‘Suspicion, however strong, can’t be equated with proof’: Kerala High Court acquits murder convict

Findings punches holes in prosecution theory

• Statements of the material witnesses were recorded several days after the incident. No plausible explanation is offered by the prosecution for the delay.
• Withholding of material evidence, with respect to the examination of a crucial witness in the case, would cast serious doubts on the prosecution’s story.
• The non seizure of blood-stained cloths is yet another important link which casts doubt on the prosecution’s story.
• Fundamental principle of criminal law that mere suspicion, irrespective of its degree, cannot constitute or substitute for proof.

• Prosecution has failed to allege and prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot be considered as a substitute for proof.
• The trial court convicted the accused without properly evaluating the evidence of material witnesses and arrived at a conclusion on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
• Eye witness testimony does not corroborate the medical examination carried out on the basis of the statement.

Defense arguments

• The trial court verdict was “legally unsustainable” as guilt was decided “without proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence”.
• Testimony of key witness “wholly unreliable” and riddled with “serious inconsistencies and contradictions”.
• Her evidence is “inconsistent” and in conflict with the medical evidence.
• Statements of the material witnesses were recorded after several months and without any satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Prosecution’s case

• Guilt arrived after proper evaluation, weighing and testing of the evidence.
• The version of the solitary eyewitness and the injured is trustworthy, natural and truthful.
• The discrepancies, omissions and contradictions pointed out by the defence are immaterial and insignificant for the adjudication of facts.
• The delay in recording the statement of the witnesses was properly explained by the prosecution.
• The version of the injured eyewitness, coupled with the medical evidence, proves the prosecution’s narrative beyond reasonable doubt.

Background

The order observed that the prosecution had “delineated the story of street dwellers and their vagrancy” and altercations attributable to intoxication by alcohol, occurring under the cover of darkness, specifically during the midnight hours.

In this tragic incident, a man lost his life, and a lady was subjected to sexual assault,” the order added.

The alleged incident took place on the night of November 15, 2015, in Thodupuzha, when one Xavier, stated to be a homeless ragpicker, was found dead.

In connection with the alleged crime, Abhilash was arrested and tried by a Thodupuzha trial court. The court, after hearing both sides, framed charges against the accused.

The trial ended in Abhilash being pronounced guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment for life and slapped with a Rs 25,000 fine in the case.

Sumit Kumar Singh is an intern with The Indian Express.