Prosecution Evidence Found Weak
The Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Thrissur, presided over by Special Judge Sri. Sirajudheen P A, on August 8, 2025, acquitted all accused in Sessions Case No. 363/2012 (clubbed with Sessions Case No. 645/2012).
The case arose from Crime No.1509/2009 of Irinjalakuda Police Station. The accused were represented by Adv. Manumon A, Adv. Manoj Kottikkal, and Adv. P.P. Haris.
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The accused faced prosecution under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the IPC, along with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on December 14, 2009, around 7.00 pm. The accused allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and restrained the victim.
The prosecution further claimed that the victim suffered grievous injuries, including fractures. Additionally, it alleged that the accused made caste-based abuse in public view.
Police recorded the First Information Statement on December 15, 2009. However, the victim later filed a private complaint on March 11, 2010.
The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, initially registered the matter as CC No.443/2010. Later, it committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section 323 CrPC by order dated May 29, 2012.
Appreciation of Prosecution Evidence
During the trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW10. It also marked Exhibits P1 to P25, along with MO1, a granite stone allegedly used in the assault.
After the prosecution closed its evidence, the Court questioned the accused under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC. The accused denied all incriminating circumstances.
The Court carefully reviewed the evidence and noted serious weaknesses in the prosecution version.
Importantly, the Court pointed out inconsistencies between the First Information Statement (Ext.P1) and the later private complaint (Ext.P2).
The allegation of caste-based abuse did not appear in the initial statement. Instead, the victim introduced it nearly four months later. Therefore, the Court found the delay suspicious.
The prosecution also failed to give a satisfactory explanation for this gap. Consequently, the Court doubted the authenticity of the later allegation.
Defence Strategy and Submissions
The defence, led by Adv. Manumon A, Adv. Manoj Kottikkal, and Adv. P.P. Haris, challenged the prosecution’s credibility.
Counsel argued that the evidence contained:
- material contradictions,
- omissions in the earliest account, and
- embellishments introduced later.
Moreover, the defence highlighted the lack of independent witnesses. This remained significant because the prosecution claimed that local persons gathered at the spot.
Court’s Findings on SC/ST Act Charge
The Court held that the offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not attracted. The prosecution failed to prove caste-based humiliation in public view.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC 6451).
Doubts Regarding Place of Occurrence and Recovery
The Court also noted inconsistencies regarding the exact place of occurrence.
Furthermore, the recovery of MO1 remained doubtful. Police seized the material object only after seven days. The prosecution also failed to prove the seizure through reliable evidence.
Presumption of Innocence and Standard of Proof
Reiterating the principle of presumption of innocence, the Court cited Kailas Gour v. State of Assam (2012 (2) SCC 34).
The Court emphasised that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Precedents Relied Upon
The Court relied on several precedents, including:
- Royson v. State of Kerala (2017 KHC 1056)
- Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972 KHC 592)
- Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (AIR 2007 SC 3234)
- Kamal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (AIR 2023 SC 3841)
Final Decision
Since the prosecution failed to establish the chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted all accused under Section 235(1) CrPC.
The Court cancelled the bail bonds and directed that the accused be set at liberty.
The judgment was pronounced in open court on August 8, 2025.
