Kerala High Court
Suresh vs The State Of Kerala on 23 July, 2025
Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :1: 2025:KER:54366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
RD
WEDNESDAY, THE 23
DAY OF JULY 2025 / 1ST SRAVANA,
1947
CRL.A NO. 602 OF 2019
AGAINST
THE
JUDGMENT
DATED
04.05.2019
IN
SC
NO.139
OF
2016
OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - III, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT:
URESH
S
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT NEDIYAKALAYIL VEEDU,
NEAR GURUMANDIRAM, VAZHAMUTTOM EAST VALLIKKODE VILLAGE,
KOZENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.V.SETHUNATH
RESPONDENT:
HE STATE OF KERALA T REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SMT. NEEMA T.V., SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. HIS T CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 23.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :2: 2025:KER:54366 "CR" J U D G M E N T Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.05.2019 in S.C. No. 139 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Pathanamthitta. In the aforesaid case, the appellant herein was charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(ii), 325, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Bytheimpugnedjudgment,he was found guilty: a) for the offence underSection302IPCandwassentencedtoundergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with adefault clause. b) fortheoffenceunderSection325oftheIPCandsentencedtoundergo rigorous imprisonment for five years andtopayafineofRs.10,000/- with a default clause. c) fortheoffenceunderSection506PartIIandsentencedtoundergoRI for two years, d) fortheoffenceunderSection447oftheIPCandsentencedtoundergo RI for three months. The finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge are under challenge in this appeal. Crux of the prosecution case. 2. The appellant, Suresh, is a close relative of the deceased, Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :3: 2025:KER:54366 Pankajakshan Pillai, and resides adjacent to the house of the deceased. The prosecutioncaseisthatonthemorningof05.01.2015,analtercationoccurred between the accused and the wife of the deceased, Radhamani who was examinedasPW5.Atthetimeofthealtercation,thedeceased,arubbertapper by profession, was not at home. He returned around 12:30 p.m. after completinghistappingwork.Itisallegedthattheappellant,withtheintention to cause the death of the deceased, trespassed into the courtyard of house bearingNo.VP/VII/281ofVallikodeVillageandabusedthedeceased.Averbal altercation ensued, during which the appellant allegedly pushed thedeceased forcefully.Thedeceasedfellintoadrainlocatedonthesouthernsideofashort wall separating his property from the adjacent road. The drain measured approximately 60 cms. in width and 1.8 meters in depth and ran in an east-west direction. As a result of the fall, the deceased sustained serious injuries, particularly to his vertebra. He was rushed to Amma Hospital at Kottayam,wherehewasseenbyadoctorat12:50p.m.Thedoctorsuspected traumatic quadriplegia, and the injured was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Registration of the Crime and investigation 2.1. On the next day, i.e., on 6.1.2015, at around 8:00 p.m., on receiving information about the incident, the Sub-Inspector of Pathanamthitta PoliceStationreachedtheMedicalCollegeHospitalandrecordedthestatement Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :4: 2025:KER:54366 of PW5, on the basis of which Crime No. 29 of 2015 was registered at 8:30 p.m. for offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(i), 325, and 302 IPC. Crucially, it was noted in the FI statement thattheinjuredwasconsciousand able to speak. 2.2. The investigation was taken overbyPW10,theCircleInspector ofPolice,PathanamthittaPoliceStation,on07.05.2015.Hevisitedthesceneof crime and prepared Ext.P7 scene mahazar. He noted that the injuries were sustainedwhenthedeceasedhadfallenintothedrainonthesouthernsideofa short brick wall that separated the property of the deceased from the public road. 2.3. On 17.01.2015, he received information that the injured had succumbed to his injuries. He went to the Medical College Hospital and conductedExt.P3inquestoverthedeadbody.Thereafter,hefiledExt.P8 report beforethecourtincorporatingSections450,294(b),506(i),325,and302ofthe IPC. 2.4. On 24.01.2015, the accused surrendered before the police and was arrested as per Ext.P11 arrest memo. He was producedbeforetheCourt and remanded to judicial custody. Steps were taken to prepare a scene plan. The postmortem and wound certificates were obtained, and after completing the investigation, the final report was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :5: 2025:KER:54366 3. The case was made over to the learned Sessions Judge.When the charge was read over, the accused pleaded not guilty. Trial Proceedings 4. Theprosecutionexamined10witnessesasPWs1to10toprove its case and through themExts.P1toP14weremarked.Ontheclosureofthe prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned underSection313(1)(b)of the Cr.P.C. He emphatically denied all incriminatingcircumstancesandclaimed innocence. He stated that on the date of the alleged occurrence, at about 9:00 a.m., PW5 had abused him verbally while he was on his way to the hospital. On his return, he saw the deceased sitting on the verandah of his house. Upon seeing the appellant, the deceased allegedly tried to attack him withastonetakenfromtheboundarywallbutlosthisbalanceandfellintothe drain, consequent to which the injuries were sustained. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined. Findings of the Sessions Judge 5. The learned Sessions Judge, after evaluating the evidence, found the testimony of PW5 to be reliable. The omissions and contradictions pointed out by the defence were found to be minor. The court held that the evidence of PWs 2, 5, 9, and 10, along with Exts.P1, P3, andP6,established that the deceased had suffered injuries consequent of the push by the Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :6: 2025:KER:54366 appellant, leading to fractures of the C4 and C5 vertebrae, which ultimately caused his death. Accordingly, the court found that the prosecution had succeededinprovingtheoffencesunderSections447,325,506(ii),and302of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant as aforesaid. Submissions advanced. 6. Sri. V. Sethunath, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. He pointed out that the deceasedwas taken to Amma Hospital at 12:50 p.m. by PW5, and he was able to communicate. The Accident Register-cum-Wound Certificate prepared by the Doctor at 12:50 p.m. on 01.05.2015 mentions the alleged cause of injury as "fall from height." The learned counsel argued that theearliestversionclearly indicates that the deceased had fallen into the drainaccidentallyandthatthe appellant had no role in causing the injuries. He further submitted that PW9 and PW10 had stated that the deceased was able to talk and had given a statement explaining the cause of his injury. However, this statement was suppressed by the prosecution. He also highlighted inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of PW5, the wife of the deceased, and submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in placing undue relianceon her evidence. He highlighted the various flaws in the investigation and the careless manner in which it was carried out. It was finally submitted thatthe Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :7: 2025:KER:54366 appellant is innocent, and the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. 7. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the learned Sessions Judge had carefully evaluated the evidence of PW5, the medicalrecords,thetestimonyofneighbours,andthestatementsofthepolice officersbeforearrivingatthefindingofguilt.ItwasalsopointedoutthatPW5 had reasonably explained why she initially stated before the doctor that the deceased had fallen on his own. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the entire evidence on record. We shall now re-appreciate the evidence to determine whether the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Sessions Judge can be sustained in law. Evidence let in 9. Insofarastheinjuriessustainedbythedeceased,Pankajakshan Pillai, are concerned, there is no serious dispute between the parties. It is admitted that the deceased fell into a deepdrainapproximately1.8metersin depth and sustained the injuries. The prosecution asserts that the deceased was pushed into the drain forcefully by the appellant, whereas the appellant contends that while he was walking along the southern road, the deceased hurledabusesathimandpickedupaheavystonewiththeintenttothrowitat the appellant. In the process, the deceased lost his balance and fell into the Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :8: 2025:KER:54366 drain, sustaining the injuries. In other words, the fact that the deceased sufferedavertebralfractureisnotindispute.Whatremainstobedeterminedis whether such injury was the result of a forceful push by the appellant. 10. We shall now evaluate the medical evidence, specifically the testimonies of PW2 and PW9. PW2 was theDoctorwhoinitiallyexaminedthe injured at Amma Hospital, while PW9 was the Doctor who conducted the postmortem.PW2statedthaton01.05.2015,whileworkingasaMedicalOfficer at Amma Hospital, he examined Mr. Purushothaman, a 60-year-oldmale,who was brought in by his relatives with a complaint of having "fallen from a height". He noted that the injured was unable to move both upperandlower limbs and suspected traumatic quadriplegia. The patient was referred to the Medical College Hospital. Ext.P1, the wound certificate, was marked through him. In cross-examination, he stated that he examined the patient at 12:50p.m.andthattheallegedcauseofinjurywasconveyedbytherelatives. However,hedidnotrememberwhotherelativeswere.Healsostatedthatsuch injuries could be caused by a fall from a height. 11. PW9,anAssistantProfessorandAssistantPoliceSurgeonatthe Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, deposed that he conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased on 17.01.2015. Among the injuries noted, he noted a fracture between theC4andC5cervicalvertebrae, spinalcordcontusionwithsoftening,andsurroundingsofttissueinfiltration.He Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :9: 2025:KER:54366 opined that the injuries could have been caused by a head-down fall from a height. He clarified that he did not verify the treatment records of the deceased. 12. InlightoftheevidenceofPW2andPW9,itcanbestatedwitha fair degree of certainty thatthedeceasedfellfromaheightandsustainedthe injuries.However,whethersuchafallwastheresultofadeliberatepushbythe appellant remains to be ascertained after proper evaluation of the other evidence on record. 13. We shall now proceed toconsidertheevidenceadducedbythe prosecution to prove the incident. 14. PW1 statedthathereturnedfromworkataround8:00p.m.on 01.05.2015 and came to know that he came to know that there was an altercationbetweenthedeceasedandtheappellantandthatthedeceasedwas taken to the hospital. He did not fully support the prosecution case. In cross-examination,hestatedthathewasonlyinformedthatthedeceasedhad sufferedtheinjuriesbyfallingdown.Healsoadmittedthatseveralhouseswere situated in and around the residence of the deceased. He further stated that thedeceasedandtheappellantwerecloserelatives,beingchildrenofabrother and sister, and that he was unaware of any disputes between them. 15. PW2istheVillageOfficerofVallikode,whopreparedExt.P2 site Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :10: 2025:KER:54366 plan. In cross-examination, he stated that he prepared the plan based on a requisition from the Investigating Officer. During cross-examination, it was brought out that no scale was mentioned intheplanandthatitcontainedno significant details. He denied that the plan waspreparedbasedonguesswork or at the instance of the police. 16. PW3 attested Ext.P3, the inquest report. 17. PW5isthewifeofthedeceased.Shestatedthaton01.05.2015, at around 9:30 a.m., the appellant came to the courtyard of her house in an inebriatedstateandbeganabusingher.Atthattime,herhusbandhadgonefor rubbertapping.Thoughsheaskedtheappellanttoleave,heremainedtherefor some time and continued his abusive behavior before eventually returning to hishouse.Around12:30p.m.,afterherhusbandreturned,theappellantcame back. Her husband, who was inside the house, came out and asked the appellant to go home, saying he was tired. Whileshewastakingfoodforher husband,sheheardanaltercationandcameouttothecourtyard.Shedeposed that the appellant threatened her husband and that she pleaded with folded hands and asked the appellant to leave.Hewascarryingaknifetuckedinhis hip.Duringthescuffle,theknifefelltotheground,andPW5pickeditup.She statedthattheappellantthenpushedher,causinghertofallandsufferaknee injury. Subsequently, the appellantpushedherhusbandforcefully,causinghim to fall over the 6-foot-high boundary fence into the drain located on the Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :11: 2025:KER:54366 southern side. Her husband was paralyzed from the neck down. She raised a hue and cry and a boy rushed in to help her.Withhishelp,theymanagedto pullherhusbandoutandsummonedanautorickshawtotakehimtothenearby hospital. The doctor informedthemthatherhusbandhadsustainedafracture and advisedthathebeshiftedtotheMedicalCollegeHospital.Accordingly,an ambulancewassummoned,andherhusbandwastakentotheMedicalCollege Hospital,Kottayam.Shestatedthatherhusbandpassedawayon16.01.2015at about 8:00 p.m. and that she gave Ext.P4 statement to the police. 18. Incross-examination,shestatedthatshegaveherstatementto the police only on the next day and denied that the police had come to the Medical CollegeHospitaltorecordherstatement.Sheaddedthatherhusband hadgivenadyingdeclarationtothepolicepriortohisdeath.Whenaskedwhen the said declaration was made, she replied that it was on the day before his death and confirmed that herhusbandwasabletospeak.Shestatedthather husbandwastakentoAmmaHospitalbyherandoneAnilKumar,andthatshe did not recall the name of the autorickshaw driver. She also stated that her husbandcomplainedofnumbnesswhiletheywereenroutetothehospital.She denied that herhusbandtoldherandAnilKumarthathefellintothedrainon hisown.WhenquestionedwhethertheytoldthedoctoratAmmaHospitalthat he had fallen from a height, she responded that as she was in a distressed state, many things were said, and she did not clearly remember what was conveyed. She stated that the information to the doctorwasfurnishedbyher Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :12: 2025:KER:54366 andnotbyherhusband.Sheadmittedthatshedidnotaccompanyherhusband totheMedicalCollegeHospitalasshewasunwell.Herdaughterandson-in-law went with him in the ambulance. When asked whether the deceased had informedtheambulancedriverandson-in-lawthathehadfallenbyhimself,she said shewasunaware.ShewasfurtheraskedifshehadmentionedinherFIR thatherhusbandhadtoldthedoctorhesufferedinjuriesfromfallingdownon hisown.Sherespondedthatshemighthavesaidso,asshewasinadistressed state at the time. Whenaskedwhythepolicewerenotinformedonthesame day, she statedthatherchildrenwerenotathomeandthatshewastryingto save her husband. She denied the suggestion that police were not informed because the deceased had fallen on his own.Shestatedthatshewenttothe Medical College Hospital only on the sixth day and remained there until the eighth.Sheassertedthatthepolicedidnotvisitthehospitalduringthosedays. When asked whether the boundary wall was old and made of granite, she replied that the wall was somewhat elevated. She admitted that nothing untoward occurred in the courtyard but maintained that there was a scuffle between her husband and the appellant. She further stated that herhusband was pushed while they were standing at the southeastern corner of the courtyard and that there was an exchange of blows between the two. When askedwhyshehadnotpreviouslystatedthis,sherepliedthatshedidnotknow what all had to be said. She added that she gave another statement to the policesevenoreightdaysaftertheFIR.Shedeniedthattheappellantandthe Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :13: 2025:KER:54366 deceased were on cordial terms, as stated in her FIR. 19. PW6, the Senior Civil Police Officer attached to the Pathanamthitta Police Station, deposed that on 06.01.2015,uponreceivingan intimation from the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, he proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of Radhamani (PW5), the wife of the injuredperson.HestatedthattheinjuredwasadmittedintheTraumaIntensive Care Unit (ICU). During cross-examination, PW6 affirmed that in her First Information Statement (FIS), PW5 had informed him that her husband was capable of speaking. He further stated thatPW5hadmentionedtherewasno priorenmityorrivalrywiththeappellant.Sincetheinjuredwasadmittedinthe Trauma ICU, PW6 clarified that he did not attempt toentertheICUtorecord his statement or to prepare thebodynote.Certainomissionsinthetestimony of PW5 were specifically pointed out to PW6, which he candidlyadmitted.He confirmed that those statements had not been made by PW5 in her FIS. In particular, PW6 stated that PW5 had not mentioned in herstatementthatthe injuredhadtoldtheappellanthewastiredandrequestedtobeleftalone.Nor had she stated thattheappellanthadaknifetuckedintohiswaist.Hefurther affirmed that PW5 did not state that the knife had fallen when the appellant pushedherhusband,nordidshestatethattheappellanthadpushedherwhen shepickeduptheknifefromthegroundorthatshehadsustainedakneeinjury in the process. Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :14: 2025:KER:54366 20. PW7 istheGradeSub-InspectorattachedtothePathanamthitta PoliceStation.HetestifiedthatbasedonthestatementrecordedbyPW6from PW5, he registered Crime No. 29/15ofthePathanamthittaPoliceStation.The First Information Report was marked as Ext.P5. 21. PW8, a close relative of the deceased, deposed that he had stood as an attestor to the inquest. 22. We have already dealt with the steps taken by PW10, the investigating officer, after taking over the investigation. PW10, while being cross-examined,statedthatthestatementofPW5wasrecordedattheMedical College Hospital andnotatthePoliceStation.Hestatedthatthestatementof theinjuredwasrecordedbythePoliceon12.01.2015whilehewasundergoing treatment at the MCH. Headmittedthatthesaidstatementwasnotproduced before the Court due to oversight. He stated that he did not record the statementofthedoctorwhotreatedtheinjuredattheMCH.Healsoaddedthat he did not endeavour to record the dying declaration of the injured. He admitted that in Ext.P1, the causeofinjuryisshownasafallfromheight.He statedthattheplaceofoccurrenceisnotthedrain.Headmittedthatnodetails havebeenstatedeitherinthescenemahazarortheplan.Whenhewasasked that theplacefromwheretheinjuredwaspushedwasnotshowninExt.P2or Ext.P7 as no such incident had taken place in the courtyard of the house,he denied the same. He stated that in the additional statement given byPW1,it Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :15: 2025:KER:54366 has been stated that there were no disputes between the families and they werelivinginacordialmanner.Headmittedthattherearenumeroushomesin the vicinity of the house of the deceased. The omissions which were brought out while cross-examining PW5 were put to PW10, which he admitted. Evaluation of the evidence 23. It has come out from the evidence that immediately after the incident on 05.01.2015, the injuredwasrushedtoAmmaHospital.Thedoctor who examined the injured was examined as PW2, and the wound certificate issued by him is marked as Ext.P1.Whatissignificant,however,isthatinthe woundcertificate,thedoctorhasrecordedthattheinjurieswerecauseddueto a fall from a height. This version lends credence to the case set up by the appellant that it was not acaseoffallintothedrainconsequenttoapushby the appellant. This assumes relevance particularly when in respect of the incident, information was furnished to the police only at 8:00 p.m., on 06.01.2015, after a day and 7 hours after the incident, and it is in the said statement that the appellant has been implicated as the aggressor. 24. There is yet another circumstance that casts serious doubt on the prosecution case. PW5, in her deposition, stated that the injured was consciousandabletospeakuntilthedaypriortohisdeath,whichoccurredon 17.01.2015.Shefurtherstatedthatthepolicehadrecordedhisstatementwhile he was undergoing treatment atthehospital.PW10,inhisevidence,admitted Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :16: 2025:KER:54366 that the statement of the victim was indeed recorded. However,byoversight, thesaidstatementwasnotplacedbeforetheCourt.Iftheinjuredwasaliveand conscious for nearly twelve days following the incident, there is no plausible explanationastowhyhisstatementwasnotformallyrecordedandbroughton record, especially considering that the FIR had been registered under Section 307 of the IPC. This omission assumes significance in the context of the prosecutioncase.Itmaybethattheinjuredhadgivenastatementexculpating the appellant, and that might have been the reason why the said statement was kept out of the gaze of the Court. 25. We find that the conviction of the appellant has been founded solely on the testimony of PW5. Upon a careful and critical evaluation of her evidence,wefindthatherversionappearstobehighlyembellishedtosuchan extent that it becomes highly unsafe to rely on it. Sheadmitsthatadifferent version of the incident was given to the doctor at the time of admitting the deceased to the hospital. She stated that such a statement was furnished owing to her distressed mental state. However, she also maintains that the injuredwasconsciousandabletospeaktillthedaybeforehisdeath. Further, in total variance to her earlierstatements,shestatedinherevidencethatthe appellanthadcomearmedwithaknife,whichfelldownduringthescuffle,and whenshepickeditup,hepushedherdown,leadingtohersustaininginjuries. She also introduces an incident involving a scuffle between the deceasedand the appellant. When confronted about whether a different version had been Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :17: 2025:KER:54366 given to the ambulance driver and the boy who accompanied her to the hospital, she pleaded ignorance. She admitted that she had stated that her husband had informed the doctor that he hadsustainedtheinjuriesbyfalling down on his own, but again sought to justify the same by claiming she was under emotional distress at the time. We areoftheviewthattheprosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant. There is a serious possibilitythatthedeceasedhadfallendownonthedrainandsufferedinjuries which resulted in his deathafterabouttwoweeks.Inthatviewofthematter, the finding of guilt arrived at by the learned sessions Judge cannot be sustained. Need of the hour 26. Before parting, we would liketostatethatwearedistressedto notetheirresponsibleandcarelessmannerinwhichtheinvestigationhasbeen conducted intheinstantcase.Absolutelynothingisdiscerniblefromthescene plan and the mahazar regarding thenatureandtopographyofthepropertyin question. It remains a matter of serious concern as to why law enforcement agencies in the State continue to show little or no regard for the proper documentation of the crime scene before the trial court. Thepreparationofa clearandaccuratesceneplanandamahazardetailingthenatureandlieofthe scene of crime is crucial for enabling the Court to obtain a precise understandingofhowtheincidentunfoldedandtoassesswhethertheversion Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :18: 2025:KER:54366 ofeventsputforthbythewitnessesstandscorroboratedbythephysicallayout. Inalmostallcases,thetaskofpreparingthesceneplanorsiteplanishanded over to the Village officer, who is untrained and unfamiliar with the legal requirementsofacriminaltrial.Furthermore,inthecaseonhand,noeffortwas taken to record the statement of the injured as regards the reason for the injuries sustained by him after securing a certification from the doctor, particularly when the wife and the doctor stated that he was in a position to talk.Eventhepreparationofmahazarsisfrequentlyundertakeninacasualand perfunctory manner by the officers concerned, and it serves no purpose. 27. It needs to be borne in mind by all concerned that criminal investigations form the backbone of the criminal justice system. A foolproof investigationisessentialtocometothetruthandinensuringthatnoeffortsare spared to bring the perpetrators ofcrimetojustice.Muchresourcesarespent by theStateonlawenforcement,forensiclaboratories,andmedicalexpertsto ensure justice is served. A lackadaisical or careless approach by the investigators results in the wastage of public resources. It leaves the courts withoutthefulltruth,underminespublictrust,andultimately,theendresultis that the offender goes scot free. It is known to all that the certainty that appropriatepunishmentcommensuratewiththeoffencewillbeimposedswiftly is one of the greatest deterrents to crime. 28. Sitting in this jurisdiction for quite some time, we have Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :19: 2025:KER:54366 encountered scores of caseswhereseriouslapsesininvestigationatallstages have come toournotice.Importantevidenceisoverlookedandinmostofthe cases, the investigating agency fails to collect the same and place it for the scrutiny of the court. We need to bear in mindthatadvancementsinforensic science and technology have revolutionised criminal investigations, offering tools which were not available earlier. Effective investigators today must integrate traditional investigativetechniqueswithmodernscientificmethodsto ensurethatalltracesofevidenceareobtainedandproducedbeforecourt.The tools and knowledge required to conduct effective investigations are well-established, from basic crime scene management to advanced DNA sequencing and cyber forensics. What is needed is the will and diligence to applythemconsistentlyandcorrectly.Investigatorsmustapproacheverycase, especially serious crimes, with the mindset thatanythinglessthanafoolproof investigation is unacceptable. Each piece of evidence must be meticulously analysed, every protocol followed, and all leads are to be exhausted. Senior officers in the hierarchy should ensure that officers are trained in the latest techniquesandheldaccountableforlapses.Forensiclabsshouldbeadequately staffed and equipped so that they can process evidence swiftly and reliably. Now that the BNSS and BNS have come into force, there is no excuse for investigative incompetence in serious crimes. 29. In Pooja Pal v. Union of India1, the Apex Court highlighted 1 (2016) 3 SCC 135 Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :20: 2025:KER:54366 the avowed purposeofcriminalinvestigationanditsefficaciousprospectswith the advent of scientific and technical advancements by observing as under in paragraph No. 96 of the judgment: "96.Theavowedpurposeofacriminalinvestigationandits efficaciousprospectswiththeadventofscientificandtechnical advancements have been candidly synopsised in the prefatory chapter dealing withthehistoryofcriminalinvestigationinthe treatise on CriminalInvestigation--BasicPerspectivesbyPaul B. Weston and Renneth M. Wells: "Criminal investigation is a lawfulsearchforpeopleandthings useful in reconstructing the circumstances of an illegal act or omission and the mental state accompanying it. It is probing fromtheknowntotheunknown,backwardintime,anditsgoal is to determine truth as far as it can be discovered in any post-factum inquiry. Successful investigations are based on fidelity, accuracy and sincerity in lawfully searching for the true facts of an event under investigation and on an equal faithfulness, exactness, andprobityinreportingtheresultsofaninvestigation.Modern investigators are persons who stick to the truth and are absolutely clear about the time andplaceofaneventandthe measurable aspects of evidence. They work throughout their investigation fully recognising that even a minor contradiction or error may destroy confidence in their investigation. 97. The joining of science with traditional criminal investigation techniques offers new horizons of efficiency in criminalinvestigation.Newperspectivesininvestigationbypass reliance upon informers and custodial interrogation and Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :21: 2025:KER:54366 concentrate upon a skilled scanning of the crime scene for physical evidence and a search for as many witnesses as possible.Muteevidencetellsitsownstoryincourt,eitherbyits own demonstrativeness or through the testimony ofanexpert witness involved in its scientific testing. Such evidence may serve in lieu of, or ascorroborationof,testimonialevidenceof witnesses found and interviewed by police in an extension of theirresponsibilitytoseekoutthetruthofallthecircumstances ofcrimehappening.Anincreasingcertaintyinsolvingcrimesis possible and will contribute to the major deterrent of crime--thecertaintythatacriminalwillbediscovered,arrested and convicted." 30. In Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P.2, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court observed that advancement of information technology and scientifictempermustpervadethemethodofinvestigation.Electronicevidence wasrelevanttoestablishfacts.Scientificandelectronicevidencecanbeagreat help to an investigating agency. 31. InRollymolvStateofKerala3, aDivisionBenchofthisCourt of which one of us (Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J) was a member had lamented about the antiquated investigative methods used by the State Police and had provided suggestions to remedy the inefficiency that plagues the system: 39. In this jurisdiction, we have frequently encountered cases where the accused are acquitted due to errors and shortcomings in police investigations. There are also cases such as the instant one 2 [( 2015) 7 SCC 178] 3 [2 024 KHC 7324)] Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :22: 2025:KER:54366 whereintheaccusedischargedwithseriouscrimeswithoutconducting a fair investigation. Despite numerous judicial pronouncementswhich theinvestigatingofficersaretoscrupulouslyadhereto,thefinalreport was laid charging theappellantunderS.302oftheIPC.Thisactionis alsounjustandunfair.ItisimperativethattheStatePoliceDepartment risestomeetthesechallengesbyestablishingacentralizedknowledge repository.Sucharepositorywouldserveasavitalresourceforyoung and inexperienced officers, enabling them to access comprehensive informationandseekguidancefromadedicatedteamofexperts.This repository would also facilitate seamless access to legal updates, including recent judicial interpretations and developments in investigative techniques. 40. The creationofsuchacentralknowledgerepositorywould empower investigating officers by allowing them to access relevant precedents, evidence - gathering techniques, and expert advice, ensuring a more robust and efficient investigation process. Moreover, with crimes increasingly involving advanced technology, officers must beprovidedwiththenecessarysupporttonavigatecomplexcasesand prepare foolproof final reports backed by legally admissibleevidence. Without timely intervention and proper training, the quality of crime investigationswillcontinuetosuffer,resultinginseriousinjustices.We trust that these suggestions will be given due consideration andthat appropriatemeasureswillbetakentomakecrimeinvestigationsinthe State more effective, scientific, and result - oriented. 32. ThecomingintoforceoftheBharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita (BNSS), 2023, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023replacingtheoldcodesassumeimportance.Inthestatements andobjectsoftheBNSS,itisstatedthatafastandefficientjusticesystemisan essential component of good governance. It speaks about the delay in the Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :23: 2025:KER:54366 delivery of justice owing to various reasons, including insufficient use of technology in the legal system and inadequate use of forensics. These are highlighted as the biggest hurdles in speedy delivery of justice. It was also mentioned that the State police forces are required to urgently modernise investigative practices and follow the procedure prescribed therein. The new code weaves modern tools and safeguards into the fabric of criminal investigations. 33. The BNSS ushers in a new era of evidence-focused, technology-enabled policing, replacing outdated colonial procedures with mandates for audio-visual documentation, scientific evidence collection, and digital case management. Sections 105, 176, 180, 254, 265, 308, and 349 of theBNSS requirethatsearches,seizures,witnessstatements,andothercrucial steps be recorded by "audio-video electronic means." They also insist on forensic expert involvement in serious crimes and provide legal authority to obtain scientific samples from suspects. Therefore, the old habits of cursory sceneexamination,relianceonwitnessmemory,andsparsedocumentationwill no longer suffice. The BNSS provisions expressly require that critical investigative steps be documented with audio-video recordings and that forensic evidence be collected and integrated from the outset. Such requirements aim to improve the quality of investigationsandensureintegrity andaccountabilityfrominvestigatingofficers.Forinstance,inthepast,atypical crime scene examination would involve the village officer sketching a rough Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :24: 2025:KER:54366 mapofthesceneandapoliceofficerpreparingascenemahazarbyhand.Vital evidence could be missed or remain undocumented, and disputes oftenarose later about what was recovered orsaidatthescene.Today,bylaw,thesame scene must be videotaped, photographed, and forensically examined, andthe digital records are required to be preserved. This dramatic leap in capability, from the pencil-and-paper era to a digital evidence ecosystem, is certainly a change for the better. 34. For instance, Section 105 of the BNSS reads as under : 105. Recording of searchandseizurethroughaudio-video electronicmeans.--Theprocessofconductingsearchofaplace ortakingpossessionofanyproperty,articleorthingunderthis Chapter or under section 185, including preparation ofthelist ofallthingsseizedinthecourseofsuchsearchandseizureand signingofsuchlistbywitnesses,shallberecordedthroughany audio-video electronic means preferably mobile phoneandthe police officer shallwithoutdelayforwardsuchrecordingtothe District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class. Theprovisioncreatesamandatorydutyforpolicetoaudiovisuallyrecord theentireprocessofconductingasearchofanyplaceorpersonandofseizing anypropertyorevidencetherein.Itspecifiesthatpreparingtheseizurelistand obtaining witness signatures, traditionally done only on paper, "shall be recorded through any audio-video electronic means,preferablymobilephone," andthattheofficermust,withoutdelay,forwardthisrecordingtoaMagistrate. Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :25: 2025:KER:54366 Ineffect,wheneverpoliceconductasearchorseizure,theyarenowobligated to videograph the same. This is crucial as it brings transparency to searches, deterring anyplantingortamperingwithevidenceandprotectingofficersfrom falseallegations.Theimmediatesubmissionofthevideotoamagistrateaddsa layer of accountability and preserves the chain of custody. 35. Section 176 of the BNSS is a game-changing provision that outlineshowanofficerinchargeofapolicestationshouldinitiateandconduct aninvestigationonreceivinginformationofanoffence.Sub-section3ofSection 176 introduces amandatoryforensicdimensionforseriouscrimes.Itstatesas under: (3) On receipt of every information relating to the commission of an offence which is madepunishableforseven years or more, the officer in charge of a police station shall, fromsuchdate,asmaybenotifiedwithinaperiodoffiveyears by the State Government in this regard, cause the forensic expert to visit the crime scene to collect forensic evidence in the offence and also cause videography of the process on mobile phone or any other electronic device: Provided that where forensic facility is not available in respect of any such offence, the StateGovernmentshall,until thefacilityinrespectofthatmatterisdevelopedormadeinthe State, notify the utilisation of such facility of any other State. 36. In simpler words, upon receiving information about an offence punishablewith7years'imprisonmentormore,theSHO"shall,fromsuchdate Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :26: 2025:KER:54366 as may be notified, cause a forensic expert to visit the crime scenetocollect forensic evidence and also cause videographyoftheprocessonmobilephone or other electronic device. A time frame has been stipulated therein to implement the provision. The proviso states that if the state lacks its own forensic facilities for that type of evidence, it must arrange to use facilitiesof another state until local capacity is developed. This is a groundbreaking mandate.Itmeansinoffenceslikemurder,rape,seriousassaults,dacoity,etc., police can no longer treat crime scene forensics as optional; it is a statutory requirement. Unless efforts are made for strict compliance of theprovisionas expeditiously aspossible,ifnotalreadymade,theStatePolicemaylagbehind in the implementation of the provision. 37. Section180oftheBNSScorrespondstothetraditionalpowerof police to question persons acquainted with the facts, which is similar to 161 statements under the old code. It crucially adds that whilepolicemayreduce such oral statements to writing, "the statement made under this sub-section mayalsoberecordedbyaudio-videoelectronicmeans.".Insimplerterms,when police record the statements of witnesses or even suspects, they are encouraged to make audio or video recordings of theseinterrogations.Thisis reinforced by Section 183, related to confessions and statements before magistrates which explicitly provides that any confession or statement to a Magistrate "may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the accused.". The combined effect is a legal Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :27: 2025:KER:54366 endorsement of electronic recording of both witness statements to policeand confessional statements to magistrates. Recording witness statements has multiple benefits: it captures nuances of demeanour and detail that written summaries might miss; it deters coercion or tutoring of witnesses; and it creates a precise record that can be used to verify the witness's testimonyin court. Forpolicedepartments,thismeansinvestinginsimpleaudiorecorders, mobile phones or body-worn camerasforofficersanddevelopingprotocolsfor securely storing these recordings. Notably, BNSS 180 also retains a human rights safeguard: the second proviso mandates that if the person being examined is a woman who is alleged to be the victim of certain sexual or gender-related offences, then her statement "shall be recorded by a woman policeofficeroranywomanofficer.".Inotherwords,thelegislaturehasensured that technology is not a substitute for empathy, and it must work in tandem. 38. Section185oftheBNSSstipulatesthemannerinwhichsearchis to be conducted by a Police Officer. Section 185(2) says that a police officer proceeding under sub-section (1) shall, if practicable, conduct the search in person.Theprovisostatesthatthesearchconductedunderthissectionshallbe recorded through audio-video electronic means, preferably by mobile phone. 39. It will be worthwhile to note at this juncture that the Central Government has alsocomeoutwiththee-Sakshyaplatformthatcomplements these reforms by enabling real-time capture, secure storage, authentication, Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :28: 2025:KER:54366 and transmission of digital evidence to courts. 40. The State Police is urgentlyrequiredtorampuptheirskillsand prioritise adoption of these reforms, through updated protocols, training, and investment in technology and forensics, to meet legal mandates and public expectations for foolproof investigations, especially in heinous crimes like murder. e-Sakshya is the technological lynchpin of the BNSS reforms. It embodiestheprinciplethatevidenceoncecreatedshouldbeimmediatelysaved andsharedindigitalformforthejusticesystemtouse.Statepoliceforcesare requiredtoproactivelyembracee-Sakshyatoensurethattheycomplywiththe provisions of the new law. The State Police are required to take urgent measures toensurethattheyusee-Sakshyaoranyothercapableplatformfor documenting: (a) all searches and seizures under Section 105 BNSS, (b) all crimescenesofoffensespunishablegreaterthan7yearsunderSection176(3) BNSS, and (c) all confessional or witness statements that are allowed to be recordedonvideounderSections180and183BNSS.Thenecessaryequipment and training are to be provided to the Officers without delay. 41. WedirecttheRegistrytoforwardacopyofthisjudgmenttothe State PoliceChiefandtheHomeDepartment.Thesaidauthoritiesshallensure that promptandeffectivestepsaretakentohereinafterconductinvestigations in strict compliance with the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS),andinconsonancewiththebindingobservationsoftheHon'ble Crl A No. 602 of 2019 :29: 2025:KER:54366 Supreme CourtaswellasthisCourt.Itisfurtherexpectedthattheauthorities shall implement, in letter andspirit,thesuggestionscontainedhereinaboveso as to ensure that the objectives underlying the enactment of the BNSS are effectively realised. Conclusion Intheresult,thisappealisallowed. Theconvictionandsentenceofthe appellantinS.C.No.139of2016onthefileoftheAdditionalSessionsJudge-III, Pathanamthitta, are set aside. We acquit the appellant and direct thathebe setatlibertyforthwith,ifhiscontinuedincarcerationisnotrequiredinanyother case. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE Sd/- K.V. JAYAKUMAR, JUDGE PS/23/7/25