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
