The Kerala High Court has delivered a decisive reaffirmation of the foundational principle that conviction in criminal cases must rest on evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt - not suspicion, conjecture, or an unreliable single account. In a case marked by serious investigative lapses and contradictory testimony, the Court set aside a conviction for murder and grievous hurt, emphasizing that procedural integrity and evidentiary consistency are non-negotiable pillars of justice.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from the alleged murder of Xavier @ Karuthamuth, a street dweller and ragpicker, and the sexual assault of Seleena T., another marginalized individual, on the night of 15 November 2015 near Thodupuzha, Idukki. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Abhilash, attacked both victims with a rafter after a dispute over liquor and cash. Xavier died from a severe head injury, while Seleena sustained scalp and finger wounds. The police registered only one FIR for murder, ignoring the sexual assault component.
Procedural History
- 15 November 2015: Incident occurred around 8 p.m. on a public road.
- 16 November 2015, 7 a.m.: First Information Statement (FIS) lodged by PW1 Shaji, who discovered the body.
- 16 November 2015: FIR (Ext.P7) registered based on FIS, not Seleena’s account.
- 19 November 2015: Seleena’s statement under Section 161 CrPC recorded - three days after the incident.
- 2016: Case committed to Sessions Court; trial commenced.
- 13 March 2019: Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused under Sections 302 and 324 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and three years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively.
- 2019: Criminal Appeal filed before the Kerala High Court.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the sole eyewitness testimony, unexplained delays in recording statements, non-recovery of blood-stained clothing, and failure to examine material witnesses.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a conviction for murder and grievous hurt can be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness whose account is inconsistent with medical evidence, marred by material contradictions, and unsupported by forensic or corroborative evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The defence argued that PW11 Seleena’s testimony was inherently unreliable due to: (1) her initial statement to Dr. Renjith Paul identifying a different assailant (Albin); (2) her admission of heavy alcohol consumption at the time of the incident; (3) her inability to recall key details during cross-examination; and (4) the complete absence of physical corroboration for her claims of sexual assault or prolonged trauma. The counsel relied on Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State of NCT of Delhi, Joseph v. State of Kerala, and Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab to argue that a ‘sterling witness’ must be consistent, credible, and free from embellishment. They further contended that the delay in recording statements and failure to seize blood-stained clothing violated investigative norms, creating irreparable gaps in the chain of evidence.
For the Respondent/State
The Public Prosecutor maintained that Seleena’s testimony was natural, truthful, and consistent with the medical evidence. They argued that minor discrepancies in recollection were attributable to trauma and intoxication, not fabrication. The delay in recording statements was explained as due to the victim’s vulnerable condition and police procedural oversight, not malice. The prosecution relied on Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab to assert that conviction can rest on a solitary eyewitness if the testimony is credible and unimpeachable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, applying the doctrine that proof beyond reasonable doubt is the bedrock of criminal conviction. It found that the prosecution’s case collapsed under scrutiny.
The Court noted that PW11’s initial version to the doctor named Albin as the assailant - a name entirely different from the accused. Her subsequent courtroom testimony, which implicated Abhilash, was not explained satisfactorily. The Court observed:
"The version of PW11 appears to be unworthy of credence. It is not natural and trustworthy. Admittedly, she had consumed alcohol and she could not remember the event, which occurred due to her intoxication. Her version is inconsistent with the medical evidence adduced by PW7, Dr. Renjith Paul."
Crucially, the medical evidence (Ext.P5) recorded only a 4 cm lacerated scalp wound and minor finger abrasions - hardly consistent with the violent struggle described by PW11, including being dragged, stripped, and repeatedly beaten. The absence of signs of concussion, loss of consciousness, or extensive bruising rendered her narrative medically improbable.
The Court further emphasized the unexplained delay in recording PW11’s statement under Section 161 CrPC - three days after the incident - and the failure to register an FIR based on her account. Citing Nallabothu Ramulu @ Seetharamaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court held that such delays raise a legitimate suspicion of tutoring or embellishment.
Additionally, the non-recovery of PW11’s blood-stained clothing, the failure to examine Mr. Shaji (who allegedly witnessed her disclosure), and the absence of forensic analysis of seized items created fatal gaps in the evidentiary chain. The Court concluded:
"Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot be considered as a substitute for proof. The trial court has convicted the accused without properly evaluating the evidence... arrived at a conclusion on the basis of surmises and conjectures."
The Court distinguished Jarnail Singh and Joseph, noting that those cases involved credible, consistent eyewitnesses with corroborative evidence - conditions absent here.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Kerala High Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 324 IPC, acquitting the accused due to failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the evidence was riddled with inconsistencies, delays, and omissions that rendered the case legally unsustainable.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Sole Eyewitness Testimony Must Be Unimpeachable
- Practitioners must rigorously test the consistency of a sole eyewitness’s account from first statement to courtroom testimony.
- Any material contradiction, especially involving identity or sequence of events, must be flagged as fatal to prosecution.
- Intoxication, trauma, or memory lapses do not automatically validate testimony - they heighten the need for corroboration.
Delay in Recording Statements Is a Red Flag
- Prosecution must explain any delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 CrPC.
- Failure to register FIR based on victim’s initial complaint invites suspicion of manipulation.
- Courts will treat unexplained delays as indicative of possible tutoring or fabrication, especially in cases involving vulnerable witnesses.
Forensic and Material Evidence Cannot Be Ignored
-
Blood-stained clothing, weapons, and personal effects must be seized and sent for forensic analysis.
-
Non-recovery of such items without justification creates an irreparable evidentiary gap.
-
Courts will not sustain convictions where scientific evidence is absent and investigative lapses are systemic.
-
Always demand a timeline of witness statements and compare them with medical reports.
-
Challenge convictions based on solitary eyewitnesses where forensic evidence contradicts ocular testimony.
-
Argue for acquittal where investigation is marked by omissions, not just errors.
