Kerala High Court

Sreekumar @ Kumar vs The State Of Kerala on 13 October, 2025

                                                     2025:KER:75133
Crl.A. No.202 of 2021           :1:




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
              
                                PRESENT
                                
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
           
                                   &
                                   
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
               
                       TH
                       
         MONDAY, THE 13
                          DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 21ST ASWINA,
                           
                                  1947
                                  

                          CRL.A NO. 202 OF 2021
                          

GAINST 
A        THE 
              JUDGMENT 
                        DATED 
                               30.11.2019 
                                           IN 
                                               SC 
                                                   NO.741 
                                                           OF 
                                                               2013
                                                                    OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - VI



APPELLANT
        /ACCUSED:
         

                   REEKUMAR @ KUMAR
                   S
                   AGED 48 YEARS
                   
                   S/O. SREEDHARAN, PPX III/347, KONKANAMKODE
                   
                   VADAKKUMKARA, VELLMCHIRA, VETTAMPALLI MURI, PANAVOOR
                   
                   VILLAGE, MANNARAMBU MELE VEEDU, CHELLAMKODE,
                   
                   CHELLAMKODE MURI, NEDUMANGAD VILLAGE,
                   
                   THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
                   


                   BY ADV SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
                   

RESPONDENT

         /STATE:
          

                   HE STATE OF KERALA,
                   T
                   REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
                   
                   KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
                   

                   BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. T.V. NEEEMA
                   

HIS 
T     CRIMINAL 
                APPEAL 
                        HAVING 
                                COME 
                                      UP 
                                          FOR 
                                               FINAL 
                                                      HEARING 
                                                               ON
13.10.2025, 
             THE 
                   COURT ON THE 
                                     SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                                                                          2025:KER:75133
Crl.A. No.202 of 2021                   :2:




                                 J U D G M E N T

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

BythisappealpreferredunderSection374oftheCodeofCriminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant challenges the finding of guilt, conviction andsentencepassedagainsthiminS.C.No.741of2013bytheAdditional District&SessionsJudge-VI,Thiruvananthapuram. Intheabovecase,he stood chargesheeted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of the IPC on theallegationthathehadcommitted the murder of one Biju @ Sonu. By the judgment under challenge, the appellantwasfoundguiltyandwassentencedtoundergoimprisonmentfor lifeandtopayafineof Rs.3,00,000/-withadefaultclausefortheoffence under Section 302 of the IPC. He was also sentenced toundergosimple imprisonment for a period of onemonthfortheoffencepunishableunder Section 341 of the IPC.

The prosecution allegation:

2. The appellant and the deceased, Biju @ Sonu, were persons known to each other for some time. Their relationship had, however, become strained due to certain financial dealings between them. The prosecution alleges that on 15.01.2012, at about 5:00 p.m., the appellant, 2025:KER:75133 Crl.A. No.202 of 2021 :3:

with the intention to commit murder, wrongfully restrained the deceased and inflicted a fatal incised wound on his neck using MO1 knife.

Registration of Crime and Investigation:

3. On the same day, at about 7:00 p.m., PW2 proceeded to the NedumangaduPoliceStationandlodgedExt.P1statement,onthebasisof which Crime No. 51 of 2012 was registeredbyPW15,theStationHouse Officer, Nedumangadu Police Station.

4. The investigation was thereafter taken over by PW16, the Circle Inspector of Police, Nedumangadu Police Station, on 16.01.2012. PW16 visited the Nedumangadu Hospital and conducted the inquest (Ext.P5) over the body of the deceased. The clothes found on the body were seized, and a Scientific Expert was summoned to collect trace evidence. On the same day, he inspected the scene of occurrence at Velanchira Junction and prepared a scene mahazar (Ext. P8).

5. Later, atabout1:30p.m.,theinvestigatingofficerlocatedthe accused nearPuthanpalamJunctionandarrestedhimunderExt.P14arrest memo. Pursuant tothedisclosurestatementmadebytheappellant,andas led by him, the officer proceeded to the appellant's residence and recovered MO1 knife concealed beneath the wooden beam of a shed situated on the eastern side of the house. The relevant portion of the confessional statement was marked as Ext.P13(a). 2025:KER:75133 Crl.A. No.202 of 2021 :4:

6. PW16 thereafter secured theassistanceoftheVillageOfficer topreparethesceneplanandobtainedthepostmortemcertificatefromthe ForensicSurgeonwhohadconductedtheautopsy.Uponcompletionofthe investigation, a final report was laid before the JudicialMagistrateofthe First Class-II, Nedumangadu.

Trial Proceedings:

7. After committal proceedings, the case was transferred to the Court of SessionandmadeovertotheAdditionalSessionsJudgefortrial and disposal. On the appearance of the accused, and after hearing both sides, the charge was framed. When the charge was read over and explained to him, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. Onthesideoftheprosecution,16witnesseswereexaminedas PWs 1 to 16, and through them, Exts.P1 to P20 were exhibited and marked.ThematerialobjectsproducedinevidencewereidentifiedasMOs 1to12.Aftertheconclusionoftheprosecutionevidence,theincriminating circumstances emerging therefrom were put to the accusedunderSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied all incriminating evidence and asserted his innocence. In his statement, he contended that on the date oftheincident,heandthedeceased,Biju,had tea together at the tea shop of one Shereef, who was examined as PW3. According to him, Biju left the tea shop first, and the appellant followed about fifteen minutes later. On his way, he found Biju lying on the road 2025:KER:75133 Crl.A. No.202 of 2021 :5:

with injuries on his neck. When he attempted to render assistance, local residents surrounded him and handed him over to the police. He maintained that he was falsely implicated in the case. On the side of the defence, Exts.D1 and D2 case diary contradictions were marked.

9. The learned SessionsJudge,afteradetailedevaluationofthe evidence, concluded that the testimonies of PW1 and PW4, who were projected as eye-witnesses by the prosecution, were cogent and credible. The minor discrepancies highlighted by the defence were held to be inconsequential and insufficient to discredit their version. The Court further found the evidence of PWs 1, 3,4and6trustworthyandreliable, andheldthattheprosecutionhadalsosucceededinprovingthemotive.On thatbasis,theCourtconcludedthattheprosecutionhadestablishedthatthe accused wrongfully restrained the deceased and thereafter inflicted the fatal cut injury. The case was brought within clause "Thirdly" ofSection 300 of the IPC and the appellant was convicted and sentenced accordingly.

10. Sri.Jayakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the learned Sessions Judge gravely misappreciated the prosecution evidence. Drawing attention to the depositions of PW1 (the brother of the deceased) and PW4 (a friend of PW1), both of whom were projected as eye-witnesses, it was urged that their conduct andthetimingoftheirstatementsbelietheirpresenceatthe scene.Hecharacterisedtheirconductasgrosslyunnatural.Despitehaving 2025:KER:75133 Crl.A. No.202 of 2021 :6:

allegedlywitnessedthestabbingincident,PW1statedthatheleftthescene leaving his dying brother and did not care to return. His statement was recordedonlyonthenextday.Inthesamemanner,PW4,whoadmittedto beaclosefriendofPW1,statedthatthoughhewaspresentatthesceneof crime and had witnessed the incident, he left the place before the police hadcome.HefurtherstatedthatitwasattheinstanceofPW1thathehad gone to the Police Station to furnish his eye-witness statement. It was vehemently urged that these witnesses were introduced later to implicate theappellant.ThelearnedcounselfurtherpointedoutthatPWs3,4and6 stated in clear terms that the appellant was present when the body was shifted from the scene to the hospital and that the deceasedwaslyingon the appellant's lap inside the police jeep.Thisversionrunscountertothe prosecutionnarrative.Iftheappellanthadaccompaniedthedeceasedtothe hospitalinthePolicejeep,theallegedarrestrecordedonthefollowingday and the recovery of the weapon from the appellant's house--situated approximately 5 kilometres from the scene--become inherently improbable. None of these material aspects, it was submitted, were duly considered by the learned Sessions Judge while entering the finding of guilt. Furthermore, the noting of the blood on the clothes of the accused will pale into insignificance in view of the above aspect.

11. In response, Smt. T.V. Neema,thelearnedPublicProsecutor, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had properly evaluated the 2025:KER:75133 Crl.A. No.202 of 2021 :7:

evidence and found the appellant guilty of the offence. It is further submitted that there would be some discrepancies in the evidence of naturalwitnessesandthesamecannotbeblownbeyondproportiontofind them unworthy of credence.

12. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides and have gone through the entire records.

13. ToestablishthatthedeathofBiju@Sonuwashomicidal,the prosecution examined Dr. Sasikala (PW10), Professor of Forensic Medicine,MedicalCollegeHospital,Thiruvananthapuram.Sheconducted the autopsy and issued Ext.P7 post-mortem certificate. She noted an obliquelyplacedincisedwoundmeasuring16.5cmontherightsideofthe neck and opined thatdeathwasduetotheneckinjury.Shestatedthatthe injury could have been caused by MO1, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Before us, no contention was advanced by learned counsel to dispute these medical conclusions. We, therefore, hold with certainty that the death of Biju @ Sonu was homicidal.

14. We shall now deal with the evidence let in by the prosecution.

15. PW1 is Vinod, the elder brother of the deceased. He stated that the deceased was a concrete worker. Accordingtohim,inthemonth of January, 2012, he witnessed the incident whichoccurredbetween4:00 and 5:00 p.m. HeandhisbrotherhadgonetotheshopofShereef(PW3). 2025:KER:75133 Crl.A. No.202 of 2021 :8:

WhilethedeceasedenteredShereef'sshop,PW1wenttoanearbyshopto purchase a cigarette. From there, he saw an altercation between the deceased and the appellant. The deceased then exited Shereef's shopand proceeded in the direction ofthe"Thycavu,"withtheappellantfollowing him. In front of the Thycavu, the appellantallegedlycaughtthedeceased withhislefthandandinflictedacutinjuryonhisneckwithaknifeheldin his right hand. When the witness tried to intervene, the appellant threatened him. PW1 fled the scene to inform his mother. When he returned,thebodywasnolongerthere.Thepoliceandlocalresidentshad shifted it to the Taluk Hospital, Nedumangadu. Later that evening, he learnedthathisbrotherhadsuccumbedtotheinjury.PW1furtherdeposed thattherehadbeendisputesbetweenthedeceasedandtheappellantabout amonthpriortotheincidentinrelationtoafinancialtransaction,andthat he knew the appellant from before. He identified MO1 knife when the same was shown to him and also identified the clothes worn by the appellantandthedeceasedatthetime.Incross-examination,itwaselicited that in his earlier statement he had not stated that the appellant held the deceasedwithhislefthandandcuttherightsideoftheneck;thisomission was marked as Ext.D1. He denied that he had failed to state before the Policethatasteelknifewasusedtocuttheneck;thatportionwasmarked as Ext.D1(a). It was also brought out that he had not statedaboutaprior fight between the appellant and the deceased a month earlier orthatthey were on inimical terms thereafter; this omission was marked as Ext.D3. 2025:KER:75133 Crl.A. No.202 of 2021 :9:

PW1 stated that he is a loading worker and that his statement under Section 161oftheCodeofCriminalProcedurewasfurnishedonlyonthe next day. When asked why he did not attempt to rescue his brother, he answered that he had been threatened by the appellant. He added that he didnotgotothepoliceimmediatelybecausehewishedfirsttoinformhis mother about the incident. He denied the defence suggestion that there were no disputes between the appellant and the deceased.

16. PW2, Rajesh, deposed that the deceased was his maternal cousin. On 15.01.2012, he received a phone call from the deceased's mother informing him that Biju had been taken to the hospital. On receiving this information, he proceeded to the hospital and thereafter to thePoliceStation,wherehefurnishedExt.P1FirstInformationStatement. In cross-examination, it was elicited that his knowledge of any disputes between the deceased and the accused was only hearsay.

17. PW3, Abdul Shereef, runs a stationery and tea shop at Vellanchira.Hestatedthatheknewboththeaccusedandthedeceased.He deposedthataboutsevenyearspriortothedateofhistestimony,ataround 4:00p.m.,theaccusedcametohisshopandhadtea;shortlythereafter,the deceased also arrived. An altercation ensued between them, which promptedPW3toaskthemtoleave.Accordingtohim,Sonuleftfirstand the accused left about fifteen minutes later. PW3 latercametoknowthat Sonuwaslyingontheroadwithinjuriestohisneck.Aftersometime,the 2025:KER:75133 Crl.A. No.202 of 2021 :10:

police arrived at the spot and took the injured to the hospital. He further statedthat,whileleavingtheshop,Sreekumarpurchasedaknifefor₹10/-. PW3identifiedMO1astheknifesoldfromhisshop.Incross-examination, PW3statedthatBijuhadcomealonetohisshopandleftalone.Headded thatwhenhereachedthesceneofoccurrence,somepeoplehadassembled there, but hedidnotremembertheiridentities,andhedidnotseePW1at or near the scene. He stated that he saw the Police taking Biju to the hospital.Itwasbroughtoutthatknivessoldinhisshoplookidentical,and that it would not be possible for him to specifically identify the knife purchased. He also stated that whenhereachedthespot,theaccusedwas notpresentthere.Hefurtherstatedthattheaccusedwascaughtred-handed while washing his hands and legs, and that both the accused and the deceasedweretakenbythepoliceinthesamevehicle.Heclarifiedthathe had no occasion to witness the actual incident.

18. PW4 (Pushpangaran) isanothereye-witnessexaminedbythe prosecution. He stated that,whilereturningfromworkanduponreaching infrontofthe"Thycavu,"hesawtheaccusedandthedeceasedengagedin afistfight.Hethensawtheaccuseddrawaknifefromhiswaistandinflict a cut on Sonu's neck. Sonu fell to the ground and the accused ran away. PW4 identified MO1 as the knife usedbytheaccusedandalsoidentified the accused in court. In cross-examination, PW4 stated that the fistfight occurred at about 5:00 p.m., and that 10-12 persons were present, 2025:KER:75133 Crl.A. No.202 of 2021 :11:

including PW1, the deceased's brother. He was positioned approximately three meters from the place of occurrence. When asked whether any bystanderinformedthepolice,heprofessedignorance.Headmittedthathe gave a statement to the Police at the request of PW1 and that he accompaniedPW1totheVellanchiraPoliceStationbybus,andthathehad notgonetoworkthatday.Hefurtherstatedthattheaccusedwaspresentin thepolicejeepwhenBijuwastakentothehospital,withBijulyingonthe floor of the jeep and his head resting on the lap of the accused. He also statedthathehadtoldthepolicethattheaccusedranawayfromthescene and later returned.

19. PW5 did not support the prosecution case. On the prosecution's request, the witness was declared hostile, and the Public Prosecutor was permitted to put questions in the nature of cross-examination.

20. PW6 is a resident of Vellanchira and a near relative of the deceased. He stated that hewitnessedthealtercationbetweentheaccused and the deceased. According to him,onthedateoftheincident,Bijuand PW1 arrived together. PW1 went to anearbyshopwhileBijuenteredthe tea shop. A quarrel arose between Biju and the accused over Rs.50/- allegedly due from the accused. The shop owner asked Biju to leave. Sometime thereafter, another altercation took place near the Thycavu. Believing that the accused and the deceased--being co-workers and 2025:KER:75133 Crl.A. No.202 of 2021 :12:

friends--would part ways, PW6 didnotinitiallyintervene.Hethenheard cries and, on reaching the spot, found Biju lying in a pool of blood.The accused was not present at the scene. The police were informed and an ambulancewascalled.Theinjuredwasfirsttakeninapolicejeepandthen shiftedtoanambulance,andonbeingtakentotheNedumangaduHospital, he was declared dead. In cross-examination, certain omissions from his previous statement were elicited. It was also brought out that Biju was initiallytransportedinthepolicejeepandthattheaccusedaccompaniedin thesamevehicle,withtheinjuredlyingonthefloorandtheaccusedseated on the seat. After the injured was shifted to the ambulance, the accused was taken away by the police in the jeep.

21. PW7 is the Police Driver in whose vehicle, the injured was initiallytakentobeshiftedtothehospital.Incross-examination,hedenied that the accused was also taken to the Jeep.

22. PW8isanattestingwitnesstoExt.P5inquest.PW9,thefather of the deceased, stated in chief-examination that there was a dispute between the accused and the deceased; however, in cross-examination, it was elicited that his knowledge was only hearsay. PW11 is an attesting witness to Ext.P6 scene mahazar. PW12, the Village Officer, Panavur, preparedtheExt.P9sketch.PW13,aCivilPoliceOfficer,handedoverthe dead body of the deceased to PW9. PW14, the Scientific Officer, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, deposed that she 2025:KER:75133 Crl.A. No.202 of 2021 :13:

examinedtwelvesealedpacketsinconnectionwiththecaseusingstandard scientific techniques and issued Ext.P10 report.

23. On an overall evaluation, we note that the conviction rests primarily on the testimonies of PW1 and PW4, who were projected as eye-witnesses.PW1istheelderbrotherofthedeceased,Biju@Sonu.He was35yearsoldandahead-loadworker.Itisnothiscasethatheboreany enmity towardsthedeceased;rather,hisversionisthatbothofthemwent together to the shop of PW3. While the deceased entered PW3's shop, PW1wenttoanearbyshoptopurchaseacigarette.Fromthere,heclaims to have witnessed an altercation between the deceased and the appellant. He further asserts that when the deceased left the shop, the appellant followed,caughthimwithhislefthand,andstabbedhimontheneckwith a knife. PW1 explains his failure to intervene by stating that theaccused brandished a weapon, and he then ran to inform his mother.

24. The evidence indicates that around fifteen persons had gatherednearthescene.EvenifPW1'sassertionthathewasthreatenedis accepted, it is contrary to the ordinary course of human conduct that an elder brother, after witnessing an incident of this nature, wouldfleefrom theplacewithoutrenderingimmediateaidorwithoutalertingthepolice.It hasalsocomeoutthat,later,PW1returnedandfoundthathisbrotherhad been shifted to the hospital, yet he did not deem it necessary to enquire. Nordidheconsideritnecessarytoreporttheincidenttothepoliceonthe 2025:KER:75133 Crl.A. No.202 of 2021 :14:

sameday.WhatheventuredtodowasgotothePoliceStationonthenext day accompanied by his friend PW4. In our view, PW1's conduct is unusualandwhollyinconsistentwithnormalhumanresponseinasituation of this gravity. It strains credulity that, having allegedly seen his own brother being stabbed, an adult such as PW1 wouldfleeandabandonthe injured without even ascertaining his condition. His failure to make any inquiry at the hospital and his delay in approaching the police render his testimony doubtful.

25. PW4, who also claims to be an eye-witness, admitted in cross-examination that he is a close friend of PW1 and that, at PW1's suggestion,hewenttothepolicestationthenextdaytogivehisstatement. Astotheincident,hestatedthat10-12personswerepresentwhenafight brokeoutbetweentheaccusedandthedeceased.Hefurtherstatedthatthe accused was present when the policearrivedandthat,whilethedeceased was being shifted to a police jeep for transport to the hospital, the deceased's head was placed on the lap oftheaccused. Thisaccountruns contrary to the prosecution's core narrative. It is relevant that PW16, the Investigating Officer, deposed that he arrested the accused during investigationat1:30p.m.on16.01.2012,i.e.,onthenextday.Taggingthe same line, PW6 stated that, at about 5:30 p.m., the accused was present whentheinjuredwasshiftedinapolicejeep,andtheheadofthedeceased was placed on the lap of the accused. He added that when anambulance 2025:KER:75133 Crl.A. No.202 of 2021 :15:

arrived, the injured was moved from the jeep to the ambulance and the accused was thereafter taken away by the police. This contradictory account emerges from the prosecution witnesses themselves, and the prosecution made no effort to clarify or reconcile it. If this version is accepted, the alleged arrest on the next day at 1:30 p.m., followed by a disclosure-led recovery as reflected in Ext.P13, becomes inherently doubtful.Onthesamepremise,thedetectionofbloodontheclothesofthe accused,whichispressedasanincriminatingcircumstance,standsclearly explained.

26. Of course, the behaviour of the witnesses or their reactions would differ from situation to situation and individual to individual. Expectationofuniformityinthereactionofwitnesseswouldbeunrealistic but the court cannot beobliviousofthefactthateventakingintoaccount the unpredictability of human conduct and lack of uniformity in human reaction, whether in the circumstances of the case, the behaviour is acceptably natural allowing the variations. If the behaviour is absolutely unnatural, the testimony of the witness may not deserve credence and acceptance. (SeeShivasharanappa And Others v. StateOf Karnataka1)

27. The facts and circumstances discussed above create serious doubtaboutthetruthfulnessoftheprosecutioncaseandtheveracityofthe allegedeye-witnesses.Theirconductappearshighlyunnatural,andweare

1 2013 AIR SC 2144 2025:KER:75133 Crl.A. No.202 of 2021 :16:

not persuaded that they were present at the time of the occurrence. The explanationthathasbeenofferedbyPW1forthedelaydoesnotappearto us to beplausible.Further,thetestimoniesofPW3andPW6,citedbythe prosecution to lend assurance to its version, actually cast grave doubt on the alleged arrestandrecoveryoftheweapon.Inthesecircumstances,the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

28. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed against the appellant in S.C. No. 741 of 2013 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge - VI, Thiruvananthapuram,issetasideandtheappellant/accusedisacquittedof all charges. The appellant/accused be set at liberty forthwith if his continued incarceration is not required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

Sd/- K.V. JAYAKUMAR, JUDGE

PS/APM/21/9/24