they​​can​​be​​clearly​​heard​​saying​​that​​Madhu​​was​​not​​suffering​​from​
​any​​mental​​ailments​​and​​had​​been​​living​​in​​the​​forest​​on​​one​​pretext​​or​​another,​​and​
​that​​his​​behaviour​​was​​just​​a​​pretence.​​They​​are​​also​​heard​​telling​​one​​another​​that​​the​
​deceased​ ​had​ ​been​ ​sleeping​ ​on​ ​rocks​​inside​​the​​forest​​and​​had​​not​​been​​visiting​​his​
​house.​ ​These​ ​are​ ​not​ ​the​ ​words​ ​of​ ​a​ ​stranger.​ ​All​ ​of​ ​this​ ​points​ ​irresistibly​ ​to​ ​the​
​conclusion​ ​that​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​had​ ​direct​ ​and​ ​intimate​ ​personal​ ​knowledge​ ​about​ ​the​
​deceased.​ ​When​ ​all​ ​of​ ​this​ ​evidence​ ​is​ ​read​ ​in​ ​consonance​ ​with​ ​the​ ​facts​ ​and​
​circumstances​ ​of​ ​this​ ​case,​ ​it​ ​would​​unequivocally​​and​​conclusively​​establish​​that​​the​
​accused​​were​​well​​acquainted​​with​​Madhu​​—​​his​​mental​​ailment,​​his​​movements,​​and​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​158​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​his​​place​​of​​residence.​​In​​this​​context,​​the​​plea​​of​​ignorance​​as​​to​​the​​caste​​of​​Madhu​​is​
​wholly implausible and cannot be believed.​
​j.​ ​It​ ​would​ ​also​ ​be​ ​appropriate​ ​to​ ​refer​ ​to​ ​Section​ ​8​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Scheduled​
​Castes​ ​and​ ​Scheduled​ ​Tribes​ ​(Prevention​ ​of​ ​Atrocities)​ ​Act,​ ​1989.​ ​The​ ​said​ ​provision​
​reads as under:​
​Section 8 Presumption as to offences.​
​In a prosecution for an offence under this chapter, if it is proved that-​
​(a)​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​rendered​ ​any​ ​financial​ ​assistance​ ​in​ ​relation​ ​to​ ​the​
​offences​​committed​​by​​a​​person​​accused​​of​​or​​reasonably​​suspected​
​of​​committing,​​an​​offence​​under​​this​​chapter,​​the​​Special​​Court​​shall​
​presume,​ ​unless​ ​the​ ​contrary​ ​is​ ​proved,​ ​that​ ​such​ ​person​ ​had​
​abetted the offence.​
​(b)​ ​a​​group​​of​​persons​​committed​​an​​offence​​under​​this​​chapter​​and​​if​​it​
​is​​proved​​that​​the​​offence​​committed​​was​​a​​sequel​​to​​any​​existing​
​dispute​​regarding​​land​​or​​any​​other​​matter,​​it​​shall​​be​​presumed​​that​
​the​​offence​​was​​committed​​in​​furtherance​​of​​the​​common​​intention​
​or in prosecution of the common object​
​(c)​ ​the​ ​accused​​was​​having​​personal​​knowledge​​of​​the​​victim​​or​​his​
​family,​​the​​Court​​shall​​presume​​that​​the​​accused​​was​​aware​​of​​the​
​caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless the contrary is proved.​
​k.​ ​As​​per​​the​​above​​provision,​​all​​that​​is​​required​​is​​proof​​that​​the​​accused​
​had​ ​personal​ ​knowledge​ ​of​ ​the​ ​victim​ ​or​ ​his​ ​family.​​Once​​evidence​​establishing​​such​
​knowledge​​is​​available,​​the​​Court​​is​​bound​​to​​draw​​the​​statutory​​presumption​​that​​the​
​accused​​were​​aware​​of​​the​​caste​​or​​tribal​​identity​​of​​the​​victim,​​unless​​the​​contrary​​is​
​proved.​​In​​the​​present​​case,​​the​​evidence​​on​​record​​overwhelmingly​​satisfies​​the​​said​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​159​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​requirement.​ ​Even​ ​independently​ ​of​ ​the​ ​statutory​ ​presumption​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​8,​ ​the​
​materials​​on​​record​​clearly​​establish​​that​​the​​accused​​were​​fully​​aware​​of​​the​​identity​
​and tribal status of Madhu.​
​l.​ ​The​ ​postmortem​ ​evidence​ ​and​ ​medical​ ​records​ ​show​ ​that,​ ​at​ ​the​
​relevant​ ​time,​ ​Madhu​ ​weighed​ ​only​ ​about​ ​40​ ​kilograms​ ​and​ ​was​ ​in​ ​an​ ​extremely​
​malnourished​​and​​debilitated​​condition.​​The​​evidence​​also​​indicates​​that​​his​​body​​was​
​covered​ ​with​ ​dark​ ​soot​ ​and​ ​dirt,​ ​consistent​ ​with​​a​​person​​who​​had​​been​​living​​for​​a​
​prolonged​​period​​inside​​the​​forest​​without​​proper​​shelter,​​clothing,​​hygiene,​​or​​access​​to​
​regular​ ​food​ ​and​ ​medical​ ​care.​ ​His​ ​overall​​physical​​appearance,​​condition,​​manner​​of​
​living,​ ​and​​the​​circumstances​​in​​which​​he​​was​​found​​unmistakably​​reflected​​his​​social​
​vulnerability​​and​​tribal​​background.​​The​​accused​​were​​all​​persons​​residing​​in,​​or​​closely​
​associated​​with,​​the​​Attappadi​​tribal​​belt,​​an​​area​​where​​the​​tribal​​population​​forms​​a​
​distinct​​and​​identifiable​​community.​​Madhu​​was​​apprehended​​from​​the​​Aandiyallachaal​
​forest​ ​area,​ ​which​ ​was​ ​specifically​ ​identified​ ​throughout​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​as​ ​a​ ​tribal​
​settlement​​and​​forest​​region​​predominantly​​inhabited​​by​​members​​of​​Scheduled​​Tribes.​
​The​​evidence​​further​​shows​​that​​Madhu​​was​​not​​a​​stranger​​to​​the​​accused.​​In​​the​​earlier​
​theft​ ​case,​ ​A16​ ​had​ ​personally​ ​identified​ ​Madhu​ ​from​ ​CCTV​ ​visuals.​ ​A3,​ ​while​
​communicating​ ​with​ ​the​ ​police,​ ​specifically​ ​described​ ​Madhu​ ​as​ ​a​ ​person​ ​from​ ​the​
​“Aandiyallachaal​​forest,”​​thereby​​demonstrating​​prior​​familiarity​​with​​him​​and​​the​​area​
​from​ ​which​ ​he​ ​came.​ ​The​ ​prosecution​ ​has​ ​also​ ​brought​ ​on​ ​record​ ​the​ ​messages​
​circulated​ ​in​ ​the​ ​“Voice​ ​of​ ​Attappadi”​ ​WhatsApp​ ​group,​ ​through​ ​which​ ​visuals​ ​and​
​information​​relating​​to​​Madhu​​were​​widely​​shared​​among​​the​​accused​​and​​others.​​The​
​evidence​ ​additionally​ ​reveals​ ​that​ ​previous​ ​complaints​ ​had​ ​also​ ​been​ ​lodged​ ​against​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​160​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Madhu​ ​by​ ​persons​ ​in​ ​the​ ​locality.​ ​These​ ​circumstances​ ​clearly​ ​demonstrate​ ​that​ ​the​
​accused​​had​​specific​​and​​prior​​personal​​knowledge​​about​​Madhu,​​his​​background,​​and​
​his​​identity.​​On​​the​​strength​​of​​the​​statutory​​presumption​​under​​Section​​8​​of​​the​​Act,​
​coupled​ ​with​ ​the​ ​oral,​ ​documentary,​ ​and​ ​electronic​ ​evidence​ ​available​ ​on​​record,​​we​
​have​​no​​hesitation​​in​​holding​​that​​the​​accused​​persons,​​at​​the​​time​​of​​the​​commission​​of​
​the​​offences​​against​​Madhu,​​were​​fully​​aware​​that​​Madhu​​belonged​​to​​a​​Scheduled​​Tribe​
​community.​
​m.​ ​We​​shall​​also​​refer​​to​​Section​​3(1)​​(d),​​(r),​​3(2)​​(v)​​and​​3(2)​​(va)​​of​​the​​SC/ST​
​(PoA) Act.​
​Section 3 Punishments for offences of atrocities.--​
​(1)​ ​Whoever,​ ​not​ ​being​ ​a​ ​member​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Scheduled​ ​Caste​ ​or​ ​a​
​Scheduled Tribe,--​
​xxxxx​ ​xxxxx​ ​xxxx​
​(d)​ ​garlands​ ​with​ ​footwear​ ​or​ ​parades​ ​naked​ ​or​ ​semi-naked​ ​a​
​member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;​
​xxxx​ ​xxxxx​ ​xxxx​
​(r)​ ​intentionally​ ​insults​ ​or​ ​intimidates​​with​​intent​​to​​humiliate​​a​
​member​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Scheduled​ ​Caste​ ​or​ ​a​ ​Scheduled​​Tribe​​in​​any​
​place within public view;​
​xxxx​ ​xxxxx​ ​xxxx​
​(2)​ ​Whoever,​ ​not​ ​being​ ​a​ ​member​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Scheduled​ ​Caste​ ​or​ ​a​
​Scheduled Tribe,​
​xxxx​ ​xxxxx​ ​xxxx​
​(v)​ ​commits​ ​any​ ​offence​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Indian​ ​Penal​ ​Code​​(45​​of​
​1860)​ ​punishable​ ​with​ ​imprisonment​ ​for​ ​a​ ​term​ ​of​ ​a​ ​ten​
​years​ ​or​ ​more​ ​against​ ​a​ ​person​ ​or​​property​​knowing​​that​
​such​ ​person​ ​is​ ​a​ ​member​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Scheduled​ ​Caste​ ​or​ ​a​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​161​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Scheduled​​Tribe​​or​​such​​property​​belongs​​to​​such​​member,​
​shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;​
​(va)​ ​commits​ ​any​ ​offence​ ​specified​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Schedule,​ ​against​ ​a​
​person​​or​​property,​​knowing​​that​​such​​person​​is​​a​​member​
​of​​a​​Scheduled​​Caste​​or​​a​​Scheduled​​Tribe​​or​​such​​property​
​belongs​ ​to​ ​such​ ​member,​ ​shall​ ​be​ ​punishable​ ​with​ ​such​
​punishment​​as​​specified​​under​​the​​Indian​​Penal​​Code​​(45​​of​
​1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine.​
​n.​ ​It​​would​​be​​pertinent​​to​​mention​​that​​Section​​3(2)(v)​​was​​amended​​by​​the​
​Scheduled​​Castes​​and​​the​​Scheduled​​Tribes​​(Prevention​​of​​Atrocities)​​Amendment​​Act,​
​2015,​ ​which​ ​came​ ​into​ ​effect​ ​on​ ​26​ ​January​ ​2016.​ ​Prior​ ​to​ ​the​ ​amendment,​ ​the​
​provision had read as under:​
​3.​​Whoever,​​not​​being​​a​​member​​of​​a​​Scheduled​​Caste​​or​​Scheduled​
​Tribe,-​
​(v)​ ​commits​​any​​offence​​under​​the​​Penal​​Code,​​1860​​punishable​
​with​​imprisonment​​for​​a​​term​​of​​ten​​years​​or​​more​​against​​a​
​person​ ​or​ ​property​ ​on​ ​the​ ​ground​ ​that​ ​such​ ​person​ ​is​ ​a​
​member​​of​​a​​Scheduled​​Caste​​or​​a​​Scheduled​​Tribe​​or​​such​
​property​ ​belongs​ ​to​ ​such​​member​,​​shall​​be​​punishable​​with​
​imprisonment for life and with fine;​
​o.​ ​While​​interpreting​​the​​provision​​as​​it​​stood,​​the​​Apex​​Court​​in​ ​Patan​​Jamal​
​Vali​ ​(supra),​ ​following​ ​the​ ​law​ ​laid​ ​down​ ​in​ ​Dinesh​ ​Alias​ ​Buddha​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​Of​
​21​
​Rajasthan​ ​,​​held​​that​​the​​sine​​qua​​non​​for​​application​​of​​Section​​3(2)(v)​​is​​that​​an​
​offence​​must​​have​​been​​committed​​against​​a​​person​​on​​the​​ground​​that​​such​​person​​is​
​a​​member​​of​​Scheduled​​Castes​​and​​Scheduled​​Tribes.​ ​The​​Apex​​Court​​held​​that​​in​​the​
​said​​case,​​no​​evidence​​has​​been​​led​​by​​the​​prosecution​​to​​establish​​that​​the​​offence​​was​
​committed on the victim since she was a member of Scheduled Caste.​
​21​
​(2006) 3 SCC 771​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​162​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​p.​ ​By​ ​the​ ​amendment​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Scheduled​ ​Tribes​ ​(Prevention​ ​of​ ​Atrocities)​
​Amendment​​Act,​​2015,​​which​​came​​into​​effect​​on​​26​​January​​2016,​​the​​words​​“on​​the​
​ground​​of”​​under​​Section​​3(2)(v)​​have​​been​​substituted​​with​​“knowing​​that​​such​​person​
​is​​a​​member​​of​​a​​Scheduled​​Caste​​or​​Scheduled​​Tribe”.​​This​​has​​decreased​​the​​threshold​
​of​​proving​​that​​a​​crime​​was​​committed​​on​​the​​basis​​of​​the​​caste​​identity​​to​​a​​threshold​
​where​​mere​​knowledge​​is​​sufficient​​to​​sustain​​a​​conviction.​​Section​​8,​​which​​deals​​with​
​presumptions​​as​​to​​offences​​was​​also​​amended​​to​​include​​clause​​(c)​​to​​provide​​that​​if​
​the​​accused​​was​​acquainted​​with​​the​​victim​​or​​his​​family,​​the​​court​​shall​​presume​​that​
​the​ ​accused​ ​was​ ​aware​ ​of​ ​the​ ​caste​ ​or​ ​tribal​ ​identity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​victim​ ​unless​ ​proved​
​otherwise. (See:​ ​Patan Jamal Vali​ ​(supra))​
​q.​ ​We​​are​​of​​the​​view​​that​​in​​view​​of​​the​​overwhelming​​evidence​​let​​in​​by​​the​
​prosecution,​​the​​statutory​​presumption​​of​​knowledge​​of​​the​​victim's​​tribal​​identity​​should​
​have​​been​​triggered​​automatically​​and​​the​​burden​​would​​have​​shifted​​to​​the​​accused​​to​
​disprove​​that​​knowledge.​​Not​​one​​of​​the​​convicted​​accused​​offered​​any​​evidence,​​oral​​or​
​documentary,​​to​​establish​​that​​they​​did​​not​​know​​Madhu​​was​​a​​Scheduled​​Tribe​​member.​
​The​​presumption​​therefore​​stands​​unrebutted.​​The​​Sessions​​Court's​​refusal​​to​​apply​​it​​at​
​all​​is​​a​​fundamental​​legal​​error​​that​​vitiates​​the​​entire​​finding​​on​​Sections​​3(2)(v)​​and​
​3(2)(va).​​We​​are​​of​​the​​view​​that​​the​​said​​finding​​warrants​​interference​​in​​view​​of​​the​
​discussion above.​
​12.6.​ ​Motive: Whether established?​
​a.​ ​From​ ​the​ ​materials​ ​on​ ​record,​ ​it​ ​would​ ​be​ ​safe​ ​to​ ​conclude​​that​​the​
​motive​​behind​​the​​crime​​of​​22.02.2018​​did​​not​​arise​​suddenly​​or​​impulsively.​​It​​had​​been​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​163​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​building​​for​​months​​in​​the​​shops,​​lanes,​​and​​in​​the​​minds​​of​​the​​residents​​of​​Mukkali,​
​Kakkuppadi,​​and​​Kalkandi.​​Mukkali​​and​​its​​surrounding​​areas​​were​​facing​​a​​prolonged​
​series​ ​of​ ​thefts​ ​from​ ​local​ ​shops.​​The​​person​​responsible​​entered​​shops​​by​​removing​
​roof​​tiles.​​PW28​​(Mathachan),​​who​​ran​​a​​grocery​​shop​​at​​Kalkandi,​​deposed​​that​​theft​
​occurred​​at​​his​​shop​​and​​that​​rice,​​coffee​​powder,​​beedis,​​and​​other​​items​​were​​stolen.​
​PW29​​(Ummar),​​who​​ran​​a​​tea​​shop​​at​​Kakkuppadi,​​deposed​​that​​bakery​​items,​​sugar,​
​tea​​powder,​​and​​other​​goods​​were​​stolen​​from​​his​​shop​​repeatedly.​​PW30​​(Manoj),​​who​
​ran​​a​​shop​​at​​Mukkali,​​deposed​​that​​theft​​occurred​​on​​two​​separate​​occasions​​from​​his​
​establishment,​​with​​the​​thief​​entering​​through​​the​​roof​​tiles.​​PW31​​(Latheef),​​who​​ran​​a​
​shop​ ​at​ ​Mukkali​ ​junction​ ​for​ ​fourteen​ ​years,​ ​deposed​​that​​in​​the​​theft​​from​​his​​shop​
​Rs.10,000/-​​in​​cash,​​along​​with​​cigarettes,​​plates,​​and​​torch​​lights,​​were​​stolen​​and​​that​
​he​ ​had​ ​formally​ ​registered​ ​a​ ​complaint​ ​with​ ​the​ ​police.​ ​However,​​the​​thief,​​who​​was​
​none​​other​​than​​Madhu,​​and​​who​​lived​​in​​the​​Aandiyallachaal​​reserved​​forest,​​was​​not​
​easily​​found​​by​​conventional​​police​​methods.​​PW91​​(S.I.,​​Subin),​​who​​investigated​​the​
​formal​​theft​​case​​Cr.No.524​​of​​2016​​registered​​against​​Madhu​​under​​Sections​​457,​​380,​
​and​​461of​​the​​IPC​​for​​housebreaking​​and​​theft​​from​​the​​very​​shop​​of​​PW31,​​had​​filed​​a​
​final​​report​​(Ext.​​P89)​​in​​that​​case​​but​​admitted​​before​​the​​court​​that​​the​​police​​could​
​not​​find​​Madhu​​as​​he​​was​​allegedly​​absconding.​​He​​had​​been​​in​​search​​of​​Madhu​​for​​his​
​involvement​​in​​the​​theft​​case,​​but​​Madhu​​remained​​elusive​​in​​the​​forest.​​In​ ​Ext.P143(a)​
​WhatsApp​ ​screenshot,​ ​which​ ​contains​ ​a​ ​picture​ ​of​ ​Madhu,​ ​states​ ​that​ ​the​ ​person​
​apprehended​​is​​involved​​in​​more​​than​​300​​theft​​cases.​​The​​accused​​were​​not​​random​
​strangers​​who​​stumbled​​upon​​Madhu​​in​​the​​forest.​​They​​were​​men​​who​​had​​a​​specific,​
​documented,​ ​longstanding​ ​grievance​ ​against​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​person.​ ​PW2​ ​deposed​ ​that​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​164​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Madhu​​himself​​told​​him​​at​​Mukkali​​junction​​that​​Madhu​​had​​committed​​theft​​from​​the​
​shop​​of​​Hareesh​​(A14).​​Madhu,​​a​​mentally​​ill​​man​​who​​had​​just​​been​​subjected​​to​​hours​
​of​ ​violence,​ ​apparently​ ​acknowledged​ ​the​ ​thefts​ ​to​ ​the​ ​bystanders​ ​around​ ​him​ ​at​
​Mukkali.​​Whether​​this​​was​​a​​voluntary​​admission​​or​​the​​statement​​of​​a​​broken​​man​​who​
​had​​been​​conditioned​​by​​the​​assault​​into​​repeating​​whatever​​his​​tormentors​​demanded​
​of​​him​​is​​not​​established.​​This​​reflects​​the​​extent​​to​​which​​the​​theft​​narrative​​had​​been​
​woven​ ​into​​the​​entire​​episode​​as​​its​​organising​​logic.​​The​​accused,​​it​​must​​be​​clearly​
​stated,​​were​​not​​enforcing​​the​​law.​​What​​the​​accused​​chose​​to​​do​​instead​​was​​to​​take​
​the​​law​​entirely​​into​​their​​own​​hands.​​They​​went​​inside​​the​​forest,​​apprehended​​Madhu​
​through​​force,​​inflicting​​injuries​​upon​​him,​​and​​used​​the​​handover​​to​​police​​as​​a​​ritual​​of​
​public​ ​humiliation​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​a​ ​legal​ ​act.​ ​We​ ​are​ ​therefore​ ​of​ ​the​ ​view​ ​that​ ​the​
​prosecution has established the motive beyond any reasonable doubt.​
​12.7.​ ​Admissibility of Electronic Evidence:​
​a.​ ​This​​case​​presents​​a​​challenge​​that​​strikes​​at​​the​​very​​foundation​​of​​the​
​criminal​​justice​​process.​​It​​must​​be​​noted​​at​​the​​outset​​that​​the​​events​​of​​22.02.2018​
​did​​not​​take​​place​​in​​the​​middle​​of​​the​​night​​or​​indoors.​​They​​unfolded​​in​​broad​​daylight,​
​on​​a​​public​​road​​at​​a​​busy​​commercial​​junction,​​in​​the​​presence​​of​​numerous​​witnesses,​
​and​ ​were​ ​recorded​ ​simultaneously​ ​from​ ​multiple​ ​angles​ ​by​ ​multiple​ ​devices.​ ​The​
​perpetrators​​themselves​​filmed​​the​​incident.​​CCTV​​cameras​​at​​Mukkali​​junction,​​at​​the​
​Ponniyammal​ ​Gurukulam​ ​and​ ​at​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​station​ ​captured​ ​portions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​incident.​
​Several​ ​mobile​ ​phones​ ​documented​ ​it.​ ​At​ ​the​ ​time​​of​​the​​incident,​​the​​evidence​​was​
​overwhelming​ ​in​ ​both​ ​scope​ ​and​ ​detail.​ ​However,​ ​when​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​began,​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​165​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​witnesses—including​ ​some​ ​close​ ​relatives​ ​of​ ​Madhu—chose​ ​to​ ​turn​ ​away.​ ​PW2,​ ​who​
​viewed​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​in​​open​​court​​and​​identified​​the​​accused​​by​​name,​​declined​​to​
​speak​​about​​the​​overt​​acts​​he​​or​​she​​had​​allegedly​​witnessed.​​PW3,​​PW4,​​PW5,​​PW6,​
​and​​PW7,​​all​​present​​at​​or​​near​​the​​scene,​​retracted​​their​​earlier​​statements​​or​​claimed​
​ignorance.​ ​PW9,​ ​PW20,​ ​PW26,​ ​and​ ​PW63​ ​did​ ​the​ ​same.​ ​Forest​ ​officials,​ ​shop​
​employees,​ ​roadside​ ​eyewitnesses,​ ​and​ ​others​ ​who​ ​had​ ​given​ ​detailed​ ​Section​ ​161​
​statements​​narrating​​the​​incident​​also​​turned​​hostile.​​This​​was​​not​​an​​isolated​​instance​
​of a single witness recanting under pressure.​
​b.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​face​ ​of​ ​such​ ​widespread​ ​hostility,​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​sought​ ​to​
​establish​ ​its​ ​case​ ​through​ ​the​ ​convergence​​of​​four​​independent​​streams​​of​​electronic​
​and​ ​digital​ ​evidence:​ ​CCTV​ ​footage,​ ​mobile​ ​phone​ ​videos​​and​​photographs,​​call​​data​
​records/telephonic evidence, and GPS metadata.​
​c.​ ​Three​ ​separate​ ​CCTV​ ​systems,​ ​installed​ ​at​​different​​locations​​with​​no​
​connection​ ​to​ ​each​ ​other​ ​or​ ​to​ ​the​ ​accused,​ ​independently​ ​captured​ ​the​ ​events​ ​of​
​22.02.2018.​​The​​Anavai​​Forest​​Station​​CCTV​​(Q1)​​recorded​​the​​Marshal​​Jeep​​proceeding​
​toward​​Vandikkadavu​​at​​12:51:51​​pm,​​and​​later,​​at​​14:46:50​​pm,​​captured​​the​​accused​
​bringing​ ​Madhu​ ​back​ ​toward​ ​the​ ​Silent​ ​Valley–Mukkali​ ​road.​ ​The​ ​Ponniyammal​
​Gurukulam​​CCTV​​(Q3)​​recorded​​the​​gathering​​of​​the​​accused​​at​​Mukkali​​at​​12:41:15​​pm​
​and,​​separately,​​at​​14:56:47​​pm,​​showed​​the​​group​​returning​​with​​a​​frail​​man​​in​​their​
​custody,​ ​carrying​ ​a​ ​sack​ ​on​ ​his​ ​shoulder.​ ​The​ ​Sreerag​ ​Bakery​ ​CCTV​ ​(Q2),​ ​which​
​belonged​​to​​accused​​Accused​​No.14​​(Hareesh),​​recorded​​the​​events​​at​​Mukkali​​junction​
​from​​two​​camera​​angles​​at​​the​​same​​time,​​clearly​​establishing​​who​​was​​present,​​what​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​166​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​they​ ​were​ ​doing,​ ​and​ ​when.​ ​These​ ​three​ ​independent​ ​systems​ ​together​ ​created​ ​a​
​continuous​ ​visual​ ​timeline​ ​from​ ​12:30​ ​pm​ ​to​ ​4:00​ ​pm.​ ​This​ ​timeline​ ​is​ ​internally​
​consistent, chronologically coherent, and corroborated at each stage by other evidence.​
​d.​ ​The​ ​DVRs​ ​were​ ​seized—Sreerag​ ​Bakery​ ​DVR​ ​under​ ​Ext.P120​ ​seizure​
​mahazar​ ​dated​ ​26.02.2018;​ ​Ponniyammal​ ​Gurukulam​ ​DVR​ ​under​ ​Ext.P31​ ​dated​
​02.03.2018;​ ​Aanavai​ ​Forest​ ​Station​ ​DVR​ ​under​ ​Ext.​ ​P44​ ​dated​ ​01.03.2018​ ​—​ ​and​
​forwarded,​​along​​with​​the​​original​​hardware,​​to​​the​​State​​Forensic​​Science​​Laboratory,​
​Thiruvananthapuram.​ ​Bit-stream​ ​duplicates​ ​were​ ​created​ ​on​ ​three​ ​sterile​ ​hard​ ​disks​
​using​ ​certified​ ​forensic​ ​write-blockers​ ​(TABLEAU,​ ​Logicube-Falcon)​ ​by​ ​PW95​​(Shaji​​P.,​
​Assistant​​Director,​​Documents​​Division,​​SFSL).​​His​​report,​​Ext.P92​​(Report​​No.DD-158/18​
​dated​ ​05.05.2018),​ ​was​ ​proved​ ​as​ ​a​ ​report​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Government​ ​Scientific​​Expert​​under​
​Section​ ​293​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Cr.P.C.​ ​The​ ​original​ ​DVRs,​ ​which​ ​could​ ​not​ ​be​ ​read​ ​on​ ​standard​
​Windows​​systems,​​were​​played​​in​​court​​using​​their​​native​​hardware.​​The​​65B​​certificate​
​[Ext.P92(b)]​ ​was​ ​produced.​ ​The​ ​integrity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​extraction​ ​process​ ​was​ ​affirmatively​
​established.​​There​​is​​no​​material​​before​​this​​Court​​to​​suggest​​any​​tampering​​with​​these​
​electronic records.​
​e.​ ​The​ ​accused​ ​themselves​ ​generated​ ​some​ ​of​ ​the​ ​most​ ​incriminating​
​evidence.​ ​Six​ ​mobile​ ​phones​ ​were​ ​seized​ ​—​ ​MO27​ ​(A7/Sidhique,​ ​Q8),​ ​MO27(a)​
​(A5/Radhakrishnan,​​Q6),​​MO27(b)​​(A9/Najeeb,​​Q7),​​MO27(c)​​(A8/Ubaid,​​Q5),​​MO27(d)​
​(A4/Aneesh,​​Q4),​​and​​MO25​​(A14/Hareesh,​​Q9).​​These​​devices​​contained​​photographs​
​and​​videos​​of​​the​​incident,​​recorded​​in​​real​​time​​from​​within​​the​​group.​​They​​captured​
​Madhu​ ​being​ ​assaulted,​ ​restrained,​ ​marched,​ ​paraded,​​and​​humiliated.​​Among​​these,​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​167​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​the​​Q7​​file​​(VID-20180222-WA0034),​​a​​5-minute​​and​​38-second​​video​​from​​A9’s​​phone,​
​stands​​out​​as​​the​​most​​critical​​piece​​of​​evidence.​​It​​documents​​the​​forest-stage​​assault​
​in​ ​its​ ​entirety,​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​surrounding​ ​Madhu,​ ​placing​ ​the​ ​sack​ ​on​ ​his​ ​shoulders,​
​initiating​ ​the​ ​march,​ ​and​ ​continuing​ ​with​ ​the​ ​assault.​ ​The​ ​video​ ​was​ ​recorded​ ​from​
​within​ ​the​ ​group,​ ​and​ ​those​ ​visible​ ​in​ ​it​ ​are​ ​the​​accused​​themselves.​​No​​one​​else​​is​
​present.​​PW95’s​​forensic​​analysis,​​cross-referenced​​with​​the​​S-series​​photographs​​of​​the​
​accused,​​identified​​with​​precision​​which​​individuals​​appeared​​in​​each​​file,​​at​​what​​time,​
​and engaging in which acts.​
​f.​ ​One​ ​of​ ​the​ ​principal​​contentions​​advanced​​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​​for​
​the​​accused​​is​​that​​the​​electronic​​and​​digital​​evidence​​relied​​upon​​by​​the​​prosecution​​is​
​inadmissible​​on​​the​​ground​​that​​the​​examination​​was​​not​​conducted​​by​​an​​Examiner​​of​
​Electronic​​Evidence​​notified​​under​​Section​​79A​​of​​the​​Information​​Technology​​Act,​​2000.​
​It​ ​was​ ​further​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​the​ ​State​ ​FSL,​ ​Thiruvananthapuram​ ​obtained​
​notification/accreditation​​as​​an​​Examiner​​of​​Electronic​​Evidence​​only​​subsequently​​and,​
​therefore,​​the​​reports​​issued​​in​​the​​present​​case​​cannot​​be​​acted​​upon.​​Before​​dealing​
​with the said contention, it would be apposite to refer to the provisions.​
:-​
​(i) Section 79A of the Information Technology Act 2000, reads as under​
​"79A.​ ​Central​ ​Government​ ​to​ ​notify​ ​Examiner​ ​of​ ​Electronic​
​Evidence.-The​​Central​​Government​​may,​​for​​the​​purposes​​of​​providing​
​expert​ ​opinion​​on​​electronic​​form​​evidence​​before​​any​​court​​or​​other​
​authority​ ​specify,​ ​by​ ​notification​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Official​ ​Gazette,​ ​any​
​Department,​ ​body​ ​or​ ​agency​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Central​ ​Government​ ​or​ ​a​ ​State​
​Government as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​168​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​(ii)​ ​It​ ​would​ ​also​ ​be​ ​apposite​ ​to​ ​refer​​to​​the​​relevant​​provisions​​of​​the​​Indian​
​Evidence Act.​
​"45.​ ​Opinions​ ​of​ ​experts.—When​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​has​ ​to​ ​form​ ​an​
​opinion​​upon​​a​​point​​of​​foreign​​law​​or​​of​​science​​or​​art,​​or​​as​​to​​identity​
​of​​handwriting​​35​​[or​​finger​​impressions],​​the​​opinions​​upon​​that​​point​
​of​ ​persons​ ​specially​ ​skilled​ ​in​ ​such​ ​foreign​ ​law,​ ​science​​or​​art,​​or​​in​
​questions​ ​as​ ​to​ ​identity​ ​of​ ​handwriting​ ​or​ ​finger​ ​impressions​ ​are​
​relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.​
​"45A.​​Opinion​​of​​Examiner​​of​​Electronic​​Evidence.​​—When​​in​​a​
​proceeding,​​the​​court​​has​​to​​form​​an​​opinion​​on​​any​​matter​​relating​​to​
​any​​information​​transmitted​​or​​stored​​in​​any​​computer​​resource​​or​​any​
​other​ ​electronic​ ​or​ ​digital​ ​form,​ ​the​ ​opinion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Examiner​ ​of​
​Electronic​ ​Evidence​ ​referred​ ​to​ ​in​ ​section​ ​79A​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Information​
​Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) is a relevant fact.​
​(iii)​ ​Section​​136​​of​​the​​Indian​​Evidence​​Act,​​which​​gives​​power​​to​​the​​court​​to​
​decide as to admissibility of the evidence, reads as under:-​
​"136. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.—​
​When​ ​either​ ​party​ ​proposes​ ​to​ ​give​ ​evidence​​of​​any​​fact,​​the​​Judge​
​may​​ask​​the​​party​​proposing​​to​​give​​the​​evidence​​in​​what​​manner​​the​
​alleged​​fact,​​if​​proved,​​would​​be​​relevant;​​and​​the​​Judge​​shall​​admit​​the​
​evidence​​if​​he​​thinks​​that​​the​​fact,​​if​​proved,​​would​​be​​relevant,​​and​​not​
​otherwise.​
​If​​the​​fact​​proposed​​to​​be​​proved​​is​​one​​of​​which​​evidence​​is​​admissible​
​only​​upon​​proof​​of​​some​​other​​fact,​​such​​last-mentioned​​fact​​must​​be​
​proved​​before​​evidence​​is​​given​​of​​the​​fact​​first​​mentioned,​​unless​​the​
​party​​undertakes​​to​​give​​proof​​of​​such​​fact,​​and​​the​​Court​​is​​satisfied​
​with such undertaking.​
​If​​the​​relevancy​​of​​one​​alleged​​fact​​depends​​upon​​another​​alleged​​fact​
​being​ ​first​ ​proved,​ ​the​ ​Judge​ ​may,​ ​in​ ​his​ ​discretion,​ ​either​ ​permit​
​evidence​​of​​the​​first​​fact​​to​​be​​given​​before​​the​​second​​fact​​is​​proved,​
​or​​require​​evidence​​to​​be​​given​​of​​the​​second​​fact​​before​​evidence​​is​
​given of the first fact."​
​(iv)​ ​Section​​293​​of​​the​​Code​​of​​Criminal​​Procedure​​provides​​that​​any​​document​
​purporting​​to​​be​​a​​report​​under​​the​​hand​​of​​a​​Government​​Scientific​​Expert​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​169​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​in​​respect​​of​​any​​matter​​or​​thing​​submitted​​for​​its​​examination​​or​​analysis​
​may​​be​​used​​as​​evidence​​and​​the​​court​​may​​summon​​or​​examine​​any​​such​
​expert​​as​​to​​the​​subject​​matter​​of​​his​​report.​ ​Section​​293​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C.​​is​
​quoted below:-​
​"293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts.—​
​(1)​ ​Any​ ​document​ ​purporting​ ​to​ ​be​ ​a​ ​report​ ​under​​the​​hand​​of​​a​
​Government​​scientific​​expert​​to​​whom​​this​​section​​applies,​​upon​
​any​ ​matter​ ​or​ ​thing​ ​duly​ ​submitted​ ​to​ ​him​​for​​examination​​or​
​analysis​ ​and​​report​​in​​the​​course​​of​​any​​proceeding​​under​​this​
​Code,​ ​may​ ​be​ ​used​ ​as​ ​evidence​ ​in​ ​any​ ​inquiry,​ ​trial​ ​or​ ​other​
​proceeding under this Code.​
​(2)​ ​The​ ​Court​​may,​​if​​it​​thinks​​fit,​​summon​​and​​examine​​any​​such​
​expert as to the subject-matter of his report.​
​(3)​ ​Where​ ​any​ ​such​ ​expert​ ​is​ ​summoned​ ​by​ ​a​ ​Court,​ ​and​ ​he​ ​is​
​unable​ ​to​ ​attend​ ​personally,​ ​he​ ​may,​ ​unless​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​has​
​expressly​ ​directed​ ​him​ ​to​ ​appear​ ​personally,​ ​depute​ ​any​
​responsible​​officer​​working​​with​​him​​to​​attend​​the​​Court,​​if​​such​
​officer​ ​is​ ​conversant​ ​with​ ​the​ ​facts​ ​of​ ​the​ ​case​ ​and​ ​can​
​satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf.​
​(4)​ ​This​ ​section​ ​applies​ ​to​ ​the​ ​following​ ​Government​ ​scientific​
​experts,​ ​namely:—(a)​ ​any​ ​Chemical​ ​Examiner​ ​or​ ​Assistant​
​Chemical​ ​Examiner​ ​to​ ​Government;​ ​(b)​ ​the​ ​Chief​​Controller​​of​
​Explosives;​ ​(c)​​the​​Director​​of​​the​​Finger​​Print​​Bureau;​​(d)​​the​
​Director,​​Haffkeine​​Institute,​​Bombay;​​(e)​​the​​Director​​,​​Deputy​
​Director​ ​or​ ​Assistant​ ​Director​ ​of​ ​a​ ​Central​ ​Forensic​ ​Science​
​Laboratory​ ​or​ ​a​ ​State​ ​Forensic​ ​Science​ ​Laboratory;​ ​(f)​ ​the​
​Serologist​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Government;​ ​(g)​ ​any​ ​other​ ​Government​
​scientific​ ​expert​ ​specified,​ ​by​ ​notification,​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Central​
​Government for this purpose.​
​(v)​ ​Section​​79A​​of​​the​​Information​​Technology​​Act​​merely​​empowers​​the​​Central​
​Government​ ​to​ ​notify​ ​a​ ​department,​ ​body,​ ​or​ ​agency​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Central​
​Government​ ​or​​State​​Government​​as​​an​​“Examiner​​of​​Electronic​​Evidence”​
​for​ ​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​rendering​ ​expert​ ​opinion​​relating​​to​​electronic​​records.​
​Correspondingly,​​Section​​45A​​of​​the​​Indian​​Evidence​​Act​​provides​​that​​when​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​170​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​the​​Court​​has​​to​​form​​an​​opinion​​on​​matters​​relating​​to​​electronic​​or​​digital​
​evidence,​ ​the​ ​opinion​ ​of​ ​such​ ​notified​ ​Examiner​ ​of​ ​Electronic​ ​Evidence​
​becomes​​a​​relevant​​fact.​​The​​provision​​only​​creates​​an​​additional​​statutory​
​mechanism​ ​for​ ​obtaining​ ​expert​ ​opinion​ ​in​ ​relation​​to​​electronic​​evidence.​
​However,​​neither​​Section​​79A​​of​​the​​Information​​Technology​​Act​​nor​​Section​
​45A​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Indian​ ​Evidence​ ​Act​ ​lays​ ​down​ ​that,​ ​in​ ​the​ ​absence​ ​of​ ​such​
​notification,​​the​​opinion​​of​​a​​qualified​​scientific​​expert​​or​​the​​report​​issued​​by​
​a​​Government​​forensic​​laboratory​​becomes​​inadmissible​​in​​evidence.​​No​​such​
​exclusionary​ ​bar​ ​is​ ​contemplated​ ​either​ ​under​​the​​Information​​Technology​
​Act​ ​or​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Evidence​ ​Act.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​absence​ ​of​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​statutory​
​prohibition,​​the​​Court​​cannot​​read​​into​​Section​​79A​​a​​consequence​​that​​has​
​not been expressly provided by the legislature.​
​(vi)​ ​Section​ ​293​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Code​​of​​Criminal​​Procedure​​independently​​governs​​the​
​admissibility​​and​​evidentiary​​use​​of​​reports​​issued​​by​​Government​​Scientific​
​Experts.​ ​The​ ​provision​ ​specifically​ ​recognises​ ​reports​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​Directors,​
​Deputy​ ​Directors,​ ​and​ ​Assistant​ ​Directors​ ​of​ ​Central​ ​and​ ​State​ ​Forensic​
​Science​​Laboratories​​as​​admissible​​evidence​​in​​criminal​​proceedings.​​Section​
​293​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Cr.P.C.​ ​does​ ​not​ ​make​ ​such​ ​admissibility​ ​conditional​ ​upon​ ​a​
​notification​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​79A​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Information​​Technology​​Act.​ ​In​​the​
​case​ ​on​ ​hand,​ ​the​ ​report​ ​has​ ​been​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​an​ ​authority​​competent​
​under​​Section​​293​​of​​the​ ​Cr.P.C.,​​namely​​the​​Director,​​State​​Forensic​​Science​
​Laboratory.​​Section​​293​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C.​​specifically​​recognises​​such​​reports​​as​
​admissible​​evidence​​in​​criminal​​proceedings.​​When​​read​​along​​with​​Section​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​171​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​136​​of​​the​​Indian​​Evidence​​Act,​​which​​empowers​​the​​Court​​to​​determine​​the​
​relevancy​ ​and​ ​admissibility​ ​of​ ​evidence,​ ​the​ ​report​ ​clearly​ ​becomes​ ​a​
​relevant​​and​​admissible​​piece​​of​​evidence.​​Once​​the​​Court​​is​​satisfied​​that​
​the​ ​evidence​ ​is​ ​relevant​ ​and​ ​has​ ​been​ ​produced​ ​through​ ​a​ ​competent​
​scientific​ ​expert,​ ​its​​admissibility​​cannot​​be​​rejected​​merely​​on​​the​​ground​
​that​ ​the​ ​laboratory​ ​had​​not​​been​​separately​​notified​​under​​Section​​79A​​of​
​the​​Information​​Technology​​Act.​​It​​is​​also​​relevant​​to​​note​​that​​the​​experts​
​concerned​ ​were​ ​examined​ ​before​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​and​ ​were​ ​subjected​ ​to​
​cross-examination​ ​by​ ​the​ ​defence.​ ​Their​ ​qualifications,​ ​methodology,​
​examination​ ​process,​ ​and​ ​findings​ ​were​ ​all​​placed​​before​​the​​Court.​​Once​
​such​ ​expert​ ​evidence​ ​is​ ​admitted​ ​and​ ​tested​​through​​judicial​​scrutiny,​​the​
​opinion​​ultimately​​becomes​​part​​of​​the​​evidentiary​​assessment​​of​​the​​Court​
​itself.​ ​We​​therefore​​hold​​that​​the​​absence​​of​​notification​​under​​Section​​79A​
​of​​the​​Information​​Technology​​Act​​does​​not​​render​​the​​electronic​​and​​digital​
​evidence​ ​inadmissible,​ ​nor​ ​does​ ​it​ ​vitiate​ ​the​ ​reports​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​State​
​Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram.​
​g.​ ​The​ ​CDR​​evidence​​(Ext.P42​​series),​​proved​​through​​PW98​​and​​PW99,​
​establishes​​the​​sequence​​of​​events​​leading​​up​​to​​the​​incident.​​Accused​​No.2​​(Marakkar)​
​called​ ​Accused​ ​No.9​ ​(Najeeb)​ ​three​ ​times​ ​between​ ​12:17​ ​pm​ ​and​ ​12:22​ ​p.m.​ ​on​
​22.02.2018,​ ​immediately​ ​after​ ​learning​ ​from​ ​PW11​ ​(Kakki)​ ​that​ ​Madhu​ ​was​ ​at​
​Aandiyallachaal.​​Within​​minutes,​​Accused​​No.9​​had​​gathered​​the​​group,​​and​​the​​Marshal​
​Jeep​ ​began​ ​moving​ ​toward​ ​Vandikkadavu.​ ​The​ ​records​ ​confirm​​that​​these​​calls​​were​
​made​ ​and​ ​received,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​the​ ​group​​assembled​​immediately​​thereafter.​​They​​also​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​172​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​reveal​ ​continued​ ​contact​ ​between​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​and​ ​prosecution​ ​witnesses​ ​during​​the​
​trial, demonstrating interference.​
​h.​ ​A3’s​​two​​calls​​to​​PW91​​(S.I.,​​Subin)—one​​informing​​him​​that​​Madhu​​had​
​been​ ​found​ ​and​ ​was​ ​being​ ​brought,​ ​and​ ​another​ ​confirming​ ​his​ ​arrival​ ​at​
​Mukkali—further​ ​support​ ​the​ ​timeline​ ​and​ ​establish​ ​A3’s​ ​coordinating​ ​role.​ ​PW91’s​
​testimony on this point remained unshaken. The calls are confirmed by the records.​
​i.​ ​The​ ​EXIF​ ​data​ ​embedded​ ​in​ ​photographs​ ​taken​ ​from​ ​A5’s​ ​phone​
​(MO27(a)​ ​/Q6),​ ​particularly​ ​the​ ​file​ ​IMG20180222130057​ ​taken​ ​at​ ​1:00​ ​pm,​​includes​
​GPS​ ​coordinates​ ​(latitude​ ​11.079782,​ ​longitude​ ​76.536017).​ ​PW95​ ​verified​ ​these​
​coordinates​ ​using​ ​Google​ ​Maps​ ​and​ ​confirmed​ ​that​ ​they​ ​correspond​ ​to​ ​the​
​Aandiyallachaal​​reserved​​forest​​area—the​​exact​​location​​where​​the​​prosecution​​alleges​
​the​ ​assault​ ​occurred.​ ​This​ ​metadata​ ​provides​ ​independent,​ ​machine-generated​
​confirmation​​of​​A5’s​​presence​​at​​that​​location​​at​​the​​relevant​​time,​​without​​the​​need​​for​
​witness testimony.​
​j.​ ​One​ ​of​ ​the​ ​main​ ​contentions​ ​advanced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​defence​ ​is​ ​that​ ​the​
​reliance​​of​​the​​prosecution​​on​​CCTV​​and​​mobile​​evidence​​will​​not​​advance​​its​​case​​when​
​none​​of​​the​​prosecution​​witnesses​​identified​​the​​accused​​with​​precision​​and​​spoke​​about​
​their​​presence​​or​​involvement.​ ​According​​to​​the​​defence,​​digital​​footage​​may​​establish​
​that​ ​some​ ​of​ ​the​ ​events​ ​have​ ​occurred,​ ​but​ ​will​ ​not​ ​by​ ​itself​​identify​​the​​individuals​
​involved.​
​k.​ ​Having​​carefully​​considered​​the​​materials​​on​​record,​​we​​are​​of​​the​​view​
​that​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​has​ ​managed​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​the​ ​link​ ​through​ ​three​ ​independent​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​173​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​evidentiary​​steps.​​The​​first​​link​​is​​through​​PW38,​​a​​photographer​​who​​took​​photographs​
​of​ ​each​ ​accused​ ​after​ ​their​ ​arrest​ ​at​ ​Lamiya​ ​Studio.​ ​These​ ​became​ ​the​ ​S-series​
​photographs—S1​ ​concerning​ ​Madhu​ ​till​ ​S17​ ​dealing​ ​with​ ​each​ ​of​​the​​accused.​​PW38​
​proved​ ​Ext.P30​ ​series,​ ​including​ ​both​ ​the​ ​printed​ ​photographs​ ​and​ ​the​​compact​​disk​
​containing​​them,​​along​​with​​the​​65B​​certificate.​​He​​confirmed​​that​​he​​personally​​took​​all​
​the​ ​photographs​ ​and​ ​prepared​ ​the​ ​accompanying​ ​materials.​ ​Despite​ ​rigorous​
​cross-examination,​ ​his​ ​testimony​ ​remained​ ​intact.​ ​These​ ​photographs​ ​serve​ ​as​ ​the​
​reference​ ​standard​ ​and​ ​would​ ​establish​ ​that​ ​the​ ​person​ ​shown​ ​in​ ​the​ ​reference​
​photograph​ ​is​ ​the​ ​concerned​ ​accused.​ ​The​ ​second​ ​link​ ​is​ ​the​ ​forensic​ ​comparison​
​conducted​​by​​PW95.​​He​​extracted​​relevant​​content​​from​​all​​seized​​devices​​which​​include​
​CCTV​ ​footage,​ ​mobile​ ​phone​ ​videos​ ​and​ ​photographs​ ​and​ ​then​ ​compared​ ​the​ ​faces​
​visible​ ​in​ ​that​ ​content​ ​with​ ​the​​S-series​​photographs,​​and​​identified​​which​​individuals​
​appeared​ ​in​ ​each​ ​file​ ​and​​at​​what​​time.​​His​​findings,​​detailed​​in​​Ext.P92,​​established​
​specific​​identifications​​across​​multiple​​recordings.​​The​​third​​link​​is​​the​​testimony​​of​​PW2​
​(Unnikrishnan),​​a​​local​​resident​​who​​had​​known​​the​​accused​​for​​several​​years​​prior​​to​
​the​​incident.​​When​​shown​​the​​CCTV​​footage​​in​​court,​​he​​identified​​all​​the​​accused​​visible​
​in​ ​the​ ​footage​ ​by​ ​name,​ ​except​ ​Accused​ ​No.12.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​identified​ ​them​ ​in​ ​court.​
​Although​​he​​did​​not​​testify​​regarding​​Accused​​No.1​​stamping​​Madhu,​​his​​identification​​of​
​the​ ​accused​ ​remained​ ​consistent​ ​and​ ​unchallenged.​ ​PW2’s​ ​identification​ ​carries​
​significant​ ​weight.​ ​His​ ​identification​ ​is​ ​not​ ​that​ ​of​ ​a​ ​stranger​ ​but​ ​of​ ​a​ ​local​ ​resident​
​recognising​ ​individuals​ ​he​ ​already​ ​knew.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​grounded​ ​in​ ​familiarity​ ​and​ ​personal​
​knowledge.​ ​In​ ​addition​ ​to​ ​these​ ​three​ ​links,​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​court​ ​undertook​ ​its​ ​own​ ​visual​
​assessment.​​By​​viewing​​the​​footage​​and​​comparing​​it​​with​​the​​accused​​present​​in​​court,​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​174​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​it​​performed​​its​​judicial​​function​​of​​evaluating​​the​​evidence​​before​​it.​​This​​was​​not​​an​​act​
​of​​expert​​analysis​​but​​a​​direct​​observation​​that​​served​​to​​confirm​​the​​consistency​​of​​the​
​other​​evidence.​​Taken​​together,​​these​​four​​layers—PW38’s​​photographs,​​PW95’s​​forensic​
​comparison,​​PW2’s​​identification,​​and​​the​​court’s​​own​​observation—form​​a​​coherent​​and​
​mutually​​reinforcing​​framework.​​They​​lead​​to​​a​​single​​conclusion:​​the​​individuals​​seen​​in​
​the​​footage​​are​​the​​accused​​before​​the​​court.​​This​​conclusion​​does​​not​​depend​​on​​any​
​single​ ​piece​ ​of​ ​evidence​ ​but​ ​arises​ ​from​ ​the​ ​convergence​ ​of​ ​multiple​ ​independent​
​sources, making any alternative explanation untenable.​
​22​
​l.​ ​In​ ​Kailas​​v.​​State​​of​​Maharashtra​ ​,​​the​​accused​​was​​prosecuted​​for​
​offences​ ​under​ ​Sections​ ​8(c)​ ​and​ ​20(b)(ii)(C)​​of​​the​​Narcotic​​Drugs​​and​​Psychotropic​
​Substances​​Act,​​1985​​(NDPS​​Act).​​A​​police​​raid​​on​​23.09.2020​​allegedly​​yielded​​39​​kg​​of​
​Ganja​​from​​a​​hut​​where​​the​​appellant​​and​​one​​co-accused​​were​​present,​​and​​a​​further​
​107.9​​kg​​from​​the​​residence​​of​​another​​accused.​​In​​its​​judgment,​​the​​Trial​​Court,​​inter​
​alia,​​relied​​on​​the​​video​​recording​​of​​the​​raid​​to​​corroborate​​the​​substantive​​evidence​​led​
​during trial. The Trial Court in its judgment observed as under:​
​43.​​All​​of​​us​​saw​​when​​the​​said​​CD​​was​​played​​in​​this​​court​​that​
​the​​panch​​witnesses,​​police​​officers,​​staff​​members,​​the​​weighing​​scale​
​operator,​ ​sub-divisional​ ​officer,​ ​both​​the​​accused​​No.​​1,​​Kailas,​​No.​​2​
​Raju​​could​​be​​seen​​in​​the​​video​​film​​(i.e.,​​in​​the​​video​​shooting​​in​​the​
​CD) in the compact disc marked as property No. 27.​
​44.​​There​​is​​no​​reason​​whatsoever​​to​​take​​any​​doubt​​regarding​
​the​​veracity​​of​​the​​video​​film​​in​​the​​said​​property​​No.​​27.​​There​​is​​no​
​place​​whatsoever​​to​​raise​​any​​doubt​​regarding​​the​​reliability​​of​​Santosh​
​No.​​2​​doing​​the​​video​​shooting.​​There​​is​​also​​no​​reason​​whatsoever​​to​
​raise​​any​​doubts​​regarding​​this​​certificate​​exhibit​​No.​​32​​issued​​as​​per​
​section​​65-B​​(4)​​of​​the​​Indian​​Evidence​​Act,​​1872.​​No​​one​​has​​raised​
​any​​dispute​​whatsoever​​in​​the​​recognition​​or​​identification​​of​​the​​panch​
​witnesses,​ ​police​ ​officials,​ ​staff​ ​members,​ ​accused​ ​seen​ ​in​ ​the​ ​said​
​video hence all these facts stand proven.​
​22​
​[2025 SCC OnLine SC 1977]​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​175​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​m.​ ​The​​High​​Court,​​while​​allowing​​the​​appeal​​and​​ordering​​the​​retrial​​observed​
​as under:​
​In​ ​such​ ​a​ ​case,​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​recording​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​​the​
​concerned​​witness,​​the​​video​​recording,​​either​​recorded​​in​​the​​CD​​or​
​pen​​drive​​or​​any​​other​​electronic​​gadget,​​must​​be​​played​​on​​the​​screen.​
​The​​witness,​​after​​playing​​the​​CD,​​must​​describe​​or​​translate​​the​​video​
​recording​ ​or​​the​​contents​​of​​the​​recording​​in​​his​​own​​words​​on​​oath​
​before​​the​​Court.​​If​​it​​is​​an​​audio​​recording,​​then​​the​​part​​of​​the​​audible​
​conversation​ ​must​ ​be​ ​transcribed​ ​and​ ​placed​ ​on​ ​record​ ​under​ ​the​
​signature​ ​of​ ​the​ ​investigating​ ​officer.​ ​Unless​ ​and​ ​until​ ​the​ ​recorded​
​video​ ​or​ ​CCTV​ ​footage​ ​is​ ​played​ ​at​ ​the​ ​stage​ ​of​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​the​
​witness,​ ​the​ ​witness​ ​would​ ​not​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to​ ​describe​ ​or​ ​narrate​ ​the​
​incident​​in​​his​​or​​her​​own​​words​​on​​oath​​before​​the​​Court.​​In​​this​​way,​
​at​ ​the​ ​stage​ ​of​ ​recording​ ​of​ ​evidence,​ ​each​ ​and​ ​every​ ​witness​
​concerned​​with​​the​​video​​recording​​of​​the​​incident​​or​​any​​part​​of​​the​
​incident​​must​​describe​​or​​narrate​​the​​incident​​in​​his​​or​​her​​own​​words​
​on​​oath​​before​​the​​Court.​​If​​it​​is​​not​​so​​done,​​then​​it​​would​​be​​very​
​difficult​ ​to​ ​understand​ ​or​ ​read​ ​that​ ​video​ ​recording​​by​​the​​presiding​
​officer,​​prosecutor​​or​​Advocate.​​This​​procedure​​has​​to​​be​​scrupulously​
​followed.​​This​​has​​not​​happened​​in​​this​​case.​​The​​CD​​was​​not​​played​
​while​​recording​​the​​evidence​​of​​the​​panch​​witnesses,​​the​​photographer,​
​the​​other​​members​​of​​the​​raiding​​party​​and​​the​​investigating​​officer.​​It​
​is​ ​therefore​ ​apparent​ ​that​ ​the​ ​legally​ ​admissible​ ​evidence​ ​as​ ​to​ ​the​
​contents of the recording/CD has not at all been recorded.​
​n.​ ​The​​Apex​​Court,​​while​​considering​​the​​matter,​​noted​​that​​the​​reasons​​which​
​persuaded the High Court to order a re-trial were:​
​(a)​ ​Video-recording​ ​of​ ​search​ ​and​ ​seizure​ ​operation​ ​was​ ​the​ ​best​
​evidence,​ ​but​ ​the​ ​same​ ​was​ ​not​ ​converted​ ​into​ ​admissible​ ​evidence​
​inasmuch as,​
​(i)​ ​video​ ​was​ ​not​ ​played​ ​while​ ​recording​ ​statement​ ​of​ ​each​
​witness​​so​​as​​to​​enable​​the​​witness​​to​​explain​​the​​video​​in​
​his own words in his deposition;​
​(ii)​ ​no transcript of video was prepared; and​
​(iii)​ ​when​ ​it​ ​was​ ​played​ ​in​ ​Court,​ ​in​ ​absence​ ​of​ ​explanatory​
​statement​​of​​witnesses​​qua​​the​​video,​​its​​content​​could​​not​
​be understood.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​176​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​o.​ ​The​​Apex​​Court,​​while​​refusing​​to​​agree​​with​​the​​findings​​of​​the​​High​
​Court, explained the position and observed as under in paragraph No 19.​
​9.​ ​As​ ​far​ ​as​​admissibility​​of​​video​​recording​​i.e.,​​Compact​​Disc​
​(CD)​ ​is​ ​concerned,​ ​the​ ​author​ ​of​ ​the​ ​video​ ​i.e.,​ ​SW​ ​No.​ ​2​ ​not​​only​
​deposed​​that​​he​​recorded​​the​​video,​​but​​he​​also​​gave​​a​​certificate,​​as​
​contemplated​​under​​sub-section​​(4)​​of​​Section​​65B​​of​​the​​Evidence​​Act,​
​to​​make​​the​​CD​​admissible​​in​​evidence.​​Interestingly,​​the​​High​​Court​​did​
​not​ ​dispute​ ​that​ ​the​ ​electronic​ ​record​ ​was​ ​duly​ ​exhibited​ ​as​ ​there​
​existed​ ​a​ ​certificate​ ​envisaged​ ​under​ ​sub-section​​(4)​​of​​Section​​65B.​
​However,​​strangely,​​the​​High​​Court​​opined​​that​​the​​video​​would​​become​
​relevant​​only​​if​​it​​is​​played​​during​​deposition​​of​​each​​witness​​so​​that​​the​
​witness​ ​could​ ​explain​ ​its​ ​contents​ ​in​ ​his​ ​own​ ​words​ ​resulting​ ​in​ ​a​
​transcript​​of​​the​​video.​​In​​our​​view,​​this​​is​​a​​strange​​and​​unacceptable​
​reasoning​​for​​the​​simple​​reason​​that​​the​​CD​​is​​an​​electronic​​record​​and​
​once​ ​the​ ​requirement​ ​of​ ​Section​ ​65B​ ​is​ ​fulfilled​ ​it​ ​becomes​ ​an​
​admissible​​piece​​of​​evidence,​​like​​a​​document,​​and​​the​​video​​recorded​
​therein​​is​​akin​​to​​contents​​of​​a​​document​​which​​can​​be​​seen​​and​​heard​
​to​​enable​​the​​Court​​to​​draw​​appropriate​​inference(s).​​No​​doubt,​​there​
​may​ ​be​ ​an​ ​occasion​ ​where​ ​to​ ​appreciate​ ​contents​ ​of​ ​a​ ​video​ ​an​
​explanatory​​statement​​may​​be​​needed,​​but​​that​​would​​depend​​on​​the​
​facts​ ​of​ ​a​ ​case.​ ​However,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​not​ ​the​ ​requirement​ ​of​ ​law​ ​that​ ​the​
​contents​​of​​the​​video​​would​​become​​admissible​​only​​if​​it​​is​​reduced​​to​​a​
​transcript​​in​​the​​words​​of​​a​​witness​​who​​created​​the​​video​​or​​is​​noticed​
​in​​the​​video.​​Besides​​that,​​in​​the​​instant​​case,​​the​​search​​and​​seizure​
​operation​​was​​sought​​to​​be​​proved​​by​​oral​​evidence​​of​​witnesses.​​The​
​video,​​therefore,​​was​​perhaps​​to​​corroborate​​the​​oral​​testimony.​​Even​
​the​​judgment​​of​​the​​trial​​court​​makes​​it​​clear​​that​​the​​video​​was​​played​
​in​​court​​in​​the​​presence​​of​​all​​accused​​as​​well​​as​​both​​sides​​counsels​
​and​​the​​presiding​​officer,​​upon​​seeing​​the​​video,​​could​​spot​​and​​confirm​
​the​​presence​​of​​witnesses​​as​​well​​as​​the​​accused​​at​​the​​time​​of​​search​
​and​ ​seizure.​ ​In​ ​such​ ​circumstances,​ ​in​ ​our​ ​view,​ ​a​ ​re-trial​ ​is​ ​not​
​required only to explain the video.​
​p.​ ​The​​observations​​of​​the​​Supreme​​Court​​in​ ​Kailas​ ​(supra)​​lays​​down​​the​
​most​​recent​​and​​authoritative​​statement​​of​​the​​law​​on​​the​​admissibility​​and​​use​​of​​video​
​and​ ​electronic​ ​evidence​ ​in​ ​criminal​ ​trials.​ ​Its​ ​principles​ ​operate​ ​as​ ​a​ ​complete​ ​and​
​comprehensive​​answer​​to​​every​​challenge​​that​​the​​defence​​has​​raised​​to​​the​​electronic​
​evidence​ ​on​ ​which​ ​the​ ​prosecution's​ ​case​ ​rests.​ ​The​ ​CCTV​ ​footage​ ​from​ ​Q1​​(Anavai​
​Forest​ ​Station),​ ​Q2​ ​(Sreerag​ ​Bakery),​ ​and​ ​Q3​ ​(Ponniyammal​ ​Gurukulam),​ ​the​​mobile​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​177​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​phone​​videos​​and​​photographs​​from​​Q4​​to​​Q9​​seized​​from​​the​​respective​​accused,​​and​
​the​ ​content​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Q7​ ​file​ ​were​ ​scientifically​ ​extracted​ ​to​ ​Ext.P92​​a​​pen​​drive​​by​​an​
​expert.​​This​​is​​accompanied​​by​​a​​65B​​certificate​​[Ext.P92(b)]​​issued​​by​​PW95.​​The​​same​
​receives​​credibility​​from​​Ext.P92​​forensic​​analysis​​report​​filed​​under​​Section​​293(4)(e)​​of​
​the​​Cr.P.C.​ ​As​​held​​by​​the​​Apex​​Court,​​the​​footage​​is​​an​​electronic​​record​​and​​once​​the​
​requirement​​of​​Section​​65B​​is​​fulfilled​​it​​becomes​​an​​admissible​​piece​​of​​evidence,​​like​​a​
​document,​​and​​the​​video​​recorded​​therein​​is​​akin​​to​​contents​​of​​a​​document​​which​​can​
​be​ ​seen​ ​and​ ​heard​ ​to​ ​enable​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​to​ ​draw​ ​appropriate​ ​inference.​ ​It​ ​is​​not​​the​
​requirement​​of​​law​​that​​the​​contents​​of​​the​​video​​would​​become​​admissible​​only​​if​​it​​is​
​reduced​​to​​a​​transcript​​in​​the​​words​​of​​a​​witness​​who​​created​​the​​video​​or​​is​​noticed​​in​
​the​ ​video.​ ​They​ ​do​ ​not​ ​require​ ​each​ ​person​ ​visible​ ​in​ ​the​ ​footage​ ​to​ ​step​ ​into​ ​the​
​witness​ ​box​ ​and​ ​narrate​ ​in​ ​their​ ​own​ ​words​ ​what​ ​is​ ​being​ ​shown.​ ​These​ ​are​ ​not​
​procedural​​luxuries​​that​​the​​law​​demands.​​They​​are​​requirements​​that​​find​​no​​support​​in​
​any​ ​statute​ ​which​ ​the​ ​Hon’ble​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Kailas​ ​(supra)​ ​has​ ​specifically​​and​
​categorically rejected as strange and unacceptable.​
​q.​ ​These​ ​electronic​ ​records​ ​record​ ​on​ ​their​ ​face​ ​the​ ​truth​ ​of​ ​what​
​happened​​in​​the​​Aandiyallachaal​​Reserved​​Forest​​and​​at​​Mukkali​​junction​​on​​22.02.2018​
​with​ ​the​ ​neutrality​ ​and​ ​precision​ ​of​ ​a​ ​machine.​ ​They​ ​record​ ​the​ ​assembly​ ​of​ ​the​
​accused,​​the​​apprehension​​of​​Madhu,​​the​​parading,​​the​​assault​​and​​the​​handover​​to​​the​
​police.​​Unlike​​the​​witnesses​​who​​turned​​hostile​​and​​denied​​their​​own​​visuals​​when​​the​
​footage​ ​was​ ​played​ ​before​ ​them​ ​in​ ​open​ ​court​ ​these​ ​records​ ​are​​incapable​​of​​being​
​pressured,​​suborned,​​or​​intimidated​​into​​silence.​​The​​Supreme​​Court​​in​ ​Kailas​ ​(supra)​
​has​ ​placed​ ​the​ ​highest​ ​judicial​ ​imprimatur​ ​on​ ​the​ ​principle​ ​that​ ​in​ ​the​​age​​of​​digital​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​178​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​evidence,​​truth​​need​​not​​depend​​on​​the​​willingness​​of​​human​​witnesses​​to​​narrate​​the​
​same.​
​r.​ ​It​ ​would​ ​be​ ​apposite​ ​at​ ​this​ ​juncture​ ​to​ ​refer​ ​to​ ​the​ ​contentions​
​advanced​​by​​the​​defence​​with​​regard​​to​​the​​Call​​Data​​Records.​ ​According​​to​​the​​learned​
​counsel,​​the​​Call​​Data​​Records​​(CDR)​​and​​Customer​​Application​​Forms​​(CAF)​​cannot​​be​
​relied​​upon​​because​​the​​Nodal​​Officers​​have​​not​​deposed​​before​​the​​court​​that​​such​​and​
​such​​calls​​were​​made​​from​​such​​and​​such​​mobiles.​​According​​to​​the​​learned​​counsel,​
​unless​ ​these​ ​officers​ ​explicitly​​stated​​in​​court​​that​​particular​​individuals​​made​​specific​
​calls​​to​​particular​​numbers,​​the​​records​​could​​not​​be​​considered.​​This​​contention​​has​​to​
​be​ ​examined​ ​in​ ​light​​of​​the​​legal​​framework​​governing​​electronic​​records,​​particularly​
​Section 22A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.​
​s.​ ​Section​​22A​​of​​the​​Evidence​​Act​​provides​​that​​oral​​admissions​​about​​the​
​contents​ ​of​ ​electronic​ ​records​ ​are​ ​not​ ​relevant​ ​unless​ ​the​ ​genuineness​​of​​the​​record​
​itself​​is​​in​​question.​​When​​read​​alongside​​Section​​59,​​which​​states​​that​​all​​facts​​may​​be​
​proved​​by​​oral​​evidence​​except​​the​​contents​​of​​documents,​​the​​position​​becomes​​clear.​
​The​​contents​​of​​an​​electronic​​record​​do​​not​​require​​oral​​proof.​​The​​document​​speaks​​for​
​itself. Oral narration of its contents is unnecessary unless its authenticity is challenged.​
​t.​ ​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge,​​while​​considering​​this​​question,​​relied​​on​
​23​
​the​ ​observations​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Jisal​ ​Razak​ ​v​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Kerala​ ​,​ ​wherein​ ​it​​was​
​clarified​​that​​the​​contents​​of​​electronic​​records​​are​​not​​meant​​to​​be​​proved​​through​​oral​
​testimony,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​oral​​admissions​​regarding​​such​​contents​​are​​irrelevant​​unless​​the​
​23​
​2019 (4) KHC 928​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​179​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​genuineness​ ​of​ ​the​ ​record​ ​is​ ​disputed.​ ​We​ ​do​ ​not​ ​think​ ​that​ ​the​ ​law​ ​envisages​ ​or​
​requires​​a​​Nodal​​Officer​​to​​peruse​​the​​voluminous​​call​​data​​records​​and​​read​​out​​each​
​call​​entry.​​Once​​the​​CDR​​is​​proved​​as​​genuine,​​its​​contents​​stand​​on​​their​​own.​​The​​role​
​of​​the​​Nodal​​Officer​​is​​to​​establish​​authenticity​​and​​not​​to​​narrate​​what​​the​​document​
​already records.​
​u.​ ​In​​the​​case​​on​​hand,​​the​​prosecution​​has​​adopted​​a​​layered​​approach​​to​
​prove​​the​​CDR.​​At​​the​​first​​level,​​it​​examined​​PW52​​(Nodal​​Officer,​​Idea​​Cellular)​​who​
​proved​ ​Exts.P40,​ ​P41,​ ​and​ ​P42​ ​series​ ​documents,​ ​including​ ​the​ ​CDR,​ ​CAF,​ ​and​ ​65B​
​certificates.​​He​​also​​stated​​that​​parts​​of​​these​​records​​had​​been​​issued​​by​​earlier​​Nodal​
​Officers​ ​who​ ​were​ ​no​ ​longer​ ​available​ ​and​ ​that​ ​he​​was​​personally​​familiar​​with​​their​
​signatures,​​having​​worked​​with​​them.​​Based​​on​​this​​familiarity​​and​​his​​position​​as​​the​
​current​​Nodal​​Officer,​​the​​documents​​were​​marked​​through​​him.​​PW52​​went​​further​​and​
​explained​​how​​the​​data​​is​​stored​​and​​accessed.​​The​​server​​is​​located​​in​​Pune​​and​​cannot​
​be​​physically​​produced​​in​​court.​​Access​​is​​tightly​​controlled​​through​​designated​​laptops,​
​user​ ​IDs,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​three-layer​ ​password​ ​system.​ ​Only​ ​authorised​ ​Nodal​ ​Officers​ ​can​
​retrieve​ ​data.​ ​Additionally,​ ​SIM​ ​issuance​ ​involves​ ​E-KYC​ ​verification,​ ​ensuring​ ​that​
​subscriber​ ​details​ ​are​ ​accurate.​ ​The​ ​witness​​thus​​stated​​that​​the​​data​​is​​not​​casually​
​accessible​ ​or​ ​modifiable.​​According​​to​​him,​​the​​system​​described​​makes​​unauthorised​
​alteration​​highly​​improbable.​​On​​the​​third​​level,​​each​​CDR​​was​​accompanied​​by​​a​​65B​
​certificate,​​as​​required​​by​​law.​​PW52,​​being​​responsible​​for​​the​​system,​​was​​competent​
​to​​issue​​these​​certificates.​​This​​is​​strictly​​in​​tune​​with​​the​​principles​​of​​law​​laid​​down​​in​
​Arjun​ ​Panditrao​ ​Khotkar​ ​(supra).​ ​Since​ ​multiple​ ​networks​ ​were​ ​involved,​ ​PW98​
​(BSNL)​​and​​PW99​​(Reliance​​Jio)​​were​​examined​​to​​prove​​additional​​CDR​​records.​​PW98​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​180​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​was​​not​​cross-examined​​at​​all.​​The​​prosecution​​added​​another​​layer​​by​​linking​​SIM​​cards​
​to​​specific​​devices​​using​​IMEI​​numbers.​​The​​CDR​​records​​include​​IMEI​​details,​​and​​the​
​same​ ​numbers​ ​were​ ​recorded​ ​in​ ​the​ ​seizure​ ​mahazars​​when​​phones​​were​​recovered​
​from​​the​​accused.​​Thus,​​the​​evidence​​established​​that​​the​ ​SIM​​is​​linked​​to​​the​​accused​
​through​ ​the​ ​CAF,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​device​ ​is​ ​linked​ ​through​ ​the​ ​IMEI.​ ​When​ ​both​​match,​​the​
​connection​ ​is​ ​complete.​ ​The​ ​accused​ ​cannot​ ​claim​ ​that​ ​the​ ​SIM​ ​was​ ​theirs,​ ​but​ ​the​
​phone​​was​​not.​​The​​most​​crucial​​evidence​​comes​​from​​Ext.P42​​series.​​It​​shows​​that​​on​
​22.02.2018,​ ​Accused​ ​No.2​ ​called​ ​Accused​ ​No.9​ ​three​ ​times​ ​within​ ​a​ ​span​ ​of​ ​five​
​minutes,​ ​shortly​ ​before​ ​the​ ​group​ ​assembled.​ ​The​ ​timing,​ ​frequency,​ ​and​ ​context​ ​of​
​these​​calls​​align​​perfectly​​with​​the​​prosecution​​case.​​The​​records​​establish​​the​​calls,​​the​
​numbers​ ​involved,​ ​and​ ​their​ ​timing.​ ​The​ ​CAF​ ​connects​ ​the​ ​numbers​ ​to​ ​the​​accused.​
​There is no evidence suggesting that Accused No.2 was not using his own SIM.​
​v.​ ​In​​that​​view​​of​​the​​matter,​​the​​contention​​advanced​​by​​the​​defence​​that​
​CDR​​is​​inadmissible​​cannot​​be​​sustained.​​We​​hold​​that​​the​​CDR,​​coupled​​with​​CAF​​and​
​the​​IMEI​​numbers,​​establishes​​with​​precision,​​the​​communication​​pattern​​between​​the​
​accused immediately before the incident.​
​w.​ ​In​​view​​of​​the​​detailed​​discussion​​above,​​we​​hold​​that​​the​​prosecution​
​has​​conclusively​​established,​​through​​reliable,​​cogent,​​and​​legally​​admissible​​electronic​
​evidence,​​the​​identity​​and​​presence​​of​​each​​of​​the​​accused​​as​​reflected​​in​​the​​various​
​electronic​​records​​produced​​before​​the​​Court.​​The​​CCTV​​footage,​​mobile​​phone​​videos,​
​photographs,​ ​call​ ​detail​ ​records,​ ​GPS​ ​metadata,​ ​and​​other​​electronic​​materials,​​when​
​read​ ​together​ ​with​ ​the​ ​oral​ ​testimony​ ​of​ ​witnesses,​ ​form​ ​a​ ​consistent​​and​​unbroken​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​181​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​chain​​of​​evidence​​clearly​​identifying​​the​​accused​​and​​demonstrating​​their​​participation​​at​
​different​ ​stages​ ​of​ ​the​ ​incident.​ ​The​ ​electronic​ ​evidence​ ​is​ ​corroborative​ ​in​ ​nature,​
​mutually​ ​consistent,​ ​and​ ​free​ ​from​ ​any​ ​material​ ​contradiction​ ​or​ ​infirmity.​ ​Nothing​
​substantial​ ​has​ ​been​ ​brought​ ​out​ ​in​ ​cross-examination​ ​to​ ​discredit​ ​the​ ​authenticity,​
​integrity,​​or​​evidentiary​​value​​of​​these​​electronic​​records.​​We​​are​​therefore​​satisfied​​that​
​the​​prosecution​​has​​successfully​​proved​​the​​identity​​of​​each​​of​​the​​accused​​appearing​​in​
​the electronic evidence beyond reasonable doubt.​
​12.8.​ ​Reconstruction of events:​
​a.​ ​We​ ​shall​ ​now​ ​detail​ ​the​ ​sequence​ ​of​ ​events​ ​that​ ​took​ ​place​ ​on​
​22.02.2018​​as​​borne​​out​​from​​the​​evidence​​on​​record.​​The​​accused​​are​​shopkeepers,​
​traders,​​and​​businessmen​​of​​the​​locality​​who​​had​​been​​nursing​​a​​collective​​grievance​​for​
​months​​against​​a​​tribal​​man​​named​​Madhu,​​whom​​they​​believed​​was​​responsible​​for​​a​
​series​ ​of​​thefts​​from​​their​​establishments.​​Some​​of​​them​​had​​filed​​formal​​complaints,​
​and​ ​a​ ​final​ ​report​ ​had​ ​been​ ​submitted​ ​in​ ​Crime​ ​No.​ ​524​ ​of​​2016​​against​​Madhu​​for​
​offences​ ​punishable​ ​under​ ​Sections​ ​457,​ ​380,​ ​and​ ​461​ ​of​ ​the​​IPC.​​The​​Investigating​
​Officer,​​PW91​​(S.I.,​​Subin),​​admitted​​before​​the​​court​​that​​despite​​all​​of​​this,​​he​​could​
​not​​trace​​Madhu​​—​​because​​Madhu​​lived​​deep​​in​​the​​Aandiyallachaal​​Reserved​​Forest,​​a​
​rocky,​ ​hilly​ ​tract​ ​of​ ​Reserved​ ​Forest​ ​beneath​ ​the​ ​Ajmudi​ ​hill,​ ​approximately​ ​two​
​kilometres​ ​north-east​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Bhavani​ ​River,​ ​in​ ​Padavayal​ ​Village,​ ​Puthur​ ​Panchayath,​
​Mannarkkad Taluk.​
​b.​ ​On​ ​that​ ​morning,​​PW11,​​a​​forest​​employee,​​came​​to​​know​​about​​the​
​presence​ ​of​ ​Madhu​ ​in​ ​the​ ​forest.​ ​He​ ​encountered​ ​Accused​ ​No.2​ ​(Marakkar),​ ​who​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​182​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​enquired​​about​​Madhu's​​whereabouts.​​PW11,​​who​​is​​a​​distant​​relative​​of​​Madhu,​​initially​
​turned​ ​hostile​ ​out​ ​of​ ​fear​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​subsequently​ ​recalled,​ ​and​​in​​the​
​second​​stage​​of​​his​​examination​​he​​deposed​​that​​Accused​​No.​​2​​had​​specifically​​asked​
​him​​about​​Madhu​​and​​that​​he​​had​​revealed​​where​​Madhu​​could​​be​​found.​​The​​learned​
​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​accepted​ ​this​ ​recalled​ ​testimony,​ ​relying​ ​on​ ​the​​principles​​of​​law​​laid​
​down​​in​ ​Mohammed​​Nisam​​A.​​A.​​@​​Muhammed​​Nisham​​A.​​A.​​and​​Another​​v.​
​24​
​State​​of​​Kerala​​and​​Another​ ​.​​We​​find​​no​​reason,​​in​​the​​peculiar​​facts​​of​​this​​case,​
​to take a different view.​
​c.​ ​PW10​ ​(Kali​ ​Mooppan),​ ​a​ ​Forest​ ​watcher,​ ​corroborated​ ​this​ ​narrative.​
​Though​​initially​​hostile,​​he​​confirmed​​seeing​​a​​group​​of​​persons​​from​​Mukkali​​bringing​
​Madhu​​down​​from​​the​​forest​​on​​the​​relevant​​day.​​His​​evidence​​establishes​​that​​what​​he​
​witnessed​​was​​a​​group​​action​​and​​his​​admission​​that​​the​​group​​came​​from​​Mukkali​​is​​a​
​material concession that lends credence to the prosecution's case.​
​d.​ ​The​ ​moment​ ​Accused​ ​No.2​ ​received​ ​information​ ​from​ ​PW11​ ​about​
​Madhu's​ ​location,​ ​he​ ​acted​ ​without​ ​delay.​ ​The​ ​Call​ ​Data​ ​Records,​ ​Ext.P42​ ​series​ ​—​
​proved​ ​by​ ​PW52​ ​(Augustine​​Joseph),​​Nodal​​Officer​​of​​Idea​​Cellular​​Limited,​​with​​65B​
​certificates establish that:​
​(i)​ ​At​ ​12:17​ ​pm​ ​—​ ​A2​ ​(Marakkar)​ ​called​ ​A9​ ​(Najeeb)​ ​from​ ​mobile​ ​No.​
​9961268715,​ ​subscribed​ ​in​ ​A2's​ ​name​ ​as​ ​per​​the​​Customer​​Application​
​Form, to mobile No. 9744791333, subscribed in A9's name.​
​(ii)​ ​At 12:21 pm — A2 called A9 again.​
​(iii)​ ​At 12:22 pm — A2 called A9 a third time.​
​24​
​2022 (2) KLD 581​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​183​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Thus,​ ​three​ ​calls​ ​were​ ​made​​within​​a​​span​​of​​five​​minutes.​​It​​can​​be​​gathered​
​from​​the​​narrative​​that​​the​​matter​​conveyed​​was​​that​​Madhu​​had​​been​​sighted​​in​​the​
​Aandiyallachaal forest.​
​e.​ ​Accused​ ​No.9​ ​(Najeeb)​ ​was​​obviously​​the​​right​​person​​to​​receive​​this​
​information​ ​and​ ​act​ ​upon​ ​it.​ ​His​ ​father,​ ​PW31​ ​(Latheef),​ ​had​ ​filed​ ​the​ ​formal​ ​theft​
​complaint​​against​​Madhu​​in​​Cr.No.524/2016.​​His​​brother,​​A16​​(Muneer),​​had​​been​​cited​
​as​​CW2​​in​​the​​final​​report​​of​​that​​prior​​case.​​The​​personal​​grievance​​of​​the​​entire​​family​
​against​​Madhu​​was​​deep​​and​​specific.​​A9's​​shop​​at​​Mukkali​​served​​as​​the​​assembly​​point​
​as​​it​​was​​the​​hub​​of​​the​​local​​trading​​community,​​and​​Accused​​No.​​9​​was​​the​​man​​with​
​the​ ​connections​ ​and​ ​the​ ​vehicle​ ​to​ ​mobilise​ ​a​ ​response.​ ​Upon​ ​receiving​ ​A2's​ ​calls,​
​Accused​​No.9​​immediately​​activated​​his​​network,​​contacting​​the​​remaining​​accused​​both​
​over​​the​​phone​​and​​in​​person.​​This​​is​​established​​by​​the​​CDR​​evidence​​in​​Ext.P40​​series.​
​This​​record​​reveals​​the​​communications​​between​​A2,​​A7,​​A9,​​and​​A15​​from​​12:17​​pm​
​onwards​​—​​and​​Ext.P83​​series,​​an​​Airtel​​CDR​​proved​​by​​PW87​​(Vasudevan),​​establishing​
​A6's​ ​communication​ ​trail,​ ​and​​Ext.P91​​series,​​a​​Vodafone​​Idea​​CDR​​proved​​by​​PW94,​
​confirming​ ​the​ ​communication​ ​trails​ ​of​ ​several​ ​other​ ​accused.​ ​Accused​ ​No.3​
​(Shamsudheen),​ ​who​ ​took​ ​charge​​of​​the​​exercise,​​received​​information​​from​​Accused​
​No.9​​and​​directly​​contacted​​the​​remaining​​accused​​to​​converge​​at​​Mukkali.​​The​​entire​
​assembly was mobilised within minutes of A2's first call to A9.​
​f.​ ​By​​approximately​​12:30​​p.m.,​​the​​accused​​had​​gathered​​at​​A9's​​shop​​at​
​Mukkali​ ​junction.​ ​Accused​ ​Nos.​ ​3,​ ​5,​ ​6,​ ​7,​ ​8,​ ​and​ ​12​ ​arrived​ ​together​ ​in​ ​A10's​
​autorickshaw​​bearing​​registration​​No.​​KL-50-D-2908.​​Accused​​No.13​​(Satheesh)​​arrived​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​184​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​separately​​on​​his​​motorcycle​​bearing​​No.​​KL-05-AJ-498​​after​​having​​first​​discussed​​the​
​plan​ ​with​ ​Accused​ ​No.9.​ ​What​ ​followed​ ​is​​captured​​with​​remarkable​​precision​​by​​the​
​CCTV​ ​system​ ​at​ ​Ponniyammal​​Gurukulam,​​which​​is​​situated​​beside​​the​​Mukkali–Silent​
​Valley​​road,​​the​​very​​road​​that​​leads​​toward​​the​​forest.​​The​​Q3​​file​​in​​Ext.P92(a)​​pen​
​drive​ ​shows​ ​that​ ​from​ ​12:41:24​ ​p.m.​ ​onwards,​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​were​ ​seen​ ​to​ ​be​ ​visible​
​gathering​​at​​the​​Ponniyammal​​Gurukulam.​​By​​12:44​​p.m.,​​eight​​of​​the​​accused​​entered​
​A9's​​Marshal​​Jeep​​bearing​​No.​​KL-11-H-8559​​and​​began​​moving​​toward​​the​​Silent​​Valley​
​road​ ​in​ ​the​ ​direction​ ​of​ ​the​ ​forest.​ ​Accused​​No.13​​is​​simultaneously​​seen​​proceeding​
​along​​the​​same​​road​​on​​his​​motorcycle.​​These​​facts​​are​​crystal​​clear​​in​​the​​CCTV​​footage​
​and​​were​​formally​​proved​​by​​PW95.​​PW2​​(Unnikrishnan),​​who​​watched​​the​​Q3​​footage​
​in​​open​​court,​​identified​​the​​accused​​persons​​by​​name​​as​​they​​appeared​​in​​the​​footage.​
​He​​provided​​the​​crucial​​prior-acquaintance​​identification​​that​​bridged​​the​​digital​​images​
​with​ ​the​ ​dock​ ​accused.​ ​The​ ​formation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​unlawful​ ​assembly​ ​at​ ​12:30​ ​p.m.​ ​is​
​accordingly​​established​​on​​four​​independent​​pillars:​​the​​CDR​​chain​​showing​​the​​A2–A9​
​communication​​from​​12:17​​pm;​​the​​Q3​​CCTV​​showing​​the​​gathering​​from​​12:41​​pm;​​the​
​Q3​​CCTV​​showing​​the​​departure​​at​​12:44​​pm;​​and​​PW2's​​personal​​identification​​of​​the​
​accused in the footage.​
​g.​ ​The​​transit​​stage​​followed.​​The​​Anavai​​Forest​​Station​​is​​located​​on​​the​
​Silent​ ​Valley–Mukkali​ ​road,​ ​between​ ​Mukkali​ ​junction​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Vandikkadavu​ ​teak​
​plantation​​area.​​It​​has​​its​​own​​CCTV​​system​​—​​the​​Q1​​file​​in​​Ext.P92(a)​​pen​​drive.​​At​
​12:51:51​ ​p.m.,​ ​the​ ​Q1​ ​CCTV​ ​captured​ ​A9's​ ​Marshal​ ​Jeep​ ​(KL-11-H-8559)​ ​proceeding​
​toward​​Vandikkadavu​​in​​the​​direction​​of​​the​​forest.​​Aboard​​were​​A3,​​A5,​​A6,​​A7,​​A8,​​A9,​
​A10,​​A12,​​and​​A13.​​They​​were​​moving​​with​​a​​shared​​and​​deliberate​​purpose.​​Accused​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​185​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​No.​​2​​(Marakkar),​​who​​had​​made​​his​​way​​to​​the​​forest​​area​​separately​​or​​slightly​​ahead​
​of​ ​the​ ​group,​ ​joined​ ​them​ ​there.​ ​The​ ​CDR​ ​evidence​ ​places​ ​him​ ​in​ ​the​ ​area​ ​at​ ​the​
​relevant​ ​time,​ ​and​ ​PW11​ ​had​ ​already​ ​confirmed​ ​his​ ​earlier​ ​presence​ ​in​ ​the​ ​forest​
​enquiring​​about​​Madhu.​​The​​vehicles​​were​​parked​​at​​the​​Vandikkadavu​​Teak​​Plantation.​
​The​ ​group​ ​then​ ​entered​ ​the​ ​reserved​ ​forest​ ​on​ ​foot,​ ​travelling​ ​approximately​ ​two​
​kilometres​ ​north-east​ ​through​ ​forested​ ​terrain​ ​toward​ ​the​ ​rocky​ ​area​ ​known​ ​as​
​Aandiyallachaal,​​beneath​​the​​Ajmudi​​hill,​​forming​​part​​of​​the​​Silent​​Valley​​National​​Park​
​reserved​ ​forest,​ ​in​ ​an​ ​area​ ​falling​ ​within​ ​Padavayal​ ​Village,​ ​Puthur​ ​Panchayath,​
​Mannarkkad Taluk.​
​h.​ ​The​ ​exact​ ​time​ ​at​​which​​the​​group​​reached​​Aandiyallachaal​​has​​been​
​established​ ​by​ ​scientific​ ​evidence.​ ​Accused​ ​No.5​ ​(Radhakrishnan)​ ​was​ ​carrying​ ​his​
​Xiaomi​ ​Mi​ ​A1​ ​mobile​ ​phone​ ​[MO27(a),​ ​Q6]​ ​into​ ​the​​forest.​​The​​phone's​​camera​​was​
​capturing​ ​photographs​ ​of​ ​the​ ​area.​ ​PW95​ ​extracted​​the​​EXIF​​metadata​​embedded​​in​
​those​ ​photographs​ ​and​ ​analysed​ ​the​ ​same​ ​in​ ​Ext.P92.​ ​The​ ​GPS​ ​coordinates​ ​in​ ​the​
​metadata​ ​read:​ ​Latitude​ ​11.079782,​ ​Longitude​ ​76.536017.​ ​PW95​ ​verified​ ​these​
​coordinates​ ​against​ ​Google​ ​Maps​ ​and​ ​confirmed​ ​that​ ​this​ ​location​ ​falls​ ​within​ ​the​
​Aandiyallachaal​​reserved​​forest​​area​​of​​Silent​​Valley​​National​​Park.​​The​​photograph​​in​​Q6​
​—​​file​​Name.​​IMG_20180222_130057​​—​​was​​captured​​at​​1:00​​pm​​on​​22.02.2018.​​This​
​establishes​ ​beyond​ ​scientific​ ​doubt​ ​that​ ​A5,​ ​along​ ​with​ ​the​ ​group,​ ​had​ ​reached​
​Aandiyallachaal by 1:00 pm.​
​i.​ ​Running​​alongside​​this​​photographic​​record​​is​​the​​single​​most​​important​
​piece​​of​​evidence​​for​​the​​forest​​stage:​​the​​Q7​​video​​—​​file​​VID-20180222-WA0034​​—​​a​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​186​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​5-minute​​and​​38-second​​video​​recording​​from​​A9's​​mobile​​phone​​[MO27(b)].​​Crucially,​
​his​​face​​is​​seen​​for​​a​​short​​while​​in​​the​​video​​at​​5​​minute​​19​​seconds.​​What​​the​​video​
​shows,​​with​​the​​clarity​​of​​a​​contemporary​​account,​​is​​the​​accused​​surrounding​​Madhu,​
​the​​apprehension,​​the​​assault,​​the​​tying​​of​​his​​hands,​​and​​the​​beginning​​of​​the​​march​
​out​​of​​the​​forest.​​PW53,​​a​​forest​​tribal​​watcher​​and​​PW62,​​a​​forest​​section​​officer​​who​
​had​​worked​​in​​that​​area​​for​​years​​both​​viewed​​the​​Q7​​video​​in​​court​​and​​confirmed​​that​
​the​​terrain​​visible​​in​​the​​footage​​is​​nothing​​other​​than​​Aandiyallachaal,​​forming​​part​​of​
​the reserved forest.​
​j.​ ​The​ ​group​ ​found​ ​Madhu​ ​at​ ​the​ ​rocky​ ​Aandiyallachaal​ ​area​ ​at​
​approximately​​1:10​​p.m.​​Madhu​​was​​a​​frail​​mentally​​ill​​tribal​​man​​weighing​​40​​kg.​​who​
​had​​been​​dwelling​​alone​​in​​this​​forest​​for​​several​​years.​​He​​had​​no​​family​​member​​with​
​him,​​no​​capacity​​for​​physical​​resistance,​​and​​no​​means​​of​​escape​​from​​a​​group​​of​​ten​
​able-bodied men who had come specifically to find him.​
​k.​ ​What​ ​followed​ ​is​ ​recorded​ ​in​ ​the​ ​mobile​ ​phones​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​
​themselves.​​Accused​​No.​​3​​(Shamsudheen)​​tied​​Madhu's​​hands​​first,​​using​​Madhu's​​own​
​dhoti​​which​​act​​is​​proved​​by​​the​​photographs​​in​​Q6​​(A5's​​phone)​​and​​corroborated​​by​
​the​​Q7​​video.​​The​​photographs​​from​​Q6​​show​​Madhu​​from​​multiple​​angles​​in​​the​​forest,​
​his​​hands​​bound.​​It​​is​​evident​​from​​the​​photographs​​contained​​in​​the​​mobile​​phones​​of​
​Accused​​Nos.​​5,​​7,​​8,​​and​​9​​that​​Madhu's​​hands​​were​​initially​​tied​​using​​his​​own​​dhoti.​
​The​​assault​​then​​began,​​individually​​and​​jointly.​​The​​nature​​and​​extent​​of​​that​​assault​​is​
​documented​​not​​by​​the​​testimony​​of​​any​​eyewitness​​but​​by​​the​​postmortem​​evidence​​of​
​PW86,​ ​who​ ​found​ ​44​ ​ante-mortem​ ​injuries​ ​on​ ​Madhu's​ ​body,​ ​and​ ​by​ ​the​ ​video​ ​and​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​187​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​photographic​​record​​from​​the​​accused's​​own​​devices.​​Madhu,​​on​​his​​way​​to​​the​​police​
​station,​​also​​reportedly​​disclosed​​to​​the​​police​​that​​he​​had​​been​​harmed​​by​​those​​who​
​had apprehended him.​
​l.​ ​The​ ​prosecution's​ ​case​ ​is​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​No.3​ ​struck​ ​Madhu​ ​on​ ​the​
​dorsum​​with​​MO24​​wooden​​stick​​fracturing​​the​​XIth​​rib​​on​​the​​left​​side​​and​​causing​​a​
​perinephric​ ​haematoma​ ​to​ ​the​ ​left​ ​kidney.​ ​This​ ​is​ ​Injury​ ​No.​ ​12​ ​in​ ​the​ ​postmortem​
​certificate,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​a​ ​tramline​ ​contusion​ ​that​ ​PW86​ ​specifically​ ​attributed​ ​to​ ​a​ ​long​
​rod-like​ ​weapon.​ ​MO24​ ​was​ ​subsequently​ ​recovered​ ​from​ ​A3​ ​through​ ​his​ ​confession​
​statement​ ​Ext.P132​​and​​recovery​​mahazar​​Ext.P52.​​The​​head​​injuries​​including​​Injury​
​No.​​2,​​the​​full-thickness​​contusion​​to​​the​​back​​of​​the​​head​​causing​​brain​​edema,​​are​​also​
​attributed​ ​to​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​stage.​ ​PW86​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​brain​ ​edema​ ​of​ ​the​​nature​​found​
​takes​​a​​minimum​​of​​two​​to​​three​​hours​​to​​develop​​to​​a​​fatal​​level.​​Working​​backward​
​from​​the​​time​​of​​death​​at​​approximately​​4:15​​pm,​​this​​places​​the​​initiation​​of​​the​​fatal​
​head​​injury​​between​​1:00​​p.m.​​and​​1:15​​p.m.,​​squarely​​within​​the​​forest​​stage,​​while​
​Madhu was in the exclusive custody of the accused.​
​m.​ ​After​ ​the​ ​assault​ ​in​ ​the​ ​forest,​ ​Accused​ ​No.3​ ​replaced​​the​​dhoti​​with​
​MO2​ ​plastic​ ​zip​ ​which​ ​was​ ​used​ ​to​ ​bind​ ​Madhu's​ ​right​​hand.​​The​​Q7​​video​​captures​
​Accused​​No.​​3​​in​​the​​act​​of​​tying​​Madhu.​​During​​the​​march​​that​​followed,​​Accused​​No.2​
​(Marakkar)​​caught​​hold​​of​​the​​zip​​tied​​on​​Madhu's​​hands,​​and​​Accused​​No.7​​(Sidhique)​
​caught​​hold​​of​​Madhu's​​left​​hand.​​They​​controlled​​and​​directed​​the​​descent​​of​​Madhu​
​from the forest.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​188​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​n.​ ​A10​​(Jaijumon)​​placed​​MO3​​sack​​containing​​stolen​​rice​​and​​other​​items​
​on​ ​Madhu's​ ​shoulders.​ ​This​ ​act​ ​is​ ​captured​ ​in​ ​Q7​ ​video​ ​with​ ​clarity.​ ​MO3​ ​was​
​subsequently​ ​identified​ ​in​ ​court​ ​by​ ​PW28​ ​(Mathachan),​ ​the​ ​shopkeeper​ ​from​ ​whose​
​grocery​ ​establishment​ ​the​ ​rice​ ​had​ ​been​ ​stolen.​ ​The​ ​sack​ ​that​​Madhu​​was​​forced​​to​
​carry​​through​​a​​public​​road​​as​​a​​mark​​of​​humiliation​​contained​​the​​very​​goods​​he​​was​
​accused of stealing from the men who were now parading him.​
​o.​ ​The​​mobile​​phones​​of​​five​​accused​​simultaneously​​recorded​​what​​was​
​happening.​​A5​​(Q6​​—​​MO27(a)),​​A7​​(Q8​​—​​MO27e​​memory​​card),​​A8​​(Q5​​—​​MO27(c)),​
​A9​ ​(Q7​ ​—​ ​MO27(b)),​ ​and​ ​A4​ ​(Q4​​—​​MO27d)​​each​​captured​​photographs​​and​​videos​
​during​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​assault.​ ​Collectively,​ ​these​ ​devices​ ​contained​ ​numerous​ ​files​
​photographs​​and​​videos​​of​​which​​the​​relevant​​were​​11​​photographs​​and​​2​​videos​​from​
​A5's​​phone,​​photographs​​from​​A7's​​memory​​card,​​7​​photographs​​and​​2​​videos​​from​​A8's​
​phone,​​4​​videos​​and​​6​​photographs​​from​​A9's​​phone,​​and​​photographs​​from​​A4's​​phone.​
​The​ ​accused​ ​were​ ​not​ ​merely​ ​committing​ ​violence​ ​but​ ​they​ ​were​ ​celebrating​ ​it​ ​and​
​preserving it.​
​p.​ ​PW11,​​in​​the​​second​​stage​​of​​his​​examination,​​confirmed​​that​​Accused​
​No.2​​was​​present​​in​​the​​forest​​area​​and​​had​​specifically​​enquired​​about​​Madhu​​from​​him​
​earlier​​that​​morning.​​The​​presence​​of​​the​​2nd​​accused​​in​​the​​forest​​is​​established​​both​
​by​​this​​oral​​evidence​​and​​by​​the​​broader​​photographic​​and​​video​​material​​showing​​the​
​assembled​​group​​at​​Aandiyallachaal.​​Accused​​No.​​2​​is​​attributed​​with​​fisting​​Madhu​​on​
​his dorsum, as charged, and this is established through the group assault evidence.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​189​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​q.​ ​The​ ​audio​ ​content​​of​​the​​Q7​​video​​carries​​its​​own​​significance.​​At​​27​
​seconds​​into​​the​​footage,​​an​​accused​​is​​heard​​uttering​​words​​in​​an​​abusive​​tone​​directed​
​at​​Madhu.​​At​​the​​2:58-minute​​mark,​​a​​conversation​​among​​the​​accused​​is​​audible.​​The​
​substance​ ​of​​this​​audio,​​which​​can​​be​​heard​​clearly​​by​​us​​conveys,​​in​​the​​vernacular,​
​that​​Madhu​​does​​not​​have​​the​​physical​​strength​​to​​sustain​​any​​beating.​​This​​statement,​
​made​ ​in​ ​the​ ​midst​ ​of​ ​the​ ​assault,​ ​is​ ​not​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​compassion.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​evidence​ ​of​
​awareness​​of​​the​​fact​​that​​the​​accused​​knew​​what​​they​​were​​doing​​to​​him,​​they​​could​
​see it was taking its toll, and they continued regardless.​
​r.​ ​While​ ​the​ ​core​ ​forest​ ​group​ ​was​ ​engaged​ ​at​ ​Aandiyallachaal,​ ​A3​
​(Shamsudheen)​ ​telephoned​ ​A14​ ​(Hareesh)​ ​to​ ​inform​ ​him​ ​that​ ​Madhu​ ​had​ ​been​
​apprehended​​and​​that​​the​​group​​was​​bringing​​him​​down​​toward​​Vandikkadavu.​​This​​call​
​is​​established​​by​​the​​CDR​​evidence​​in​​Ext.P41​​and​​P42​​series.​​The​​Anavai​​Forest​​Station​
​CCTV​ ​(Q1​ ​file)​ ​then​ ​captures,​ ​at​ ​13:50:28​ ​pm,​ ​a​ ​Mahindra​ ​Xylo​ ​car​ ​bearing​ ​No.​
​KL-32-B-5959,​ ​belonging​ ​to​ ​A15,​ ​moving​ ​toward​ ​Vandikkadavu.​ ​The​ ​photograph​
​IMG-20180222-WA0083​ ​from​​A8's​​phone​​(Q5,​​MO27c)​​shows​​A14​​(Hareesh)​​and​​A15​
​(Biju)​ ​together​ ​with​ ​A9's​ ​Marshal​​Jeep​​at​​the​​Vandikkadavu​​location.​​This​​establishes​
​their​​physical​​presence​​at​​the​​forest​​fringe​​before​​the​​group​​completed​​its​​descent.​​A14​
​arrived​ ​in​ ​his​ ​own​ ​Mahindra​ ​Xylo​ ​bearing​ ​No.​ ​KL-32-B-5259,​ ​and​ ​A15​ ​(Biju​ ​—​ ​A14's​
​brother)​​arrived​​with​​him.​​Both​​trespassed​​into​​the​​forest​​edge​​and​​formally​​joined​​the​
​unlawful​​assembly.​​They​​have​​to​​be​​attributed​​with​​full​​and​​immediate​​knowledge​​of​​its​
​common​​object,​​since​​the​​group​​was​​visibly​​before​​them​​bringing​​Madhu​​down​​with​​his​
​hands bound and a sack on his shoulder.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​190​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​s.​ ​Upon​​joining,​​A14​​is​​stated​​to​​have​​struck​​Madhu​​on​​the​​dorsum​​with​
​his​​hand​​and​​also​​filmed​​Madhu​​using​​his​​mobile​​phone​​(MO25/Q9).​​That​​phone​​was​​not​
​seized​ ​from​ ​A14​ ​directly​ ​but​ ​it​ ​was​ ​produced​ ​by​ ​his​ ​relative​ ​Anand​ ​on​ ​12.03.2018,​
​eighteen​​days​​after​​A14's​​arrest.​​A15,​​for​​his​​part,​​is​​stated​​to​​have​​caught​​hold​​of​​the​
​zip​ ​around​ ​Madhu's​ ​arms​ ​to​ ​restrain​ ​him​ ​and​​fisted​​him​​on​​the​​shoulder.​​It​​must​​be​
​noted,​​however,​​that​​the​​specific​​assaults​​attributed​​to​​A14​​and​​A15​​at​​the​​Vandikkadavu​
​stage​​are​​not​​directly​​visible​​in​​the​​CCTV​​footage.​​Their​​individual​​acts​​are​​established​
​through​ ​the​ ​charges,​ ​the​ ​broader​ ​photographic​ ​and​ ​video​ ​material​ ​from​ ​the​ ​forest​
​group's devices, and the overall forensic reconstruction of events.​
​t.​ ​During​​the​​march​​from​​Aandiyallachaal​​down​​to​​Vandikkadavu​​Accused​
​No.7​​caught​​hold​​of​​Madhu's​​left​​hand.​​Accused​​No.2​​retained​​his​​grip​​on​​the​​zip​​binding​
​Madhu's​​hands.​​These​​acts​​are​​established​​through​​the​​Q7​​video​​and​​the​​photographic​
​evidence from multiple mobile phones.​
​u.​ ​At​​14:46:50​​pm,​​Q1​​CCTV​​at​​Anavai​​Forest​​Station​​captures​​the​​group​
​returning​ ​through​ ​the​ ​check​ ​post​ ​and​ ​emerging​ ​onto​ ​the​ ​Silent​ ​Valley–Mukkali​​road.​
​Madhu​​is​​visible​​among​​them,​​the​​sack​​still​​on​​his​​shoulder.​​Accused​​Nos.14​​and​​15​​are​
​also​​visible​​in​​this​​footage,​​actively​​participating​​in​​bringing​​Madhu​​toward​​the​​road.​​This​
​is​ ​the​ ​moment​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​stage​ ​ends​ ​and​ ​the​ ​public​ ​road​ ​stage​ ​begins.​ ​PW20​
​(Sunilkumar),​​the​​forest​​watcher​​posted​​at​​Anavai,​​was​​examined​​to​​prove​​the​​group's​
​passage​ ​through​ ​the​ ​check​ ​post,​​but​​he​​did​​not​​support​​the​​prosecution​​version​​and​
​turned​​hostile.​​However,​​his​​oral​​denial​​is​​directly​​contradicted​​by​​the​​Q1​​CCTV​​footage,​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​191​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​which​ ​clearly​ ​shows​ ​the​ ​group​ ​passing​ ​through​ ​the​ ​check​ ​post​ ​with​ ​Madhu​ ​in​ ​their​
​custody.​
​v.​ ​What​​followed​​next​​was​​the​​three-kilometre​​public​​parade.​​This​​clearly​
​is​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​most​ ​dehumanising​ ​aspects​ ​of​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​incident.​ ​Madhu,​ ​his​ ​hands​
​bound,​​stripped​​to​​the​​upper​​body,​​carrying​​on​​his​​shoulder​​a​​sack​​containing​​goods​​he​
​was​​alleged​​to​​have​​stolen,​​was​​made​​to​​walk​​approximately​​three​​kilometres​​along​​the​
​public​​Silent​​Valley–Mukkali​​road​​toward​​Mukkali​​junction,​​surrounded​​and​​controlled​​by​
​the​​accused.​​As​​stated​​earlier,​​audio​​content​​of​​the​​Q7​​video​​shows​​that​​the​​accused​
​were​​aware​​that​​Madhu​​did​​not​​have​​the​​physical​​strength​​to​​sustain​​any​​beating​​and​
​that​ ​his​ ​physical​ ​condition​ ​was​ ​very​ ​bad.​ ​It​ ​was​ ​in​ ​spite​ ​of​ ​the​ ​above​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​
​terrorised and forced to carry the sack by able bodied men.​
​w.​ ​PW27​ ​(Lakshmi),​ ​a​ ​Kudumbasree​ ​Coordinator,​ ​was​ ​present​ ​near​ ​the​
​Silent​ ​Valley​ ​Information​ ​Centre​ ​located​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Silent​ ​Valley–Mukkali​ ​road​ ​between​
​Vandikkadavu​ ​and​​Mukkali.​​She​​deposed​​that​​she​​saw​​a​​group​​of​​five​​to​​ten​​persons​
​bringing​ ​a​ ​tired​ ​man​ ​dressed​ ​in​ ​shabby​ ​clothes​ ​and​​carrying​​a​​sack​​on​​his​​shoulder,​
​passing​ ​the​ ​Information​ ​Centre​ ​on​ ​their​ ​way​ ​toward​ ​Mukkali.​ ​She​ ​identified​​Accused​
​Nos.​ ​13​ ​(Satheesh),​ ​14​ ​(Hareesh),​ ​and​ ​16​ ​(Muneer)​ ​from​ ​the​ ​dock.​ ​PW15​ ​(Gokul),​
​another​ ​witness​ ​along​ ​the​ ​route,​ ​testified​ ​to​ ​seeing​ ​the​ ​group​ ​passing​ ​with​ ​Madhu​
​through​​the​​Silent​​Valley–Mukkali​​road​​and​​specifically​​identified​​A8​​(Ubaid)​​in​​the​​dock.​
​At​​14:56:47​​p.m.,​​the​​Q3​​CCTV​​at​​Ponniyammal​​Gurukulam​​located​​on​​the​​road​​between​
​the​ ​forest​ ​and​ ​Mukkali​ ​junction,​ ​just​ ​minutes'​ ​walk​ ​from​ ​the​ ​junction​ ​captured​ ​the​
​accused​​bringing​​Madhu​​toward​​Mukkali.​​Accused​​No.7​​(Sidhique)​​is​​specifically​​visible​​in​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​192​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​this​ ​footage​ ​holding​ ​Madhu.​ ​This​ ​footage​ ​confirms​ ​that​ ​the​ ​parade​ ​was​ ​actively​ ​in​
​progress approximately three minutes before the group arrived at Mukkali junction.​
​x.​ ​The​ ​group​ ​reached​ ​Mukkali​ ​junction​ ​at​ ​approximately​ ​3:00​ ​p.m.​ ​and​
​Madhu​​was​​made​​to​​sit​​in​​the​​area​​in​​front​​of​​Sreerag​​Bakery,​​which​​is​​the​​establishment​
​of​ ​Accused​ ​No.14​ ​situated​​at​​Mukkali​​junction.​​The​​Sreerag​​Bakery​​CCTV​​system,​​Q2​
​file,​​recorded​​what​​followed​​from​​two​​camera​​angles​​simultaneously.​​It​​is​​at​​this​​stage​
​that three further accused joined the assembly at Mukkali.​
​y.​ ​Accused​​No.4​​(Aneesh)​​was​​at​​Mukkali​​junction​​when​​the​​group​​arrived​
​with​ ​Madhu.​ ​His​ ​mobile​ ​phone,​ ​Q4​ ​(MO27(d)),​ ​captured​ ​photographs​ ​and​ ​video​ ​of​
​Madhu​ ​at​ ​Mukkali.​ ​The​ ​Q4​ ​video​ ​shows,​​at​​the​​1:00:00​​mark,​​a​​person​​identified​​as​
​Accused​ ​No.16​ ​(Muneer)​ ​shown​ ​as​ ​S8​ ​in​ ​the​ ​reference​ ​photographs​ ​emerging​ ​from​
​behind​​and​​delivering​​a​​blow​​to​​Madhu's​​back.​​A4's​​presence​​at​​Mukkali​​is​​sought​​to​​be​
​proved​​by​​the​​Internet​​Protocol​​Detail​​Records​​(IPDR)​​evidence​​(Ext.P74),​​his​​Facebook​
​business​​record​​(Ext.P68a),​​and​​the​​content​​of​​the​​Q4​​file​​itself,​​all​​corroborated​​by​​the​
​Q2 CCTV footage.​
​z.​ ​Accused​ ​No.11​​(Abdul​​Kareem)​​was​​present​​throughout​​the​​events​​at​
​Mukkali​​junction​​from​​the​​time​​Madhu​​was​​made​​to​​sit​​in​​front​​of​​the​​treasury​​box.​​The​
​Q2​ ​CCTV​ ​shows​ ​his​ ​continuous​ ​presence​ ​throughout​ ​the​ ​incident.​ ​Accused​ ​No.16​
​(Muneer)​​—​​the​​son​​of​​PW31​​(the​​theft​​complainant)​​and​​the​​very​​person​​who,​​as​​CW2​
​in​​the​​prior​​theft​​case,​​had​​formally​​identified​​Madhu​​in​​CCTV​​footage,​​arrived​​at​​Mukkali​
​junction​ ​and​ ​joined​ ​the​ ​group.​ ​His​ ​individual​ ​act​ ​is​ ​captured​ ​in​ ​the​ ​video​ ​evidence:​
​VID-20180222-WA0091.mp4​ ​from​ ​A8's​ ​phone​ ​(MO27c)​ ​in​ ​Q5​ ​file​ ​shows,​ ​at​ ​the​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​193​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​1:05-second​​mark,​​a​​person​​in​​a​​pink​​T-shirt​​identified​​through​​reference​​photograph​​S8​
​as​​A16​​emerging​​from​​behind​​and​​delivering​​a​​thrust​​or​​knee-blow​​to​​Madhu's​​back.​​The​
​Q2 video independently corroborates this same act from a different angle.​
​aa.​ ​Madhu​ ​was​ ​made​ ​to​ ​sit​ ​in​ ​front​ ​of​ ​the​ ​treasury​ ​box​ ​of​​the​​Ponmala​
​Dharmasasta​ ​Temple,​ ​against​ ​the​ ​northern​ ​wall​ ​of​ ​the​ ​building,​​4.9​​metres​​from​​the​
​north-eastern​​corner​​of​​Sreerag​​Bakery.​​Accused​​No.6​​(Aboobacker)​​held​​his​​shoulder.​
​Accused​​No.15​​(Biju)​​held​​the​​zip​​bound​​around​​his​​arms.​​Accused​​No.11​​is​​alleged​​to​
​have​ ​verbally​ ​abused​ ​him​ ​before​ ​the​ ​assembled​ ​crowd,​ ​calling​ ​him​ ​a​ ​thief.​ ​Accused​
​No.16​​struck​​him​​with​​his​​knee​​on​​his​​back.​​A4​​and​​A8​​continued​​to​​photograph​​and​​film​
​Madhu in this condition, bound in public, and surrounded by his tormentors.​
​ab.​ ​Accused​​No.1​​(Hussain)​​arrived​​at​​Mukkali​​junction​​in​​a​​Mahindra​​Xylo​
​bearing​​No.​​KL-53-F-722.​​The​​Q2​​CCTV​​from​​camera-1​​shows​​him​​walking​​toward​​the​
​crowd​​from​​3:35:15​​pm​​onwards​​and​​entering​​the​​gathering.​​At​​3:36:10​​p.m.​​to​​3:36:13​
​p.m.​ ​the​ ​Q2​ ​CCTV​ ​captures​ ​a​ ​sudden​ ​disturbance​ ​within​ ​the​ ​gathered​ ​crowd.​
​Simultaneously,​​Accused​​No.7​​(Sidhique)​​—​​identifiable​​in​​the​​Q2​​footage​​by​​his​​black​
​shirt​​—​​is​​seen​​rising​​suddenly​​from​​his​​seated​​position​​and​​raising​​his​​hands.​​The​​trial​
​court​​treated​​this​​spontaneous​​physical​​reaction​​under​​Section​​6​​of​​the​​Evidence​​Act​​as​
​a​ ​contemporaneous​ ​act​ ​forming​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​same​ ​transaction​ ​as​ ​A1's​ ​stamping,​
​categorising it as gestae evidence that corroborates the occurrence of the stamp.​
​ac.​ ​PW8​​(Suresh),​​who​​had​​reached​​Mukkali​​by​​this​​time,​​deposed​​that​​he​
​found​​Madhu​​sitting​​in​​front​​of​​the​​treasury​​box​​with​​his​​hands​​tied​​by​​MO2,​​the​​black​
​zip,​ ​which​ ​he​ ​identified​ ​in​ ​court.​ ​He​ ​deposed​ ​to​ ​witnessing​ ​Accused​ ​No.1​ ​(Hussain)​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​194​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​stamp​ ​Madhu.​ ​PW19​ ​(Manikandan)​ ​also​ ​identified​ ​A1​ ​as​ ​the​ ​person​ ​who​ ​stamped​
​Madhu. We shall deal with the evidence of PW8 and PW19 at a later stage.​
​ad.​ ​After​​the​​group​​reached​​Mukkali,​​Accused​​No.3​​(Shamsudheen)​​called​​S.I.,​
​Subin​ ​(PW91)​ ​a​ ​second​ ​time​ ​to​ ​inform​ ​him​ ​that​ ​Madhu​ ​had​ ​been​ ​brought​ ​to​ ​the​
​junction.​​This​​call​​is​​established​​by​​the​​CDR​​evidence​​in​​Exts.P41​​and​​P42​​series.​​It​​was​
​this​ ​call​ ​that​ ​set​ ​in​ ​motion​ ​the​ ​police​ ​response.​ ​PW91,​​on​​receiving​​the​​information,​
​contacted the GD charge of Agali Police Station, who in turn mobilised the patrol party.​
​ae.​ ​PW83​​(ASI​​Prasad​​Varkky),​​PW84​​(the​​driver),​​and​​PW89​​(Sujilal)​​had​
​received​ ​information​ ​at​ ​approximately​ ​2:15​ ​pm​ ​from​ ​the​ ​GD​ ​charge​ ​of​ ​Agali​ ​Police​
​Station​​that​​a​​person​​named​​Madhu,​​involved​​in​​a​​theft​​case,​​had​​been​​apprehended​​at​
​Mukkali.​​PW83​​proceeded​​immediately​​and​​reached​​Mukkali​​at​​approximately​​3:00​​p.m.​
​He​​found​​Madhu​​sitting​​in​​the​​CITU​​waiting​​shed​​at​​Mukkali​​junction,​​in​​shabby​​dress​
​and​ ​in​ ​a​ ​state​​of​​exhaustion.​​A​​crowd​​had​​gathered​​around​​him.​​The​​persons​​at​​the​
​scene​​told​​PW83​​that​​this​​was​​Madhu​​—​​a​​thief​​who​​had​​been​​causing​​a​​nuisance​​to​​the​
​public​ ​in​ ​the​ ​area.​ ​A​ ​few​ ​persons​ ​from​ ​the​ ​crowd​ ​placed​ ​Madhu​ ​in​ ​the​ ​police​ ​jeep​
​bearing​​No.​​KL-01-BW-5724.​​PW83​​noticed​​no​​prima​​facie​​external​​injury​​other​​than​​a​
​single swelling over the lips.​
​af.​ ​At​ ​approximately​​3:30​​p.m.,​​the​​police​​formally​​took​​Madhu​​into​​their​
​custody.​ ​The​ ​jeep​ ​departed​ ​for​ ​Agali​ ​CHC.​ ​Madhu​ ​vomited​ ​at​ ​Mele​ ​Thavalam,​
​approximately​ ​10​ ​kilometres​ ​from​ ​Mukkali,​ ​a​ ​symptom​ ​consistent​​with​​the​​advancing​
​neurological​ ​deterioration​ ​caused​​by​​the​​brain​​edema​​that​​had​​been​​developing​​since​
​the​​injuries​​inflicted​​in​​the​​Aandiyallachaal​​forest​​hours​​earlier.​​He​​was​​brought​​dead​​to​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​195​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Agali​ ​CHC​ ​at​ ​approximately​ ​4:15​​p.m.,​​where​​Dr.​​Lima​​Francis​​(PW56)​​examined​​him​
​and confirmed his death.​
​12.9.​ ​On​​the​​basis​​of​​the​​above​​sequence​​of​​events,​​which​​the​​prosecution​
​has​​been​​able​​to​​prove​​successfully,​​we​​shall​​consider​​the​​application​​of​​Section​​149​​of​
​the​​IPC,​​the​​categorisation​​of​​the​​accused​​and​​the​​individual​​findings​​against​​each​​of​
​them.​
​13​ .​ ​Section 149 IPC: Categorisation and Individual​​Findings:​
​13.1.​ ​Legal framework:​
​Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus:​
​"If​ ​an​ ​offence​ ​is​ ​committed​ ​by​ ​any​ ​member​ ​of​ ​an​ ​unlawful​
​assembly​ ​in​ ​prosecution​ ​of​ ​the​ ​common​ ​object​ ​of​ ​that​ ​assembly,​​or​
​such​ ​as​ ​the​ ​members​ ​of​ ​that​ ​assembly​ ​knew​ ​to​ ​be​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​be​
​committed​​in​​prosecution​​of​​that​​object,​​every​​person​​who,​​at​​the​​time​
​of​​the​​committing​​of​​that​​offence,​​is​​a​​member​​of​​the​​same​​assembly,​​is​
​guilty of that offence."​
​25​
​13.2.​ ​In​ ​Lalji​ ​And​ ​Others​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​Of​ ​U.P​ ​,​ ​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court,​ ​while​
​explaining the scope and ambit of the provisions, observed as follows:​
​"8.​ ​Section​ ​149​ ​IPC​ ​provides​ ​that​​if​​an​​offence​​is​​committed​​by​​any​
​member​​of​​an​​unlawful​​assembly​​in​​prosecution​​of​​the​​common​​object​
​of​​that​​assembly,​​or​​such​​as​​the​​members​​of​​the​​assembly​​knew​​to​​be​
​likely​​to​​be​​committed​​in​​prosecution​​of​​that​​object,​​every​​person,​​who​
​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​committing​ ​of​ ​that​ ​offence​​is​​a​​member​​of​​the​​same​
​assembly,​​is​​guilty​​of​​that​​offence.​​As​​has​​been​​defined​​in​​Section​​141​
​IPC,​​an​​assembly​​of​​five​​or​​more​​persons​​is​​designated​​an​​“Unlawful​
​Assembly”,​ ​if​ ​the​ ​common​ ​object​ ​of​ ​the​ ​persons​ ​composing​ ​that​
​assembly​ ​is​ ​to​​do​​any​​act​​or​​acts​​stated​​in​​clauses​​“First”,​​“Second”,​
​25​
​(1989) 1 SCC 437​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​196​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​“Third”,​ ​“Fourth”,​ ​and​ ​“Fifth”​ ​of​ ​that​ ​section.​ ​An​ ​assembly,​ ​as​ ​the​
​Explanation​ ​to​ ​the​ ​section​ ​says,​ ​which​ ​was​ ​not​ ​unlawful​ ​when​ ​it​
​assembled,​​may​​subsequently​​become​​an​​unlawful​​assembly.​​Whoever​
​being​​aware​​of​​facts​​which​​render​​any​​assembly​​an​​unlawful​​assembly​
​intentionally​ ​joins​ ​that​ ​assembly,​ ​or​ ​continues​ ​in​ ​it,​ ​is​ ​said​ ​to​ ​be​ ​a​
​member​​of​​an​​unlawful​​assembly.​​Thus,​​whenever​​so​​many​​as​​five​​or​
​more​ ​persons​ ​meet​ ​together​ ​to​ ​support​ ​each​ ​other,​ ​even​ ​against​
​opposition,​​in​​carrying​​out​​the​​common​​object​​which​​is​​likely​​to​​involve​
​violence​ ​or​ ​to​ ​produce​ ​in​ ​the​ ​minds​ ​of​ ​rational​ ​and​ ​firm​ ​men​ ​any​
​reasonable​​apprehension​​of​​violence,​​then​​even​​though​​they​​ultimately​
​depart​ ​without​ ​doing​ ​anything​ ​whatever​ ​towards​ ​carrying​ ​out​ ​their​
​common​​object,​​the​​mere​​fact​​of​​their​​having​​thus​​met​​will​​constitute​
​an​ ​offence.​ ​Of​ ​course,​​the​​alarm​​must​​not​​be​​merely​​such​​as​​would​
​frighten​​any​​foolish​​or​​timid​​person,​​but​​must​​be​​such​​as​​would​​alarm​
​persons​​of​​reasonable​​firmness​​and​​courage.​​The​​two​​essentials​​of​​the​
​section​ ​are​ ​the​ ​commission​ ​of​ ​an​ ​offence​ ​by​ ​any​ ​member​ ​of​ ​an​
​unlawful​​assembly​​and​​that​​such​​offence​​must​​have​​been​​committed​​in​
​prosecution​​of​​the​​common​​object​​of​​that​​assembly​​or​​must​​be​​such​​as​
​the​​members​​of​​that​​assembly​​knew​​to​​be​​likely​​to​​be​​committed.​​Not​
​every​ ​person​ ​is​ ​necessarily​ ​guilty​ ​but​ ​only​ ​those​ ​who​ ​share​ ​in​ ​the​
​common​​object.​​The​​common​​object​​of​​the​​assembly​​must​​be​​one​​of​
​the​​five​​objects​​mentioned​​in​​Section​​141​​IPC.​​Common​​object​​of​​the​
​unlawful​​assembly​​can​​be​​gathered​​from​​the​​nature​​of​​the​​assembly,​
​arms​ ​used​ ​by​ ​them​ ​and​ ​the​​behaviour​​of​​the​​assembly​​at​​or​​before​
​scene​​of​​occurrence.​​It​​is​​an​​inference​​to​​be​​deduced​​from​​the​​facts​
​and circumstances of each case.​
​9.​ ​Section​ ​149​​makes​​every​​member​​of​​an​​unlawful​​assembly​​at​​the​
​time​ ​of​ ​committing​ ​of​ ​the​ ​offence​ ​guilty​ ​of​ ​that​ ​offence.​ ​Thus​ ​this​
​section​ ​created​ ​a​ ​specific​ ​and​ ​distinct​ ​offence.​ ​In​ ​other​ ​words,​ ​it​
​created​ ​a​ ​constructive​ ​or​ ​vicarious​ ​liability​ ​of​ ​the​ ​members​ ​of​ ​the​
​unlawful​ ​assembly​ ​for​ ​the​ ​unlawful​ ​acts​ ​committed​ ​pursuant​ ​to​ ​the​
​common​​object​​by​​any​​other​​member​​of​​that​​assembly.​​However,​​the​
​vicarious​​liability​​of​​the​​members​​of​​the​​unlawful​​assembly​​extends​​only​
​to​​the​​acts​​done​​in​​pursuance​​of​​the​​common​​objects​​of​​the​​unlawful​
​assembly,​​or​​to​​such​​offences​​as​​the​​members​​of​​the​​unlawful​​assembly​
​knew​​to​​be​​likely​​to​​be​​committed​​in​​prosecution​​of​​that​​object.​​Once​
​the​ ​case​ ​of​ ​a​ ​person​ ​falls​ ​within​ ​the​ ​ingredients​ ​of​ ​the​ ​section​ ​the​
​question​​that​​he​​did​​nothing​​with​​his​​own​​hands​​would​​be​​immaterial.​
​He​​cannot​​put​​forward​​the​​defence​​that​​he​​did​​not​​with​​his​​own​​hand​
​commit​​the​​offence​​committed​​in​​prosecution​​of​​the​​common​​object​​of​
​the​​unlawful​​assembly​​or​​such​​as​​the​​members​​of​​the​​assembly​​knew​
​to​ ​be​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​be​ ​committed​​in​​prosecution​​of​​that​​object.​​Everyone​
​must​​be​​taken​​to​​have​​intended​​the​​probable​​and​​natural​​results​​of​​the​
​combination​​of​​the​​acts​​in​​which​​he​​joined.​​It​​is​​not​​necessary​​that​​all​
​the​ ​persons​ ​forming​ ​an​ ​unlawful​ ​assembly​ ​must​ ​do​ ​some​​overt​​act.​
​When​​the​​accused​​persons​​assembled​​together,​​armed​​with​​lathis,​​and​
​were​​parties​​to​​the​​assault​​on​​the​​complainant​​party,​​the​​prosecution​​is​
​not​​obliged​​to​​prove​​which​​specific​​overt​​act​​was​​done​​by​​which​​of​​the​
​accused.​ ​This​ ​section​ ​makes​ ​a​ ​member​ ​of​ ​the​ ​unlawful​ ​assembly​
​responsible​​as​​a​​principal​​for​​the​​acts​​of​​each,​​and​​all,​​merely​​because​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​197​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​he​ ​is​ ​a​​member​​of​​an​​unlawful​​assembly.​​While​​overt​​act​​and​​active​
​participation​​may​​indicate​​common​​intention​​of​​the​​person​​perpetrating​
​the​ ​crime,​ ​the​ ​mere​ ​presence​ ​in​ ​the​ ​unlawful​ ​assembly​ ​may​ ​fasten​
​vicariously​ ​criminal​ ​liability​​under​​Section​​149.​​It​​must​​be​​noted​​that​
​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​constructive​ ​guilt​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​149​ ​is​ ​mere​
​membership​ ​of​ ​the​ ​unlawful​ ​assembly,​ ​with​ ​the​ ​requisite​ ​common​
​object or knowledge.​
​10.​​Thus,​​once​​the​​court​​holds​​that​​certain​​accused​​persons​​formed​​an​
​unlawful​​assembly​​and​​an​​offence​​is​​committed​​by​​any​​member​​of​​that​
​assembly​ ​in​ ​prosecution​ ​of​ ​the​ ​common​ ​object​ ​of​ ​that​ ​assembly,​​or​
​such​ ​as​ ​the​ ​members​ ​of​ ​the​ ​assembly​ ​knew​ ​to​ ​be​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​be​
​committed​​in​​prosecution​​of​​that​​object,​​every​​person​​who​​at​​the​​time​
​of​​committing​​of​​that​​offence​​was​​a​​member​​of​​the​​same​​assembly​​is​​to​
​be​​held​​guilty​​of​​that​​offence.​​After​​such​​a​​finding​​it​​would​​not​​be​​open​
​to​​the​​court​​to​​see​​as​​to​​who​​actually​​did​​the​​offensive​​act​​or​​require​
​the​ ​prosecution​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​which​ ​of​ ​the​ ​members​ ​did​ ​which​ ​of​ ​the​
​offensive acts. The prosecution would have no obligation to prove it.​
​13.3.​ ​Two​​principles​​flow​​from​​this​​provision​​that​​are​​critical​​to​​the​​analysis​​in​
​the​​present​​case.​​Firstly,​​membership​​of​​the​​unlawful​​assembly​​must​​be​​established​​for​
​each​​accused​​independently.​​Secondly,​​the​​scope​​of​​constructive​​liability​​under​​Section​
​149​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC​ ​may​ ​vary​ ​for​ ​accused​ ​who​ ​joined​ ​the​ ​assembly​ ​at​ ​different​ ​stages,​
​because​​they​​can​​only​​be​​held​​liable​​for​​acts​​committed​​after​​they​​joined,​​provided​​they​
​had knowledge of the common object at the time of joining.​
​26​
​13.4.​ ​In​ ​Shambhu​ ​Nath​ ​Singh​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Bihar​ ​,​ ​fourteen​​individuals​
​were​​tried​​for​​offences​​punishable​​under​​Sections​​147,​​148,​​302,​​302/149​​of​​the​​Indian​
​Penal​ ​Code​ ​(IPC)​ ​and​ ​Sections​ ​19(E)​ ​&​ ​19(F)​ ​of​ ​the​​Arms​​Act.​​In​​the​​course​​of​​the​
​incident,​​accused​​No.​​1,​​Shambhu​​Nath​​Singh,​​allegedly​​fired​​a​​gun,​​killing​​two​​persons​
​and​ ​injuring​ ​others.​ ​The​ ​contention​ ​raised​ ​before​ ​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​by​ ​some​ ​of​ ​the​
​convicted​​accused​​was​​that​​an​​accused​​cannot​​be​​constructively​​held​​liable​​with​​the​​aid​
​26​
​(AIR 1960 SC 725)​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​198​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​of​ ​Section​​149,​​for​​acts​​committed​​before​​one​​became​​a​​member​​of​​the​​assembly.The​
​Apex Court had observed as under:​
​6.​​Section​​149​​of​​the​​Indian​​Penal​​Code​​is​​declaratory​​of​​the​​vicarious​
​liability​ ​of​ ​the​ ​members​ ​of​ ​an​ ​unlawful​ ​assembly​ ​for​ ​acts​ ​done​ ​in​
​prosecution​​of​​the​​common​​object​​of​​that​​assembly​​or​​for​​such​​offences​
​as​ ​the​ ​members​ ​of​ ​the​ ​unlawful​ ​assembly​ ​knew​ ​to​ ​be​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​be​
​committed​ ​in​ ​prosecution​ ​of​ ​that​ ​object.​ ​If​ ​an​ ​unlawful​ ​assembly​ ​is​
​formed​​with​​the​​common​​object​​of​​committing​​an​​offence,​​and​​if​​that​
​offence​​is​​committed​​in​​prosecution​​of​​the​​object​​by​​any​​member​​of​​the​
​unlawful​​assembly,​​all​​the​​members​​of​​the​​assembly​​will​​be​​vicariously​
​liable​​for​​that​​offence​​even​​if​​one​​or​​more,​​but​​not​​all​​committed​​the​
​offence.​​Again,​​if​​an​​offence​​is​​committed​​by​​a​​member​​of​​an​​unlawful​
​assembly​​and​​that​​offence​​is​​one​​which​​the​​members​​of​​the​​unlawful​
​assembly​ ​knew​ ​to​ ​be​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​be​ ​committed​ ​in​ ​prosecution​ ​of​ ​the​
​common​​object,​​every​​member​​who​​had​​that​​knowledge​​will​​be​​guilty​
​of​ ​the​ ​offence​ ​so​ ​committed.​ ​But​ ​members​​of​​an​​unlawful​​assembly​
​may​​have​​a​​community​​of​​object​​up​​to​​a​​certain​​point,​​beyond​​which​
​they​​may​​differ​​in​​their​​objects,​​and​​the​​knowledge​​possessed​​by​​each​
​member​ ​of​ ​what​ ​is​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​be​ ​committed​ ​in​ ​prosecution​ ​of​ ​their​
​common​​object​​may​​vary​​not​​only​​according​​to​​the​​information​​at​​his​
​command,​ ​but​ ​also​ ​according​ ​to​ ​the​ ​extent​ ​to​ ​which​ ​he​ ​shares​ ​the​
​community​​of​​object​​and​​as​​a​​consequence​​of​​this​​the​​effect​​of​​Section​
​149​​of​​the​​Indian​​Penal​​Code​​may​​be​​different​​on​​different​​members​​of​
​the​​same​​unlawful​​assembly."​​See​​Jahiruddin​​v.​​Queen​​Empress,​​ILR​​22​
​Cal 306.​
​13.5.​ ​In​​the​​light​​of​​the​​principles​​above​​,​​we​​shall​​deal​​with​​the​​facts​​of​​the​
​instant case and examine the categories of the accused.​
​13.6.​ ​Category - I: Core Forest Group:​
​The​​first​​category​​is​​what​​may​​be​​described​​as​​the​​core​​forest​​group,​​comprising​
​Accused​​Nos.​​2,​​3,​​5,​​6,​​7,​​8,​​9,​​10,​​12,​​and​​13.​​These​​are​​the​​accused​​who​​were​​part​​of​
​the​​original​​unlawful​​assembly​​formed​​at​​the​​shop​​of​​Accused​​No.​​9​​at​​Mukkali​​at​​12:30​
​p.m.​​and​​who​​proceeded​​together​​to​​the​​Aandiyallachaal​​reserved​​forest.​​Accused​​Nos.​
​3,​​5,​​6,​​7,​​8,​​and​​12​​arrived​​at​​the​​assembly​​point​​in​​A10's​​autorickshaw.​​Accused​​No.9​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​199​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​was​​already​​at​​his​​shop,​​which​​served​​as​​the​​assembly​​point.​​Accused​​No.10​​drove​​the​
​autorickshaw.​​Accused​​No.13​​arrived​​separately​​on​​his​​motorcycle.​​Accused​​No.2​​joined​
​the​ ​group​ ​in​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​itself,​ ​after​ ​receiving​ ​information​ ​from​ ​PW11​ ​about​ ​Madhu's​
​whereabouts. Accused No.3 was in charge of the operation throughout.​
​13.7.​ ​The​ ​evidence​ ​establishing​ ​the​ ​membership​ ​and​​individual​​acts​​of​​this​
​group​​operates​​at​​multiple​​levels.​​We​​shall​​first​​deal​​with​​the​​formation​​of​​the​​unlawful​
​assembly.​ ​Q3​ ​CCTV​ ​footage​ ​recorded​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Ponniyammal​ ​Gurukulam​ ​Camera​ ​from​
​12:41:24​ ​p.m.​ ​onwards​ ​reveals​ ​the​ ​group​ ​gathering​ ​beside​ ​the​ ​Mukkali–Silent​ ​Valley​
​road.​ ​At​ ​12:44​ ​p.m.,​ ​eight​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​entered​ ​A9's​ ​Marshal​ ​Jeep​ ​bearing​ ​No.​
​KL-11-H-8559​​and​​proceeded​​toward​​the​​Silent​​Valley​​road​​in​​the​​direction​​of​​the​​forest.​
​Accused​​No.13​​is​​simultaneously​​visible​​on​​the​​same​​road​​on​​his​​motorcycle.​​These​​facts​
​are​​formally​​proved​​by​​PW95​​and​​the​​accused​​are​​identified​​in​​the​​footage​​by​​PW2​​by​
​name, on the basis of his prior personal acquaintance with them.​
​13.8.​ ​As​​regards​​the​​transit​​to​​the​​forest,​​Q1​​CCTV​​at​​Anavai​​Forest​​Station​​at​
​12:51:51 p.m. captures A9's Marshal Jeep proceeding toward Vandikkadavu.​
​13.9.​ ​The​​GPS​​coordinates​​embedded​​in​​the​​EXIF​​metadata​​of​​photographs​
​taken​​by​​A5's​​phone​​(MO27(a)/Q6)​​(​​Latitude​​11.079782,​​Longitude​​76.536017)​​verified​
​by​​PW95​​against​​Google​​Maps​​and​​confirmed​​to​​fall​​within​​the​​Aandiyallachaal​​reserved​
​forest​ ​area​ ​of​​Silent​​Valley​​National​​Park,​​confirm​​the​​presence​​of​​the​​accused​​in​​the​
​reserved​​forest.​​The​​photograph​​in​​Q6​​file​​No.​​IMG_20180222_130057​​was​​captured​​at​
​1:00​​pm,​​placing​​Accused​​No.5​​and​​the​​group​​in​​the​​forest​​at​​that​​time.​​The​​photograph​
​showing​ ​Madhu​ ​(IMG20180222132323/IMG20180222132326)​ ​was​ ​taken​ ​at​ ​1:23​ ​pm,​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​200​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​with​​a​​portion​​of​​Accused​​No.2​​visibly​​present​​in​​the​​frame,​​checking​​Madhu's​​hands.​
​The​​video​​VID-20180222-WA0034​​in​​Q​​7​​seen​​in​​A9's​​phone​​(MO27b),​​which​​is​​of​​5:38​
​minutes'​​duration​​shows​​the​​accused​​surrounding​​Madhu,​​the​​capture,​​the​​assault,​​the​
​tying,​​and​​the​​beginning​​of​​the​​march.​​The​​area​​shown​​in​​the​​footage​​was​​identified​​by​
​PW53 and PW62 as Aandiyallachaal, forming part of the reserved forest.​
​13.10.​ ​The​​individual​​acts​​established​​against​​each​​member​​of​​this​​group​​are​
​as​ ​follows.​ ​Accused​​No.3​​(Shamsudheen)​​tied​​Madhu's​​hands​​first​​with​​his​​own​​dhoti​
​and​​then​​with​​MO2,​​the​​black​​plastic​​zip.​​These​​acts​​are​​visible​​in​​Q7​​video​​and​​the​​Q6​
​photographs.​​The​​projected​​case​​of​​the​​prosecution​​is​​that​​Accused​​No.3​​struck​​Madhu​
​on​​the​​dorsum​​with​​MO24,​​a​​wooden​​stick,​​causing​​the​​fractured​​XIth​​rib​​on​​the​​left​​side​
​and​ ​perinephric​ ​haematoma​ ​recorded​ ​as​ ​Injury​​No.​​12​​in​​the​​postmortem​​certificate,​
​Ext.P82.​ ​MO24​ ​was​ ​recovered​ ​through​ ​A3's​ ​confession​ ​statement​ ​Ext.P132,​ ​mahazar​
​Ext.P52.​ ​Accused​ ​No.3​ ​called​ ​PW91​ ​(S.I.,​ ​Subin)​ ​once​​from​​the​​forest​​to​​inform​​that​
​Madhu​ ​had​ ​been​ ​apprehended,​ ​and​ ​again​ ​on​ ​reaching​ ​Mukkali.​ ​These​ ​calls​ ​are​
​established​​by​​Exts.P41​​and​​P42​​series.​​Accused​​No.2​​(Marakkar)​​inquired​​about​​Madhu​
​from​ ​PW11,​ ​as​ ​established​ ​by​ ​PW11's​ ​recalled​ ​testimony.​ ​He​ ​is​ ​visible​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Q6​
​photograph​​at​​1:23​​p.m.​​He​​held​​the​​zip​​tied​​on​​Madhu's​​hands​​during​​the​​march.​​His​
​three​ ​calls​ ​to​ ​A9​ ​at​ ​12:17,​ ​12:21,​ ​and​ ​12:22​ ​pm​ ​are​ ​established​ ​by​ ​Ext.P42​ ​CDR.​
​Accused​ ​No.5​ ​(Radhakrishnan)​ ​was​​the​​person​​whose​​phone​​placed​​the​​group​​in​​the​
​forest​ ​at​ ​1:00​ ​pm​ ​through​ ​GPS​ ​metadata.​ ​His​ ​device​ ​(MO27(a)/Q6)​ ​captured​ ​11​
​photographs​ ​and​ ​2​ ​videos​ ​of​ ​the​ ​incident.​ ​He​​is​​stated​​to​​have​​fisted​​Madhu​​on​​the​
​dorsum,​ ​as​ ​attributed​ ​in​ ​the​ ​charges.​ ​Accused​ ​No.6​ ​(Aboobacker)​ ​was​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​
​autorickshaw​​group​​and​​is​​stated​​to​​have​​fisted​​Madhu​​on​​the​​dorsum​​during​​the​​forest​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​201​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​assault​ ​as​ ​per​ ​the​ ​charge.​ ​He​ ​was​ ​also​ ​present​ ​at​ ​Mukkali,​ ​where​ ​he​ ​held​ ​Madhu's​
​shoulder​ ​when​ ​Madhu​ ​was​ ​made​​to​​sit​​at​​the​​treasury​​box.​​Accused​​No.7​​(Sidhique)​
​caught​​hold​​of​​Madhu's​​left​​hand​​during​​the​​march​​from​​the​​forest​​and​​this​​is​​visible​​in​
​the​ ​Q7​ ​video.​ ​His​ ​phone​ ​(MO27/Q8)​ ​and​ ​the​ ​memory​ ​card​ ​(MO27(e))​ ​contained​
​photographs​​of​​the​​incident.​​At​​Mukkali,​​his​​spontaneous​​rising​​from​​his​​seat​​at​​3:36:10​
​seconds​​is​​captured​​in​​the​​Q2​​CCTV.​​A8​​(Ubaid)​​was​​part​​of​​the​​core​​forest​​group​​and​​is​
​stated​ ​to​ ​have​ ​fisted​ ​Madhu​ ​on​ ​the​ ​dorsum.​ ​His​ ​phone​ ​(MO27(c)/Q5)​ ​contained​ ​7​
​photographs​ ​and​ ​2​ ​videos,​ ​including​ ​VID-20180222-WA0091​ ​showing​ ​A16's​ ​act​ ​and​
​VID-20180222-WA0094​ ​which​ ​shows​ ​A1​ ​near​​the​​police​​jeep.​​Accused​​No.9​​(Najeeb)​
​organised​​the​​entire​​operation.​​He​​received​​A2's​​three​​calls,​​assembled​​the​​group,​​and​
​provided​​his​​Marshal​​Jeep​​KL-11-H-8559.​​His​​phone​​(MO27(b)/Q7)​​contained​​the​​critical​
​5:38-minute​​Q7​​video.​​Accused​​No.10​​(Jaijumon)​​drove​​the​​autorickshaw​​KL-50-D-2908​
​that​​transported​​the​​group​​to​​the​​assembly​​point.​​He​​placed​​MO3​​sack​​containing​​stolen​
​rice​​and​​other​​items​​on​​Madhu's​​shoulder,​​and​​this​​act​​has​​been​​captured​​in​​Q7​​video.​
​He​ ​is​ ​stated​ ​to​ ​have​ ​fisted​ ​Madhu​​on​​the​​dorsum​​as​​per​​the​​charge.​​Accused​​No.12​
​(Sajeev)​ ​was​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​who​ ​arrived​ ​in​ ​the​ ​autorickshaw​ ​and​ ​was​ ​present​
​throughout​​the​​forest​​stage​​and​​the​​march.​​His​​participation​​in​​the​​acts​​of​​the​​assembly​
​is​ ​established​ ​through​​his​​group​​presence​​in​​the​​Q7​​video​​and​​the​​photographs​​from​
​multiple​ ​phones,​ ​though​ ​no​ ​individual​​weapon​​use​​or​​separately​​identified​​violent​​act​
​beyond​ ​group​ ​participation​ ​is​ ​proved.​ ​Accused​ ​No.13​ ​(Satheesh)​ ​arrived​ ​on​ ​his​
​motorcycle​​KL-05-AJ-498​​and​​proceeded​​to​​the​​forest​​area.​​He​​was​​identified​​by​​PW27​
​(Lakshmi) from the dock as one of the persons marching Madhu through the road.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​202​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​13.11.​ ​This​​group​​constituted​​the​​original​​unlawful​​assembly​​from​​the​​moment​
​of​ ​its​ ​formation​ ​at​ ​12:30​ ​p.m.​ ​They​ ​proceeded​ ​together​ ​to​ ​the​ ​forest,​ ​trespassed​
​together,​ ​committed​ ​the​ ​forest-stage​ ​assault​​together,​​and​​brought​​Madhu​​to​​Mukkali​
​together.​​Their​​constructive​​liability​​under​​Section​​149​​of​​the​​IPC​​attaches​​from​​the​​point​
​of​​formation​​and​​extends​​to​​all​​acts​​committed​​in​​prosecution​​of​​the​​common​​object​​or​
​such​​acts​​as​​the​​members​​knew​​were​​likely​​to​​be​​committed​​from​​12:30​​pm​​onwards.​
​The​ ​common​ ​object​ ​was​ ​to​ ​apprehend​ ​Madhu​ ​from​ ​the​ ​reserved​ ​forest,​ ​cause​ ​him​
​bodily hurt and grievous hurt to teach him a lesson, and hand him over to the police.​
​13.12.​ ​Category - II: Accused who joined the Group​​at Vandikkadavu:​
​The​​second​​category​​comprises​​Accused​​Nos.​​14​​and​​15​​who​​joined​​the​​unlawful​
​assembly​​at​​Vandikkadavu.​​Accused​​No.14​​(Hareesh)​​is​​the​​owner​​of​​Sreerag​​Bakery​​at​
​Mukkali,​​the​​establishment​​from​​whose​​own​​CCTV​​system​​the​​Q2​​footage​​was​​extracted.​
​Accused​ ​No.15​ ​(Biju)​ ​is​ ​A14's​ ​brother.​ ​Both​ ​joined​ ​the​ ​unlawful​ ​assembly​ ​at​ ​the​
​Vandikkadavu​​forest​​fringe,​​after​​the​​forest-stage​​assault​​had​​already​​been​​committed​
​and​​the​​group​​was​​bringing​​Madhu​​down​​toward​​the​​road.​​While​​the​​group​​was​​still​​in​
​the​​forest,​​A3​​called​​A14​​to​​inform​​him​​of​​Madhu's​​apprehension​​and​​that​​the​​group​​was​
​bringing​ ​him​​down​​to​​Vandikkadavu.​​This​​call​​is​​established​​by​​CDR​​Ext.P41​​and​​P42​
​series.​​The​​Q1​​CCTV​​at​​Anavai​​Forest​​Station​​captures​​at​​13:50:28​​pm​​a​​Mahindra​​Xylo​
​bearing​ ​No.​ ​KL-32-B-5959,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​owned​ ​by​ ​Accused​ ​No.15,​ ​moving​ ​toward​
​Vandikkadavu.​​The​​above​​video​​establishes​​the​​physical​​movement​​of​​Accused​​Nos.14​
​and​​15​​toward​​the​​meeting​​point.​​Photograph​​IMG-20180222-WA0083​​from​​A8's​​phone​
​(Q5,​ ​MO27(c))​ ​shows​ ​A14,​ ​A15,​ ​and​ ​A9's​ ​Marshal​ ​Jeep​ ​together​ ​at​ ​Vandikkadavu,​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​203​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​establishing​​their​​physical​​co-location​​at​​the​​forest​​fringe​​before​​the​​group​​completed​​its​
​descent.​​The​​Q1​​CCTV​​from​​14:46:50​​pm​​onwards​​shows​​Accused​​Nos.14​​and​​15​​visible​
​in​ ​the​ ​footage,​ ​actively​​bringing​​Madhu​​toward​​the​​Silent​​Valley–Mukkali​​road.​​A14​​is​
​attributed​ ​with​ ​having​ ​beaten​ ​Madhu​ ​on​ ​the​ ​dorsum​ ​with​ ​his​ ​hand​ ​and​ ​with​​having​
​recorded visuals of Madhu on his mobile phone MO25/Q9.​
​13.13.​ ​While​ ​considering​ ​whether​ ​Section​ ​149​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC​ ​can​ ​be​ ​applied​​to​
​Accused​​Nos.14​​and​​15,​​and​​question​​that​​was​​posed​​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​​was​​that​
​since​ ​the​ ​fatal​ ​head​ ​injury​ ​(Injury​ ​No.​ ​2)​ ​and​ ​the​ ​rib​ ​fracture​ ​(Injury​ ​No.​ ​12)​ ​were​
​inflicted​ ​in​ ​the​​forest​​before​​they​​joined,​​they​​cannot​​be​​constructively​​held​​liable​​for​
​those​ ​injuries.​ ​We​ ​are​ ​of​ ​the​ ​view​ ​that​ ​the​ ​sequence​ ​of​ ​events​ ​and​ ​the​ ​evidence​
​establishes​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​Nos.14​ ​and​ ​15​ ​joined​ ​with​ ​full​ ​knowledge​ ​of​ ​the​ ​common​
​object​​which​​was​​apparent​​and​​visible​​to​​them​​in​​concrete​​and​​unmistakable​​form​​when​
​they​ ​arrived.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​prior​​telephonic​​information,​​they​​saw​​that​​Madhu​​was​
​being​​brought​​down​​with​​his​​hands​​bound,​​a​​sack​​on​​his​​shoulder,​​having​​plainly​​been​
​subjected​ ​to​ ​assault.​ ​The​ ​continuing​ ​common​ ​object​ ​they​ ​shared​ ​encompassed​
​confinement,​​further​​hurt,​​the​​parade,​​and​​the​​humiliation​​all​​of​​which​​continued​​after​
​their​ ​joining​ ​and​ ​all​​of​​which​​contributed​​to​​the​​conjoint​​vicious​​cycle​​of​​injuries​​that​
​caused Madhu's death.​
​13.14.​ ​Category - III: Accused who joined at Mukkali:​
​The​ ​third​ ​category​ ​are​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​who​ ​joined​ ​at​ ​Mukkali.​​They​​are​​Accused​
​Nos.​​4,​​11,​​and​​16.​​As​​regards​​Accused​​No.4​​(Aneesh),​​the​​Sessions​​Judge​​acquitted​
​him​ ​on​ ​the​ ​ground​ ​that​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​he​ ​had​ ​joined​ ​the​ ​unlawful​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​204​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​assembly​​or​​committed​​any​​of​​the​​offences​​charged.​​While​​A4​​was​​present​​at​​Mukkali​
​junction​ ​and​ ​his​ ​phone​ ​(Q4/MO27d)​ ​captured​ ​photographs​ ​and​ ​video​ ​of​ ​Madhu,​ ​the​
​prosecution​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​No.4​ ​shared​ ​the​ ​common​ ​object​ ​of​ ​the​
​assembly​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​being​ ​a​ ​person​ ​who​ ​was​ ​present​ ​and​ ​photographing​ ​without​
​actively​​participating​​in​​the​​physical​​acts​​or​​the​​confinement.​​The​​act​​of​​photography,​
​without​ ​more,​ ​was​ ​found​ ​insufficient​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​membership.​ ​As​ ​regards​ ​Accused​
​No.11​​(Abdul​​Kareem),​​the​​Sessions​​Court​​acquitted​​him​​on​​the​​ground​​that​​no​​overt​​act​
​was​​attributable​​to​​him​​and​​that​​his​​sharing​​of​​the​​common​​object​​was​​not​​established.​
​The​ ​Q2​ ​CCTV​ ​shows​ ​Accused​ ​No.11​ ​present​ ​at​ ​Mukkali​ ​throughout​​the​​incident,​​but​
​presence​​alone​​without​​evidence​​of​​any​​act​​in​​furtherance​​of​​the​​common​​object​​was​
​found​​insufficient.​​No​​specific​​violent​​act,​​no​​act​​of​​control​​over​​Madhu,​​and​​no​​specific​
​instruction​​was​​attributed​​to​​Accused​​No.11​​individually.​​The​​passive​​presence​​of​​A11​​at​
​the​​scene,​​without​​any​​active​​furtherance​​of​​the​​common​​object,​​was​​held​​not​​to​​satisfy​
​the​ ​membership​ ​requirement​ ​of​ ​Section​ ​141​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC.​ ​As​ ​regards​ ​Accused​ ​No.16​
​(Muneer),​​he​​was​​found​​guilty​​for​​the​​offence​​under​​Section​​352​​of​​the​​IPC​​for​​criminal​
​force​​causing​​annoyance​​on​​the​​ground​​that​​his​​knee-blow​​on​​Madhu's​​back​​caused​​no​
​visible​​pain​​and​​that​​no​​injury​​in​​the​​postmortem​​certificate​​could​​be​​attributed​​to​​his​
​act.​
​13.15.​ ​Category - IV: Accused No. 1:​
​The​ ​fourth​ ​and​ ​final​ ​category​ ​is​ ​Accused​ ​No.​ ​1,​​who​​was​​the​​last​​among​​the​
​accused​ ​to​ ​join​ ​the​ ​unlawful​ ​assembly​ ​as​ ​per​ ​the​ ​prosecution.​ ​The​ ​Sessions​ ​Court​
​convicted​​Accused​​No.1​​under​​Sections​​143,​​147,​​323,​​342,​​and​​304​​Part​​II​​r/w​​Section​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​205​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​149​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC​ ​—​ ​notably​ ​not​ ​including​​Sections​​324,​​326,​​and​​367​​of​​the​​IPC.​​The​
​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​took​​note​​of​​the​​fact​​that​​Accused​​No.1​​joined​​the​​assembly​​only​
​at​​Mukkali,​​and​​that​​his​​constructive​​liability​​under​​Section​​149​​of​​the​​IPC​​is​​confined​​to​
​the​​acts​​committed​​from​​the​​point​​of​​his​​joining​​rather​​than​​the​​forest-stage​​offences.​
​The​ ​Sessions​ ​Court​ ​relied​​on​​the​​disturbance​​captured​​in​​the​​Q2​​CCTV​​at​​3:36:10​​to​
​3:36:13 seconds was treated as res gestae evidence corroborating the stamping.​
​13.16.​ ​We​​shall​​consider​​the​​sustainability​​of​​the​​finding​​of​​conviction​​against​
​Accused​​Nos.​​1,​​2,​​3,​​5,​​6,​​7,​​8,​​9,​​10,​​12,​​13,​​14​​and​​15,​​the​​acquittal​​of​​Accused​​Nos.4​
​and​​11,​​conviction​​for​​a​​lesser​​offence​​insofar​​as​​Accused​​No.16​​is​​concerned​​and​​the​
​conviction of Accused No.1 separately.​
​14.​ ​Legal Principles on Interference with A​ cquittals:​
​14.1.​ ​We​​shall​​first​​deal​​with​​the​​acquittal​​of​​accused​​Nos.​​4​​and​​11.​ ​It​​is​
​well​ ​settled​ ​that​ ​an​ ​order​​of​​acquittal​​can​​be​​set​​aside​​by​​the​​High​​Court​​only​​if​​the​
​Appellate​​Court​​is​​satisfied​​that​​the​​reasons​​in​​support​​of​​acquittal​​recorded​​by​​the​​trial​
​court​ ​are​ ​non-existent,​ ​extraneous​ ​or​ ​perverse.​​Interference​​can​​also​​be​​made​​if​​the​
​acquittal​​is​​palpably​​wrong,​​totally​​ill-founded​​or​​wholly​​misconceived.​​If​​the​​view​​taken​
​by​​the​​trial​​court​​was​​legal,​​proper​​and​​in​​consonance​​with​​law,​​in​​an​​appeal​​against​
​acquittal,​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​shall​ ​refrain​ ​from​ ​disturbing​ ​the​ ​order​ ​even​ ​if​ ​two​ ​views​ ​were​
​possible. It would be apposite to refer to the settled precedents.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​206​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​27​
​14.2.​ ​In​ ​Kallu​​Alias​​Masih​​v.​​State​​of​​M.P​ ​,​​the​​Apex​​Court​​has​​observed​
​as under:​
​“8.​ ​While​ ​deciding​ ​an​ ​appeal​ ​against​ ​acquittal,​ ​the​ ​power​ ​of​ ​the​
​appellate​ ​court​ ​is​ ​no​ ​less​ ​than​ ​the​ ​power​ ​exercised​ ​while​ ​hearing​
​appeals​​against​​conviction.​​In​​both​​types​​of​​appeals,​​the​​power​​exists​
​to​ ​review​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​evidence.​ ​However,​ ​one​ ​significant​ ​difference​​is​
​that​​an​​order​​of​​acquittal​​will​​not​​be​​interfered​​with,​​by​​an​​appellate​
​court,​​where​​the​​judgment​​of​​the​​trial​​court​​is​​based​​on​​evidence​​and​
​the​ ​view​ ​taken​ ​is​ ​reasonable​ ​and​ ​plausible.​ ​It​ ​will​ ​not​ ​reverse​ ​the​
​decision​​of​​the​​trial​​court​​merely​​because​​a​​different​​view​​is​​possible.​
​The​​appellate​​court​​will​​also​​bear​​in​​mind​​that​​there​​is​​a​​presumption​​of​
​innocence​​in​​favour​​of​​the​​accused​​and​​the​​accused​​is​​entitled​​to​​get​
​the​ ​benefit​ ​of​ ​any​ ​doubt.​ ​Further​ ​if​ ​it​​decides​​to​​interfere,​​it​​should​
​assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court.”​
​28​
​14.3.​ ​In​ ​Harijana​​Thirupala​​v.​​Public​​Prosecutor,​​High​​Court​​of​​A.P​ ​,​
​it was held as under:​
​12.​​Doubtless​​the​​High​​Court​​in​​appeal​​either​​against​​an​​order​​of​​acquittal​
​or​​conviction​​as​​a​​court​​of​​first​​appeal​​has​​full​​power​​to​​review​​the​​evidence​​to​
​reach​​its​​own​​independent​​conclusion.​​However,​​it​​will​​not​​interfere​​with​​an​
​order​​of​​acquittal​​lightly​​or​​merely​​because​​one​​other​​view​​is​​possible,​​because​
​with​​the​​passing​​of​​an​​order​​of​​acquittal​​presumption​​of​​innocence​​in​​favour​​of​
​the​​accused​​gets​​reinforced​​and​​strengthened.​​The​​High​​Court​​would​​not​​be​
​justified​​to​​interfere​​with​​order​​of​​acquittal​​merely​​because​​it​​feels​​that​​sitting​
​as​​a​​trial​​court​​it​​would​​have​​proceeded​​to​​record​​a​​conviction;​​a​​duty​​is​​cast​
​on​​the​​High​​Court​​while​​reversing​​an​​order​​of​​acquittal​​to​​examine​​and​​discuss​
​the​​reasons​​given​​by​​the​​trial​​court​​to​​acquit​​the​​accused​​and​​then​​to​​dispel​
​those​​reasons.​​If​​the​​High​​Court​​fails​​to​​make​​such​​an​​exercise​​the​​judgment​
​will suffer from serious infirmity.​
​29​
​14.4.​ ​In​ ​Chandrappa​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Karnataka​ ​,​ ​the​ ​general​ ​principles​
​regarding​​powers​​of​​the​​appellate​​court​​while​​dealing​​with​​an​​appeal​​against​​an​​order​​of​
​acquittal was laid down as under:​
​(1)​ ​An​​appellate​​court​​has​​full​​power​​to​​review,​​reappreciate​​and​​reconsider​
​the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.​
​27​
​(2006) 10 SCC 313​
​28​
​(2002) 6 SCC 470​
​29​
​(2007) 4 SCC 415​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​207​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​(2)​ ​The​ ​Code​ ​of​ ​Criminal​​Procedure,​​1973​​puts​​no​​limitation,​​restriction​​or​
​condition​ ​on​ ​exercise​ ​of​ ​such​ ​power​ ​and​ ​an​ ​appellate​ ​court​ ​on​ ​the​
​evidence​ ​before​ ​it​​may​​reach​​its​​own​​conclusion,​​both​​on​​questions​​of​
​fact and of law.​
​(3)​ ​Various​​expressions,​​such​​as,​​“substantial​​and​​compelling​​reasons”,​​“good​
​and​ ​sufficient​ ​grounds”,​ ​“very​ ​strong​ ​circumstances”,​ ​“distorted​
​conclusions”,​​“glaring​​mistakes”,​​etc.​​are​​not​​intended​​to​​curtail​​extensive​
​powers​ ​of​ ​an​ ​appellate​ ​court​ ​in​ ​an​ ​appeal​ ​against​ ​acquittal.​ ​Such​
​phraseologies​ ​are​ ​more​ ​in​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​of​ ​“flourishes​ ​of​ ​language”​ ​to​
​emphasise​​the​​reluctance​​of​​an​​appellate​​court​​to​​interfere​​with​​acquittal​
​than​​to​​curtail​​the​​power​​of​​the​​court​​to​​review​​the​​evidence​​and​​to​​come​
​to its own conclusion.​
​(4)​ ​An​​appellate​​court,​​however,​​must​​bear​​in​​mind​​that​​in​​case​​of​​acquittal,​
​there​ ​is​ ​double​ ​presumption​ ​in​ ​favour​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused.​ ​Firstly,​ ​the​
​presumption​ ​of​ ​innocence​ ​is​ ​available​ ​to​ ​him​ ​under​ ​the​ ​fundamental​
​principle​​of​​criminal​​jurisprudence​​that​​every​​person​​shall​​be​​presumed​​to​
​be​ ​innocent​ ​unless​ ​he​ ​is​ ​proved​ ​guilty​ ​by​ ​a​ ​competent​ ​court​ ​of​ ​law.​
​Secondly,​ ​the​​accused​​having​​secured​​his​​acquittal,​​the​​presumption​​of​
​his​​innocence​​is​​further​​reinforced,​​reaffirmed​​and​​strengthened​​by​​the​
​trial court.​
​(5)​ ​If​​two​​reasonable​​conclusions​​are​​possible​​on​​the​​basis​​of​​the​​evidence​
​on​​record,​​the​​appellate​​court​​should​​not​​disturb​​the​​finding​​of​​acquittal​
​recorded by the trial court.​
​14.5.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​light​ ​of​ ​the​ ​principles​ ​above,​ ​we​ ​shall​ ​consider​ ​the​ ​order​ ​of​
​acquittal passed against accused Nos. 4 and 11.​
​14.6.​ ​Finding on Accused No. 4:​
​Insofar​​as​​A4​​is​​concerned,​​the​​prosecution​​does​​not​​have​​a​​case​​that​​he​​had​
​accompanied​ ​the​ ​other​ ​accused​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Aandiyallachaal​ ​Reserved​ ​Forest.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​no​
​allegation​​that​​Accused​​No.4​​participated​​in​​the​​apprehension​​of​​Madhu​​inside​​the​​forest​
​or​​in​​the​​march​​from​​the​​forest​​area​​to​​Vandikkadavu.​​PW27​​(Lakshmi),​​who​​identified​
​several​ ​accused​ ​persons​ ​from​ ​the​ ​dock​ ​as​ ​those​ ​involved​ ​in​​parading​​and​​assaulting​
​Madhu,​​did​​not​​identify​​Accused​​No.4​​as​​one​​of​​the​​persons​​whom​​she​​saw​​marching​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​208​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​Madhu​​along​​the​​road.​​Significantly,​​not​​a​​single​​prosecution​​witness​​has​​attributed​​any​
​overt​​act​​of​​assault,​​restraint,​​confinement,​​or​​intimidation​​to​​Accused​​No.4​​at​​any​​stage​
​of​ ​the​ ​occurrence.​ ​The​ ​prosecution​ ​case​ ​against​ ​Accused​ ​No.4,​ ​as​ ​reflected​ ​in​ ​the​
​charge,​​is​​limited​​to​​the​​allegation​​that​​he​​was​​present​​at​​Mukkali​​junction​​when​​Madhu​
​was​ ​brought​ ​there,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​photographs​ ​and​ ​a​ ​video​ ​of​ ​Madhu​ ​were​ ​found​ ​in​ ​his​
​mobile​​phone,​​namely​​MO27(d),​​marked​​as​​Q4.​​It​​is​​further​​alleged​​that​​these​​visuals​
​were circulated through social media platforms.​
​14.7.​ ​In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​substantiate​ ​the​ ​said​ ​allegation,​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​relied​
​primarily​ ​on​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​PW95,​ ​the​ ​FSL​ ​expert,​ ​and​ ​Ext.P92​ ​report,​ ​wherein​
​reference​ ​is​ ​made​ ​to​ ​three​​photographs​​and​​one​​video​​of​​Madhu​​extracted​​from​​Q4,​
​namely​ ​MO27(d),​ ​the​ ​mobile​ ​phone​ ​allegedly​​seized​​from​​Accused​​No.4​​Aneesh.​​The​
​prosecution​ ​also​​relied​​on​​the​​Q2​​CCTV​​footage​​obtained​​from​​Sreerag​​Bakery,​​which​
​captured​ ​Accused​ ​No.4​ ​standing​ ​at​ ​Mukkali​ ​junction​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​when​ ​Madhu​ ​was​
​brought​​there​​and​​showed​​him​​taking​​photographs​​of​​Madhu​​using​​a​​mobile​​phone.​​The​
​prosecution​ ​further​ ​produced​ ​the​​Call​​Detail​​Records​​(CDR)​​and​​Customer​​Application​
​Form​ ​(CAF)​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​mobile​ ​number​ ​“9961069609”,​ ​which​ ​stood​ ​in​ ​the​ ​name​ ​of​
​Accused​ ​No.4.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​ ​prosecution,​ ​the​ ​IMEI​ ​number​ ​reflected​ ​in​ ​the​ ​CDR​
​corresponded​​with​​the​​IMEI​​number​​noted​​in​​Ext.P66​​seizure​​mahazar.​​The​​prosecution​
​also​ ​attempted​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​No.4​ ​maintained​ ​Facebook​ ​and​ ​WhatsApp​
​accounts​​by​​relying​​upon​​the​​IPDR​​records​​marked​​as​​Ext.P74​​and​​Facebook​​business​
​records​​marked​​as​​Ext.P68(a).​​Reliance​​was​​also​​placed​​on​​the​​WhatsApp​​group​​chat​
​titled​ ​“Voice​​of​​Attappadi”​​forming​​part​​of​​Ext.P143​​series,​​in​​which​​a​​chat​​under​​the​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​209​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​name​​“Aneesh”​​appears.​​However,​​those​​screenshots​​were​​allegedly​​produced​​through​
​CW63 (Nikhul), who was not examined as a witness before the Sessions Court.​
​14.8.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​found​ ​that​ ​the​ ​common​ ​object​ ​of​ ​the​
​unlawful​ ​assembly​ ​was​ ​to​ ​apprehend​ ​Madhu​ ​from​ ​the​ ​reserved​ ​forest,​ ​wrongfully​
​restrain​​him,​​inflict​​hurt​​and​​grievous​​injuries​​upon​​him,​​and​​thereafter​​hand​​him​​over​​to​
​the​ ​police.​ ​The​​mere​​act​​of​​Accused​​No.4​​taking​​photographs​​at​​Mukkali​​junction,​​by​
​itself,​ ​does​ ​not​ ​establish​ ​that​ ​he​ ​shared​ ​the​ ​said​ ​common​ ​object.​ ​The​ ​act​ ​of​
​photographing​ ​the​ ​incident​ ​is​ ​entirely​ ​collateral​​to​​the​​unlawful​​object​​alleged​​by​​the​
​prosecution.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​present​ ​social​ ​context,​​persons​​witnessing​​a​​public​​incident​​often​
​take​ ​photographs​ ​or​ ​videos​ ​out​ ​of​ ​curiosity,​ ​for​ ​documentation,​ ​or​ ​for​ ​dissemination​
​through​ ​social​ ​media​ ​platforms.​ ​Merely​ ​because​ ​Accused​ ​No.4​ ​photographed​ ​the​
​incident​​cannot,​​without​​anything​​more,​​lead​​to​​the​​conclusion​​that​​he​​was​​a​​member​​of​
​the unlawful assembly or that he participated in the commission of the offences.​
​14.9.​ ​It​​has​​also​​come​​out​​in​​the​​evidence​​of​​PW97​​that​​nearly​​75​​persons​
​had​​gathered​​at​​Mukkali​​junction​​when​​Madhu​​was​​brought​​there.​​Out​​of​​them,​​only​​16​
​persons​ ​were​ ​arraigned​ ​as​ ​accused.​ ​The​ ​remaining​ ​persons​ ​were​ ​either​ ​bystanders,​
​onlookers,​ ​or​ ​individuals​ ​who​ ​happened​ ​to​ ​be​ ​present​ ​at​ ​the​ ​scene.​ ​In​ ​such​
​circumstances,​​the​​mere​​presence​​of​​Accused​​No.4​​at​​a​​busy​​commercial​​junction​​where​
​a​ ​large​​crowd​​had​​assembled,​​coupled​​with​​the​​fact​​that​​he​​took​​photographs​​of​​the​
​incident,​ ​is​ ​insufficient​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​his​ ​membership​ ​in​ ​the​ ​unlawful​ ​assembly​ ​or​
​participation in its common object.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​210​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​14.10.​ ​Further,​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​has​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​satisfactorily​ ​establish​ ​the​
​allegation​​that​​Accused​​No.4​​had​​uploaded​​or​​circulated​​the​​visuals​​of​​Madhu​​through​
​social​ ​media.​ ​Ext.P143​ ​series,​ ​consisting​ ​of​ ​WhatsApp​ ​screenshots,​ ​were​ ​marked​
​through​ ​PW97,​​the​​Investigating​​Officer.​​However,​​the​​person​​who​​allegedly​​produced​
​those​​screenshots,​​namely​​CW63​​(Nikhul),​​was​​not​​examined​​before​​the​​Court.​​Merely​
​because​ ​the​ ​name​ ​“Aneesh”​ ​appears​ ​in​ ​a​ ​WhatsApp​ ​chat​ ​cannot,​ ​in​ ​the​ ​absence​​of​
​legally​ ​admissible​ ​connecting​ ​evidence,​ ​lead​ ​to​ ​the​ ​conclusion​ ​that​ ​the​ ​said​ ​account​
​belonged​ ​to​ ​Accused​ ​No.4.​ ​The​ ​mere​ ​assertion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Investigating​ ​Officer​ ​that​ ​the​
​person​​referred​​to​​in​​the​​chat​​was​​Accused​​No.4​​cannot,​​by​​itself,​​constitute​​substantive​
​proof of that fact.​
​14.11.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​above​ ​circumstances,​ ​and​ ​applying​ ​the​ ​settled​ ​principles​
​governing​ ​interference​ ​with​ ​an​ ​order​ ​of​ ​acquittal,​ ​it​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​said​ ​that​​the​​learned​
​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​committed​ ​any​ ​error​ ​of​ ​law​ ​or​ ​arrived​ ​at​ ​a​ ​perverse​ ​finding​ ​on​ ​the​
​evidence​​available​​on​​record.​​On​​the​​contrary,​​the​​view​​taken​​by​​the​​Sessions​​Court​​is​​a​
​possible​ ​and​ ​reasonable​ ​view​ ​arising​ ​from​ ​the​ ​evidence.​ ​We​ ​are​ ​therefore​ ​of​ ​the​
​considered​​opinion​​that​​the​​order​​of​​acquittal​​passed​​in​​favour​​of​​Accused​​No.4​​calls​​for​
​no interference.​
​14.12.​ ​Finding on Accused No. 11:​
​Insofar​ ​as​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​case​ ​against​ ​Accused​ ​No.11​ ​is​ ​concerned,​ ​it​ ​rests​
​essentially​ ​on​ ​two​ ​allegations.​ ​The​ ​first​ ​allegation​ ​is​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​No.11​ ​joined​ ​the​
​assembly​​of​​the​​other​​accused​​persons​​after​​Madhu​​was​​brought​​to​​Mukkali​​junction.​
​The​ ​second​ ​allegation​ ​is​ ​that​ ​Accused​ ​No.11​ ​publicly​ ​called​ ​Madhu​ ​a​ ​thief,​ ​which,​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​211​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​according​ ​to​ ​the​ ​prosecution,​ ​amounted​ ​to​​an​​act​​of​​verbal​​humiliation​​committed​​in​
​public​ ​view.​ ​Beyond​ ​these​ ​allegations,​ ​no​ ​further​ ​overt​ ​act​ ​has​ ​been​ ​attributed​ ​to​
​Accused​​No.11.​​Similar​​to​​the​​case​​of​​Accused​​No.4,​​the​​prosecution​​does​​not​​have​​a​
​case​​that​​Accused​​No.11​​had​​gone​​to​​the​​forest​​area,​​participated​​in​​the​​apprehension​
​of​​Madhu,​​or​​accompanied​​the​​group​​during​​the​​march​​from​​the​​forest​​to​​Mukkali.​​In​
​order​​to​​substantiate​​the​​above​​allegations,​​the​​prosecution​​principally​​relied​​upon​​the​
​Q2​​CCTV​​footage​​obtained​​from​​Sreerag​​Bakery,​​which​​constitutes​​the​​primary​​electronic​
​record​​relating​​to​​the​​events​​that​​transpired​​at​​Mukkali​​junction.​​The​​footage​​shows​​the​
​presence​​of​​A11​​among​​the​​gathering​​assembled​​there​​at​​the​​relevant​​time.​​However,​
​the​ ​Q2​ ​CCTV​ ​footage​ ​does​ ​not​ ​contain​ ​any​​audio​​recording.​​Consequently,​​while​​the​
​footage​​may​​establish​​the​​physical​​presence​​of​​A11​​at​​the​​scene,​​it​​is​​wholly​​insufficient​
​to​​establish​​what​​he​​allegedly​​stated​​or​​whether​​he​​made​​any​​statement​​at​​all.​​Likewise,​
​the​​mobile​​phone​​video​​clippings​​produced​​before​​the​​Court,​​including​​the​​files​​extracted​
​from​​the​​phones​​of​​A4​​(Q4),​​A8​​(Q5),​​and​​A9​​(Q7),​​do​​not​​contain​​any​​audio​​recording​
​specifically​ ​capturing​ ​A11​ ​calling​ ​Madhu​ ​a​​thief.​​None​​of​​the​​electronic​​records​​relied​
​upon​​by​​the​​prosecution​​establish​​the​​alleged​​verbal​​act​​attributed​​to​​A11.​​Significantly,​
​none​​of​​the​​prosecution​​witnesses​​deposed​​before​​the​​Court​​that​​A11​​had​​called​​Madhu​
​a​​thief​​in​​public​​view.​​No​​witness​​attributed​​any​​act​​of​​assault,​​intimidation,​​restraint,​​or​
​active​​participation​​in​​the​​incident​​to​​A11.​​As​​in​​the​​case​​of​​A4,​​the​​mere​​presence​​of​
​A11​ ​at​ ​Mukkali​ ​junction,​ ​without​ ​any​ ​additional​ ​evidence​ ​establishing​ ​participation,​
​cannot​​by​​itself​​be​​sufficient​​to​​infer​​membership​​in​​the​​unlawful​​assembly​​or​​sharing​​of​
​its common object.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​212​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​14.13.​ ​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge,​​upon​​a​​careful​​and​​detailed​​evaluation​​of​
​the​​oral,​​documentary,​​and​​electronic​​evidence,​​came​​to​​the​​conclusion​​that​​there​​was​​a​
​complete​​absence​​of​​evidence​​regarding​​any​​overt​​act​​committed​​by​​A11.​​The​​Sessions​
​Court​​further​​found​​that​​there​​was​​no​​reliable​​oral,​​electronic,​​or​​documentary​​evidence​
​establishing​​his​​membership​​in​​the​​unlawful​​assembly,​​apart​​from​​his​​physical​​presence​
​amidst​ ​a​ ​crowd​ ​of​ ​nearly​ ​75​​persons​​gathered​​at​​the​​junction,​​out​​of​​whom​​only​​16​
​persons​ ​were​ ​ultimately​ ​arrayed​ ​as​ ​accused.​ ​The​ ​finding​ ​recorded​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​
​Sessions​​Judge​​cannot​​be​​said​​to​​suffer​​from​​any​​erroneous​​appreciation​​of​​evidence,​
​perversity,​​illegality,​​or​​distorted​​reasoning​​warranting​​interference​​by​​this​​Court.​​On​​the​
​evidence​ ​available​ ​on​ ​record,​​the​​view​​taken​​by​​the​​Sessions​​Court​​is​​a​​possible​​and​
​reasonable​​one.​​We​​are​​therefore​​of​​the​​opinion​​that​​the​​order​​of​​acquittal​​passed​​in​
​favour of A11 calls for no interference and deserves to be affirmed.​
​14.15.​ ​For​ ​all​ ​these​ ​reasons,​ ​the​ ​acquittals​ ​of​ ​A4​ ​(Aneesh)​ ​and​ ​A11​ ​(Abdul​
​Kareem)​​are​​confirmed.​​The​​State's​​appeal,​​insofar​​as​​it​​challenges​​these​​two​​acquittals,​
​is​ ​dismissed.​ ​The​ ​double​ ​presumption​ ​of​​innocence​​in​​their​​favour​​stands​​unrebutted​
​and unshaken by the evidence on record.​
​15.​ ​Appellate Challenge to the Convictions:​
​15.1.​ ​Appeal against convictions:​
​We​​shall​​now​​proceed​​to​​consider​​the​​appeals​​preferred​​by​​Accused​​Nos.​​2,​​3,​​5,​
​6,​​7,​​8,​​9,​​10,​​12,​​13,​​14,​​and​​15​​challenging​​their​​conviction​​and​​sentence.​​We​​shall​
​also​​consider​​the​​appeals​​filed​​by​​the​​State​​and​​the​​victim​​questioning​​the​​findings​​of​
​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​insofar​​as​​they​​relate​​to​​the​​failure​​to​​convict​​the​​accused​​for​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​213​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​the​​offence​​punishable​​under​​Section​​302​​of​​the​​Indian​​Penal​​Code​​and​​under​​Sections​
​3(2)(v)​ ​and​ ​3(2)(va)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Scheduled​ ​Castes​ ​and​ ​Scheduled​ ​Tribes​ ​(Prevention​ ​of​
​Atrocities) Act, 1989.​
​15.2.​ ​Before​ ​recording​ ​the​ ​final​ ​findings​ ​against​ ​the​ ​above​ ​accused,​ ​it​ ​is​
​necessary​​to​​state​​the​​foundational​​conclusions​​that​​govern​​the​​entire​​analysis.​​We​​have​
​already​​held​​that​​the​​death​​of​​Madhu​​was​​homicidal​​in​​nature.​​Secondly,​​we​​have​​also​
​held​​that​​the​​death​​was​​not​​caused​​by​​police​​while​​transporting​​Madhu​​to​​the​​CHC​​or​​at​
​the​​Police​​Station.​​Thirdly,​​the​​fact​​that​​Madhu​​was​​a​​member​​of​​the​​Muduka​​Scheduled​
​Tribe​​has​​also​​been​​established.​​Fourthly,​​we​​have​​held​​on​​the​​basis​​of​​the​​evidence​​that​
​the​ ​prosecution​ ​has​ ​established​ ​that​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​persons​ ​are​ ​not​ ​members​ ​of​ ​any​
​Scheduled​ ​Caste​ ​or​ ​Scheduled​ ​Tribe.​ ​Fifthly,​ ​and​ ​critically​ ​for​ ​the​ ​SC/ST​ ​(PoA)​ ​Act​
​analysis,​ ​the​ ​statutory​ ​presumption​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​8​ ​of​ ​the​ ​SC/ST​ ​(Prevention​ ​of​
​Atrocities)​​Act,​​1989,​​as​​amended​​by​​the​​2015​​Amendment​​Act,​​mandates​​that,​​in​​any​
​prosecution​​under​​the​​Act,​​the​​court​​shall​​presume​​that​​the​​accused​​had​​knowledge​​of​
​the​ ​victim's​ ​caste​ ​or​ ​tribal​ ​identity​ ​unless​ ​the​ ​contrary​ ​is​ ​proved.​ ​This​ ​presumption,​
​standing​​unrebutted,​​combined​​with​​the​​affirmative​​evidence​​of​​the​​accused's​​long-term​
​residence​​in​​the​​Attappadi​​tribal​​belt,​​A3's​​description​​of​​Madhu​​to​​the​​police​​as​​a​​person​
​from​ ​"Aandiyallachaal​ ​forest,"​ ​the​ ​name​ ​"Voice​ ​of​ ​Attappadi"​ ​given​ ​to​ ​the​​WhatsApp​
​group​​in​​which​​the​​visuals​​were​​circulated,​​and​​A16's​​specific​​personal​​prior​​knowledge​
​of​ ​Madhu​ ​through​ ​his​ ​participation​ ​as​ ​CW2​ ​in​ ​Cr.No.524/2016,​ ​establishes​ ​beyond​
​reasonable​​doubt​​that​​the​​accused​​knew​​Madhu​​was​​a​​member​​of​​the​​Scheduled​​Tribe​
​at the time of commission of the offences.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​214​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​16.​ ​The concluded findings:​
​16.1.​ ​We​​shall​​now​​state​​the​​concluded​​findings​​against​​each​​of​​the​​accused.​
​The​​Core​​forest​​group​​comprises​​accused​​Nos.​​2,​​3,​​5,​​6,​​7,​​8,​​9,​​10,​​12,​​and​​13.​​The​
​evidence​​against​​this​​group​​is​​comprehensive,​​multilayered,​​and​​mutually​​corroborating.​
​The​ ​CDR​ ​evidence​ ​through​ ​Ext.P40​ ​series​​(communications​​between​​A2,​​A7,​​A9,​​and​
​A15​​from​​12:17​​pm​​onwards),​​Ext.P42​​series​​(A2's​​three​​calls​​to​​A9​​at​​12:17,​​12:21,​​and​
​12:22​ ​pm),​ ​Ext.P83​ ​series​ ​(Airtel​ ​CDR​ ​establishing​ ​A6's​ ​communication​ ​trail),​ ​and​
​Ext.P91​ ​series​ ​(Vodafone​ ​Idea​ ​CDR​ ​confirming​ ​other​ ​accused's​ ​communication​ ​trails)​
​establishes​ ​the​ ​coordinated​ ​pre-incident​ ​communication​ ​chain​ ​that​ ​set​ ​the​ ​entire​
​operation​​in​​motion.​​The​​Q3​​CCTV​​(Ponniyammal​​Gurukulam)​​establishes​​the​​assembly​
​formation​ ​from​ ​12:41​ ​pm​ ​and​ ​the​​departure​​toward​​the​​forest​​at​​12:44​​pm.​​The​​Q1​
​CCTV​ ​(Anavai​ ​Forest​ ​Station)​ ​at​ ​12:51:51​ ​pm​ ​establishes​ ​the​ ​group's​ ​transit​ ​toward​
​Vandikkadavu.​ ​The​ ​GPS​ ​metadata​ ​from​ ​A5's​ ​phone​ ​(latitude​ ​11.079782,​ ​longitude​
​76.536017),​ ​verified​ ​by​ ​PW95,​ ​establishes​ ​their​ ​presence​ ​within​ ​the​ ​Aandiyallachaal​
​reserved​​forest​​at​​1:00​​pm.​​The​​Q7​​video​​(VID-20180222-WA0034​​from​​A9's​​phone​​of​
​5:38​ ​minutes​ ​duration)​ ​establishes​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​assault​ ​in​ ​its​ ​entirety,​ ​identified​ ​as​
​Aandiyallachaal​​by​​PW53​​and​​PW62.​​The​​Q6​​photographs​​(from​​A5's​​phone)​​establish​
​Madhu​​with​​hands​​tied​​in​​the​​forest​​from​​1:00​​pm,​​with​​A2​​visible​​at​​1:23​​pm.​​The​​oral​
​evidence​ ​of​ ​PW11​ ​establishes​​A2​​enquiring​​about​​Madhu​​from​​PW11.​​PW10​​confirms​
​seeing​​the​​group​​bringing​​Madhu​​from​​the​​forest.​​PW27​​identifies​​the​​accused​​from​​the​
​dock​​as​​among​​those​​marching​​Madhu​​through​​the​​road.​​PW97​​(Investigating​​Officer)​
​meticulously​ ​reconstructed​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​timeline.​ ​PW95's​ ​report​ ​Ext.P92​ ​(DD-158/18)​
​formally​ ​connects​ ​every​ ​device​ ​to​ ​the​ ​respective​ ​accused​ ​and​ ​every​​digital​​file​​to​​its​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​215​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​timestamp​ ​and​ ​location.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​this​ ​evidence,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​of​ ​the​ ​view​​that​​the​
​following findings can be recorded against each member of this group.​
​A)​ ​A3​​(Shamsudheen)​​was​​the​​man​​in​​charge​​of​​the​​operation,​​and​​he​​was​
​the​ ​person​ ​who​ ​mobilised​ ​the​ ​assembly,​ ​trespassed​ ​into​ ​the​ ​reserved​ ​forest,​ ​tied​
​Madhu's​​hands​​first​​with​​his​​dhoti​​and​​then​​with​​MO2​​zip,​​called​​PW91​​twice​​during​​the​
​operation,​​and​​coordinated​​the​​entire​​enterprise​​from​​start​​to​​finish.​​He​​is​​also​​stated​​to​
​have assaulted Madhu with a MO24 stick.​
​B)​ ​A2​​(Marakkar)​​received​​the​​initial​​information​​from​​PW11,​​triggered​​the​
​entire​​operation​​through​​three​​calls​​to​​A9,​​entered​​the​​forest,​​was​​present​​during​​the​
​assault​ ​as​ ​established​ ​by​ ​Q6​ ​photograph​ ​at​ ​1:23​ ​pm,​ ​held​ ​the​ ​zip​ ​binding​ ​Madhu's​
​hands​ ​during​ ​the​​march,​​and​​was​​thus​​the​​informational​​and​​logistical​​origin​​of​​what​
​happened.​
​C)​ ​A5​ ​(Radhakrishnan)​ ​was​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​assembly​​from​​its​​formation,​​his​
​phone​ ​placed​ ​the​ ​group​ ​in​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​at​​1:00​​pm​​through​​GPS-verified​​metadata,​​he​
​captured​​11​​photographs​​and​​2​​videos​​of​​the​​assault,​​and​​he​​is​​stated​​to​​have​​assaulted​
​Madhu.​
​D)​ ​A6​​(Aboobacker)​​arrived​​in​​the​​autorickshaw,​​is​​stated​​to​​have​​assaulted​
​Madhu while in the forest, and held Madhu's shoulder at Mukkali.​
​E)​ ​A7​​(Sidhique)​​was​​part​​of​​the​​original​​assembly,​​held​​Madhu's​​left​​hand​
​during​ ​the​ ​descent​ ​from​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​as​ ​visible​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Q7​​video,​​and​​his​​memory​​card​
​(MO27(e)) contained photographs of the incident.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​216​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​F)​ ​A8​ ​(Ubaid)​ ​was​ ​a​ ​core​ ​forest​ ​member​ ​whose​ ​phone​ ​captured​
​photographs​ ​and​ ​videos​ ​(Q5​ ​file)​ ​including​ ​the​ ​critical​ ​VID-20180222-WA0091​ ​and​
​VID-20180222-WA0094, and who is stated to have assaulted Madhu.​
​G)​ ​A9​​(Najeeb)​​is​​found​​to​​be​​the​​organiser​​of​​the​​entire​​operation.​​He​​is​
​the​ ​one​ ​who​​received​​information,​​activating​​the​​network,​​provided​​his​​Marshal​​Jeep,​
​and recorded the primary Q7 video in the forest.​
​H)​ ​A10​​(Jaijumon)​​transported​​the​​group​​in​​his​​autorickshaw,​​placed​​MO3​
​sack​​on​​Madhu's​​shoulder​​as​​directly​​captured​​in​​the​​Q7​​video,​​and​​fisted​​Madhu​​on​​the​
​dorsum.​
​I)​ ​A12​​(Sajeev)​​was​​part​​of​​the​​autorickshaw​​group​​and​​participated​​in​​the​
​acts​ ​committed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​assembly​ ​throughout​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​stage​ ​and​ ​the​ ​march.​ ​His​
​presence​ ​has​ ​been​ ​established​ ​through​ ​the​ ​Q7​ ​video​ ​and​​photographs​​from​​multiple​
​phones.​
​J)​ ​A13​​(Satheesh)​​arrived​​on​​his​​motorcycle​​after​​discussing​​the​​plan​​with​
​A9.​ ​He​ ​proceeded​ ​to​ ​the​ ​forest​ ​area,​ ​and​ ​was​ ​identified​ ​by​​PW27​​from​​the​​dock​​as​
​among those marching Madhu through the road.​
​16.2.​ ​The​ ​second​ ​category​ ​are​ ​accused​ ​Nos.​ ​14​ ​and​ ​15,​ ​who​ ​joined​ ​the​
​unlawful​​assembly​​at​​Vandikkadavu.​​This​​is​​established​​by​​A3's​​call​​to​​A14​​(CDR​​Ext.P41​
​and​ ​P42​ ​series),​ ​Q1​ ​CCTV​ ​at​ ​13:50:28​ ​pm​ ​showing​ ​A15's​ ​Xylo​ ​moving​ ​toward​
​Vandikkadavu,​ ​photograph​ ​IMG-20180222-WA0083​ ​from​ ​A8's​ ​phone​ ​showing​ ​both​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​217​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​accused​​at​​Vandikkadavu​​with​​A9's​​Marshal​​Jeep,​​and​​the​​Q1​​CCTV​​from​​14:46:50​​pm​
​onwards​​showing​​them​​both​​actively​​bringing​​Madhu​​toward​​the​​road.​​A14​​is​​stated​​to​
​have​​beaten​​Madhu​​on​​the​​dorsum​​with​​his​​hand​​and​​filmed​​the​​incident​​on​​MO25/Q9.​
​A15​ ​held​ ​the​ ​zip​ ​binding​ ​Madhu's​ ​arms​ ​during​ ​the​ ​march​ ​and​ ​fisted​ ​Madhu​ ​on​ ​the​
​shoulder.​​Both​​received​​full​​notice​​of​​the​​common​​object​​at​​the​​moment​​of​​joining​​as​
​Madhu​​was​​visibly​​before​​them,​​bound​​and​​injured,​​being​​brought​​down​​from​​the​​forest​
​by​ ​an​ ​organised​ ​group.​ ​The​ ​continuing​ ​common​ ​object​ ​they​ ​shared​ ​included​​further​
​confinement,​​further​​hurt,​​the​​public​​parade,​​and​​the​​humiliation​​all​​of​​which​​continued​
​after​​their​​joining​​and​​all​​of​​which​​contributed​​to​​the​​conjoint​​vicious​​cycle​​of​​injuries​
​that produced Madhu's death.​
​16.3.​ ​The​ ​accused​ ​above​ ​were​​convicted​​by​​the​​Sessions​​Court​​of​​offences​
​under​​Sections​​143,​​147,​​323,​​324,​​326,​​342,​​367,​​and​​304​​Part​​II​​r/w​​Section​​149​​IPC,​
​and​​Section​​3(1)(d)​​of​​the​​SC/ST​​(PoA)​​Act​​r/w​​Section​​149​​IPC.​​The​​Sessions​​Court,​
​however,​​acquitted​​all​​of​​them​​of​​Sections​​302,​​364,​​368,​​and​​352​​IPC,​​and​​of​​Sections​
​3(1)(r), 3(2)(v), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.​
​16.4.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​found​ ​that​ ​the​ ​common​ ​object​ ​of​ ​the​
​unlawful​​assembly​​constituted​​by​​the​​accused​​persons​​was​​to​​apprehend​​Madhu​​from​
​the​​forest,​​wrongfully​​restrain​​and​​forcibly​​take​​him​​into​​their​​custody,​​subject​​him​​to​
​physical​​assault​​causing​​hurt​​and​​grievous​​hurt,​​and​​thereafter​​bring​​him​​to​​Mukkali​​with​
​the​​intention​​of​​handing​​him​​over​​to​​the​​police.​​The​​evidence​​on​​record​​unmistakably​
​demonstrates​​that​​the​​victim​​was​​abducted​​and​​transported​​against​​his​​will​​while​​being​
​subjected​​to​​violence​​and​​humiliation.​​In​​such​​circumstances,​​the​​essential​​ingredients​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​218​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​of​ ​the​ ​offence​ ​punishable​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​367​ ​IPC​ ​stand​ ​fully​ ​attracted.​ ​Upon​ ​an​
​independent​ ​and​ ​comprehensive​ ​reappraisal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​oral​ ​and​ ​documentary​
​evidence​ ​on​ ​record,​ ​we​ ​find​ ​no​ ​reason​ ​to​ ​differ​ ​from​ ​the​​conclusion​​reached​​by​​the​
​learned​​Sessions​​Judge.​​The​​prosecution​​has​​succeeded​​in​​proving,​​beyond​​reasonable​
​doubt,​ ​that​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​persons,​ ​acting​ ​in​ ​furtherance​ ​of​ ​their​ ​common​ ​object,​
​committed​ ​the​ ​offence​​punishable​​under​​Section​​367​​IPC.​​We,​​therefore,​​concur​​with​
​the​ ​findings​ ​of​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​court​ ​and​ ​hold​ ​that​ ​the​ ​conviction​​under​​Section​​367​​IPC​​is​
​well-founded​​and​​fully​​supported​​by​​the​​evidence​​on​​record..​​Therefore,​​the​​finding​​of​
​the​​trial​​court​​that​​the​​prosecution​​has​​succeeded​​in​​establishing​​the​​commission​​of​​the​
​offence​​punishable​​under​​Section​​367​​IPC​​read​​with​​Section​​149​​IPC,​​is​​proper​​and​​does​
​not​​warrant​​any​​interference.​​Insofar​​as​​the​​offence​​punishable​​under​​Section​​326​​IPC​​is​
​concerned,​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​considered​​Injury​​No.12,​​namely​​the​​fracture​
​of​​the​​ribs,​​and​​the​​manner​​in​​which​​the​​injury​​was​​inflicted,​​and​​thereafter​​held​​that​
​the​​ingredients​​of​​the​​offence​​punishable​​under​​Section​​326​​of​​the​​Indian​​Penal​​Code​
​r/w​​Section​​149​​of​​the​​IPC​​are​​clearly​​attracted.​​We​​find​​no​​reason​​to​​interfere​​with​​the​
​said​​finding.​​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​also​​noted​​that​​injuries​​Nos.1,​​3,​​and​​4​​to​
​8​​could​​have​​been​​caused​​by​​the​​use​​of​​blunt​​weapons.​​On​​the​​basis​​of​​the​​medical​
​evidence,​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​held​ ​that​ ​the​ ​aforesaid​ ​injuries​ ​could​ ​only​​have​​been​​caused​​by​
​weapons.​​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has,​​therefore,​​rightly​​held​​that​​the​​ingredients​​of​
​the​​offence​​punishable​​under​​Section​​324​​r/w.​​Section​​149​​of​​the​​Indian​​Penal​​Code​​are​
​also​ ​clearly​ ​made​ ​out.​​Insofar​​as​​the​​offence​​punishable​​under​​Section​​294(b)​​IPC​​is​
​concerned,​​the​​Court​​has​​held​​that​​there​​is​​no​​material​​available​​on​​record​​to​​attract​​the​
​said​ ​offence.​ ​The​ ​said​ ​finding​ ​of​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​court​ ​is​ ​proper​ ​and​ ​does​ ​not​​warrant​​any​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​219​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​interference.​​In​​that​​view​​of​​the​​matter​​the​​acquittal​​for​​the​​offence​ ​under​​Section​​3(1)​
​(r)​​SC/ST(PoA)​​Act​​is​​in​​order.​​As​​already​​observed​​by​​us​​while​​considering​​the​​question​
​as​ ​to​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​offence​ ​punishable​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​302​ ​IPC​ ​is​ ​made​ ​out,​ ​there​ ​is​
​absolutely​ ​no​ ​direct​ ​or​ ​circumstantial​ ​evidence​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​that​​the​​accused​​persons​
​abducted​ ​Madhu​ ​for​ ​the​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​murdering​ ​him.​ ​Therefore,​ ​the​ ​finding​ ​that​ ​the​
​offence​​punishable​​under​​Section​​364​​IPC​​is​​not​​attracted​​on​​the​​facts​​of​​the​​present​
​case​​is​​proper​​and​​does​​not​​warrant​​any​​interference.​​There​​is​​also​​no​​material​​to​​hold​
​that​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​persons​ ​concealed​ ​Madhu​ ​in​ ​any​ ​secret​ ​place​ ​so​ ​as​ ​to​ ​attract​ ​the​
​offence​​punishable​​under​​Section​​368​​IPC.​​The​​said​​finding​​also​​does​​not​​warrant​​any​
​interference.​
​16.5.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Special​ ​Public​ ​Prosecutor​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the​​learned​​counsel​
​appearing​​for​​the​​victim​​vehemently​​pressed​​for​​conviction​​under​​Section​​302​​IPC​​and​
​for​​the​​enhancement​​of​​the​​conviction​​under​​the​​SC/ST​​(PoA)​​Act​​to​​include​​Sections​
​3(2)(v)​​and​​3(2)(va)​​as​​the​​case​​may​​be.​​The​​learned​​counsel​​appearing​​for​​the​​accused​
​urged​ ​before​ ​us​ ​that​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​be​ ​acquitted​ ​of​ ​all​ ​charges.​ ​After​ ​a​ ​thorough​
​evaluation​​of​​the​​evidence​​we​​are​​of​​the​​view​​that​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​was​​well​
​justified​​in​​finding​​the​​above​​accused​​guilty​​of​​the​​offenses​​under​​Section​​143,​​147,​​323,​
​324,​​326,​​342,​​367​​of​​the​​IPC.​ ​This​​Court,​​having​​heard​​all​​parties​​and​​having​​recorded​
​its​​foundational​​findings​​on​​the​​questions​​set​​out​​above,​​now​​shall​​proceed​​to​​determine​
​which offences are made out.​
​16.6.​ ​Section 302 IPC or Section 304 Part II:​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​220​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​The​ ​question​ ​that​ ​is​ ​raised​ ​for​ ​consideration​ ​before​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​lies​ ​within​ ​a​
​narrow​​compass,​​that​​is,​​whether​​the​​case​​as​​set​​up​​by​​the​​prosecution​​would​​attract​
​the​​offence​​of​​murder​​punishable​​under​​Section​​302​​IPC,​​or​​whether​​the​​same​​would​​fall​
​within​ ​the​ ​ambit​ ​of​ ​culpable​ ​homicide​ ​not​ ​amounting​ ​to​ ​murder​ ​punishable​ ​under​
​Section 304 Part II IPC, as held by the learned Sessions Judge.​
​30​
​16.7.​ ​In​ ​Sitaram​ ​Kuchhbedia​ ​v.​ ​Vimal​ ​Rana​ ​,​ ​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​after​
​evaluating​​the​​law​​laid​​down​​in​​much​​cited​​precedents​​including​ ​Daya​​Nand​​v.​​State​
​31​ ​32​

​of​ ​Haryana​ ​,​ ​Rajwant​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Kerala​ ​,​ ​Virsa​ ​Singh​ ​(supra),​ ​State​ ​of​
​Andhra​ ​Pradesh​ ​v.​ ​Rayavarapu​ ​Punnayya​ ​(supra),​ ​Abdul​ ​Waheed​ ​Khan​ ​@​
​33​
​Waheed​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Andhra​ ​Pradesh​ ​,​ ​Augustine​ ​Saldanha​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​
​34​ ​35​
​Karnataka​ ​,​ ​Thangiya​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​T.N​ .​ ​and​ ​Rajinder​ ​Singh​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​
​36​
​Haryana​ ​have succinctly elucidated the principles​​as under:​
​46.​ ​From​ ​the​ ​above​ ​conspectus,​ ​it​ ​emerges​ ​that​ ​when​ ​a​ ​Court​ ​is​
​confronted​ ​with​ ​the​ ​question​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​offence​ ​disclosed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​proved​
​facts​​is​​“murder”​​or​​“culpable​​homicide​​not​​amounting​​to​​murder,”​​it​​would​​be​
​appropriate​ ​to​ ​approach​ ​the​ ​issue​ ​in​​a​​structured​​manner​​comprising​​three​
​stages.​
​47.​​At​​the​​first​​stage,​​the​​Court​​must​​determine​​whether​​the​​accused​
​has​​committed​​an​​act​​which​​has​​caused​​the​​death​​of​​another,​​that​​is​​to​​say,​
​whether​​the​​case​​involves​​a​​homicide.​​If​​such​​causal​​connection​​between​​the​
​act​​of​​the​​accused​​and​​the​​death​​is​​established,​​the​​enquiry​​then​​proceeds​​to​
​30​
​2026 SCC OnLine SC 293​
​31​
​2008 AIR SC 1823​
​32​
​1966 SCC OnLine SC 50​
​33​
​(2002) 7 SCC 175​
​34​
​(2003) 10 SCC 472​
​35​
​(2005) 9 SCC 650​
​36​
​(2005) 12 SCC 322​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​221​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​the​​second​​stage,​​that​​is​​to​​say,​​whether​​the​​act​​so​​committed​​amounts​​to​
​“culpable homicide” within the meaning of Section 299 IPC.​
​48.​​If​​the​​answer​​to​​this​​question​​is​​prima​​facie​​in​​the​​affirmative,​​the​
​Court​​must​​then​​enter​​upon​​the​​third​​stage​​of​​enquiry,​​viz.,​​whether​​the​​facts​
​proved​​by​​the​​prosecution​​bring​​the​​case​​within​​the​​ambit​​of​​any​​of​​the​​four​
​clauses​ ​of​ ​Section​ ​300​ ​IPC,​ ​which​ ​define​ ​murder.​ ​If​ ​the​​case​​does​​not​​fall​
​within​​any​​of​​the​​four​​clauses​​of​​Section​​300,​​the​​offence​​would​​be​​culpable​
​homicide​​not​​amounting​​to​​murder,​​punishable​​under​​either​​Part​​I​​or​​Part​​II​​of​
​Section​​304​​IPC,​​depending​​upon​​whether​​the​​case​​attracts​​the​​second​​or​​the​
​third clause of Section 299 IPC.​
​49.​​Even​​if​​the​​case​​falls​​within​​the​​four​​clauses​​of​​Section​​300​​IPC,​​the​
​Court​​must​​further​​examine​​whether​​any​​of​​the​​Exceptions​​to​​Section​​300​​IPC​
​are​​attracted.​​If​​the​​case​​is​​covered​​by​​any​​such​​Exception,​​the​​offence​​would​
​fall back to Section 299, that is, culpable homicide not amounting to murder.​
​16.8.​ ​We​​have​​already​​held​​that​​the​​death​​of​​Madhu​​was​​caused​​by​​the​​acts​
​of​​the​​accused.​​Ext.P82​​establishes​​that​​the​​44​​ante-mortem​​injuries,​​caused​​by​​multiple​
​persons​ ​using​ ​blunt​ ​force,​ ​a​ ​rod-like​ ​weapon​ ​(MO24),​ ​stamps,​ ​and​ ​physical​ ​force,​
​collectively​ ​produced​ ​intracranial​ ​tension,​ ​brain​ ​edema,​ ​and​ ​uncal​ ​grooving​ ​and​ ​the​
​same​ ​caused​ ​the​ ​death​ ​of​ ​Madhu.​ ​The​ ​causal​ ​connection​ ​between​ ​the​ ​acts​ ​of​ ​the​
​accused​​and​​the​​death​​is​​proved​​beyond​​reasonable​​doubt.​​The​​stage​​one​​is​​answered​
​affirmatively.​
​16.9.​ ​Then,​​when​​we​​come​​to​​stage​​two,​​the​​question​​that​​has​​to​​be​​posed​​is​
​whether​​the​​acts​​amount​​to​​culpable​​homicide​​under​​Section​​299.​​We​​have​​no​​doubt​​in​
​our​​mind​​that​​the​​third​​clause​​of​​Section​​299​​is​​applicable​​as​​the​​acts​​were​​done​​with​
​the​​knowledge​​that​​they​​are​​likely​​to​​cause​​death.​​It​​has​​come​​out​​from​​the​​evidence​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​222​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​that​​the​​accused​​applied​​sustained,​​collective​​violence​​to​​a​​40-kilogram,​​malnourished,​
​mentally​​ill​​tribal​​man​​over​​several​​hours.​​The​​nature,​​multiplicity,​​and​​distribution​​of​​the​
​injuries​ ​which​ ​include​ ​head​ ​injuries,​ ​a​ ​fractured​ ​rib,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​perinephric​ ​haematoma​
​establish​​that​​the​​accused​​knew​​their​​acts​​were​​likely​​to​​cause​​death.​​We​​answer​​stage​
​two in the affirmative.​
​16.10.​ ​The​​question​​that​​has​​to​​be​​posed​​at​​the​​third​​stage​​is​​whether​​culpable​
​homicide​​amounts​​to​​murder​​under​​any​​of​​the​​four​​clauses​​of​​Section​​300.​​After​​having​
​carefully​ ​evaluated​ ​the​ ​four​ ​clauses,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​satisfied​ ​that​ ​none​ ​of​ ​the​ ​clauses​ ​are​
​attracted.​ ​In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​attract​ ​clause,​ ​firstly,​ ​there​ ​has​ ​to​ ​be​ ​proof​ ​that​ ​the​ ​accused​
​specifically​ ​desired​ ​and​ ​aimed​​at​​the​​causing​​of​​death​​of​​Madhu.​​We​​find​​that​​in​​the​
​instant​​case,​​A3​​called​​PW91​​twice​​to​​inform​​that​​Madhu​​had​​been​​brought​​there.​​This​
​can​​only​​be​​with​​the​​knowledge​​of​​the​​other​​accused.​​A​​person​​who​​intends​​to​​kill​​does​
​not​​call​​the​​police​​in​​advance​​to​​arrange​​the​​handover​​of​​the​​victim.​​Second,​​the​​entire​
​group​ ​marched​ ​Madhu​ ​openly​ ​through​ ​a​ ​busy​ ​public​ ​road​ ​for​ ​three​ ​kilometres,​
​surrounded​ ​by​ ​bystanders,​ ​photographing​ ​and​ ​filming​ ​what​ ​they​ ​were​ ​doing​ ​and​
​circulating​​the​​footage​​on​​WhatsApp.​​Persons​​who​​intend​​to​​kill​​do​​not​​document​​their​
​act​​and​​circulate​​it​​publicly.​​Third,​​the​​group​​handed​​Madhu​​over​​to​​the​​police​​at​​a​​busy​
​commercial​ ​junction​ ​in​ ​the​ ​presence​ ​of​ ​witnesses,​ ​local​ ​residents,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​police​
​themselves.​​Fourthly,​​A3​​gave​​Madhu​​a​​plantain,​​and​​A14​​offered​​him​​juice​​at​​Mukkali​
​junction​​which​​are​​acts​​of​​elementary​​human​​consideration​​wholly​​inconsistent​​with​​a​
​design​ ​to​ ​kill.​ ​In​ ​that​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​matter,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​of​ ​the​ ​view​ ​that​ ​clause​ ​1​ ​is​ ​not​
​attracted.​

​CRL.A Nos.601/2023, 598/2023, 602/2023,​ ​2026:KER:35892​
​:​223​ :​
​604/2023, 661/2023,676/2023, CRA(V)No.27/2024​
​16.11.​ ​In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​attract​ ​clause​​secondly,​​the​​accused​​should​​have​​had​​the​
​intention​ ​to​ ​cause​ ​such​ ​bodily​​injury​​as​​the​​offender​​knows​​to​​be​​likely​​to​​cause​​the​
​death​​of​​that​​particular​​person.​​This​​would​​be​​clear​​if​​one​​were​​to​​read​​illustration​​(b)​​to​
​section​​300.​​This​​clause​​requires​​that​​the​​accused​​specifically​​knew​​that​​the​​injuries​​they​
​were​​inflicting​​were​​likely​​to​​cause​​the​​death​​of​​Madhu​​in​​view​​of​​his​​particular​​physical​
​vulnerabilities.​​While​​Madhu​​was​​malnourished​​and​​mentally​​ill,​​there​​is​​no​​evidence​​that​
​the​​accused​​was​​aware​​of​​any​​particular​​physical​​condition​​or​​ailment​​to​​the​​extent​​of​
​knowing​​that​​their​​acts​​were​​likely​​to​​cause​​his​​death,​​specifically​​as​​opposed​​to​​causing​
​him​​serious​​hurt.​​The​​conduct​​of​​the​​accused​​in​​calling​​the​​police,​​handing​​him​​over,​​and​
​offering​ ​food​ ​is​​inconsistent​​with​​a​​subjective​​appreciation​​of​​Madhu's​​life-threatening​
​vulnerability. In that view of the matter clause 2 is also not attracted.​
​16.12.​ ​In​​order​​to​​attract​​clause​​thirdly,​​the​​accused​​should​​have​​an​​intention​
​to​​cause​​a​​bodily​​injury​​sufficient​​in​​the​​ordinary​​course​​of​​nature​​to​​cause​​death.​​Much​
​argument​ ​was​ ​advanced​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Special​ ​Public​ ​Prosecutor​ ​to​ ​persuade​ ​us​ ​to​
​apply​​clause​​thirdly.​​The​​test​​laid​​down​​in​​the​​judgment​​which​​is​​considered​​as​​the​​locus​
​classicus​​of​​Vivian​​Bose​​J​​in​ ​Virsa​​Singh​ ​(supra)​​lays​​down​​the​​test​​for​​Clause​​thirdly​
​has​​four​​elements:​​(i)​​the​​injury​​must​​be​​caused;​​(ii)​​the​​injury​​must​​be​​specified​​with​
​precision;​ ​(iii)​ ​it​ ​must​ ​be​ ​established​ ​objectively​ ​that​ ​the​ ​injury​ ​was​​sufficient​​in​​the​
​ordinary​​course​​of​​nature​​to​​cause​​death;​​and​​(iv)​​it​​must​​be​​proved​​that​​the​​accused​
​intended​​to​​inflict​​that​​particular​​injury​​and​​not​​some​​other​​injury.​​In​​the​​case​​on​​hand​
​PW86,​​the​​doctor​​tendered​​evidence​​that​​no​​single​​injury,​​taken​​alone,​​was​​sufficient​​in​
​the​​ordinary​​course​​of​​nature​​to​​cause​​death.​​The​​doctor​​gave​​evidence​​that​​death​​was​
​caused​​by​​the​​conjoint​​vicious​​cycle​​of​​all​​the​​injuries​​together​​and​​not​​by​​any​​one​​of​