Kerala High Court

Punnakattil Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2025

                                           2025:KER:69750
CRL.A NO. 966 OF 2016              1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

 THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 27TH BHADRA,

                            1947

                  CRL.A NO. 966 OF 2016

  CRIME NO.171/2001 OF Mattannur Police Station, Kannur

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.09.2016 IN SC NO.811 OF
2005 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - III,THALASSERY
APPELLANT/S:

    1    PUNNAKATTIL SHAJI
         AGED 38 YEARS
         S/O. RAGHAVAN, AGED 38, COOLIE, PATTANNOOR
         AMSOM, KODOLIPRAM.

    2    POTHIYODATH PRASANTH
         AGED 37 YEARS
         S/O. ANDI NAIR, AGED 37, CARPENTER, PATTANOOR
         AMSOM, KODOLIPRAM.

    3    PUTHIYAVEETTIL SURESH @ SURESHAN
         AGED 35 YEARS
         S/O. NANU, AGED 35, COOLIE, PATTANOOR AMSOM,
         KODOLIPRAM.

    4    MANIYERI RAJEEVAN
         AGED 39 YEARS
         S/O. KANNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 39, COOLIE,
         PUTHIYAVEEDU, PATTANOOR AMSOM, KODOLIPRAM.

    5    PUTHIYAVEETTIL NARAYANAN
         AGED 42 YEARS
         S/O. KUNHAMBU, AGED 42, COOLIE, PUTHIYAVEEDU,
         PATTANOOR AMSOM, KODOLIPRAM.

    6    KANNADIYAN MANOJ
         AGED 38 YEARS
                                            2025:KER:69750
CRL.A NO. 966 OF 2016             2


         S/O. KANNAN, AGED 38, REEJA NIVAS, PATTANOOR
         AMSOM, KODOLIPRAM.

    7    PADUVAYIL BYJU
         AGED 39 YEARS
         S/O. BALAN, AGED 39, PATTANNOOR AMSOM,
         KODILIPRAM.

    8    PORAVALAPPIL SANTHOSH KUMAR
         AGED 40 YEARS
         S/O. K.K NARAYANAN, AGED 40, KARIPPARAMBIL
         HOUSE, PATTANOOR AMSOM, DESOM.

    9    KUNNUMMAL VEETTIL RAJEEVAN
         AGED 41 YEARS
         S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 41, PATTANOOR AMSOM,
         KODOLIPRAM.


         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
         SMT.S.JESSIN
         SRI.K.S.MIZVER
         SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR
         SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR


RESPONDENT/S:

    1    STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
         KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN- 682031.

    2    CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
         MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, MATTANNUR PIN- 670
         702.


OTHER PRESENT:

         SMT. SEENA.C (PP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.09.2016AND HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.08.2025,
THE COURT ON 18.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                     2025:KER:69750
CRL.A NO. 966 OF 2016                 1


                              JUDGMENT

The appellants are accused Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16,

and 17 in S.C.No.811/2005 on the file of the Sessions Court,

Thalassery. S.C.No.811/2005 arises from Crime No.171/2001 of

Mattannur Police Station, Kannur district, which was registered

alleging commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323,

324, 326, and 307 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), and under Sections 3 and 5 of

the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the

'1908 Act'). The trial of the case against accused No.1 was split up,

as he was/is absconding. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses

(PWs 1 to 17) and marked 13 exhibits (Exts P1 to P13). The

defence examined 5 witnesses (DWs 1 to 5), and 6 exhibits were

marked (Exts D1 to D6). Two material objects were produced as

MO1 and MO2. Following the trial, the Sessions Court acquitted

accused Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 18. Accused No.11 in the case

had died pending trial. The appellants herein were found not

guilty under Section 307 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 3

and 5 of the 1908 Act. The appellants were found guilty under

Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, and 326 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

2025:KER:69750

The appellants (except appellant No.8/accused No.16) were also

found guilty under Section 148 of the IPC. The

appellants/accused were sentenced to varying terms of

imprisonment. The maximum term of imprisonment was for the

offence under Section 326 r/w Section 149 of the IPC, for which

the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five

years and to a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellants were sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each under

Section 143 r/w Section 149 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment

for three months each under Section 147 r/w Section 149 of the

IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three months each under Section

323 r/w Section 149 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one

year each under Section 324 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. Accused

Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 17 were also sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for six months each under Section 148 of the IPC.

All substantive sentences were to run concurrently. The amount

of fine, if recovered, was directed to be paid as compensation to

PW9 under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973.

2. Sri. K.S. Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel appearing 2025:KER:69750

for the appellants, has invited the attention of the Court to the

First Information Statement (hereinafter referred to as the 'FIS')

(Ext. P9) given by PW8. He has also taken the Court to the

depositions of PW8, PW9, PW10, and PW11. He also referred to

the depositions of PW4 (the doctor who examined PW10 and

PW11 at the Indira Gandhi Co-operative Hospital, Thalassery, and

issued Exts. P4 and P5 wound certificates) and PW12 (who

examined PW9 and issued Ext. P10 wound certificate). The

learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Ext.

P12, the discharge summary from the Kasturba Medical College

Hospital, Mangalore, in respect of PW9. It is pointed out that

even according to the prosecution, PW8, PW9, PW10, and PW11,

and the accused, belong to rival political fronts. It is submitted

that even according to the prosecution, the injured persons,

namely PW9, PW10, and PW11, along with some others, had been

called to the Mattannur Police Station in connection with a

complaint given by the accused No.14 (Balakrishnan), and they

were attacked when they were returning from the Police Station.

It is submitted that the attack admittedly took place in front of the

shop of one Dineshan. It is submitted that, according to the 2025:KER:69750

prosecution, the accused persons had the intention to murder

PW9, and this was prevented on account of the fact that certain

people of the locality came running on seeing PW9 and the other

injured persons being attacked by the accused in this case. It is

submitted that, surprisingly, the prosecution did not deem it

necessary to examine Dineshan, despite all the witnesses having a

consistent case that the attack took place right in front of the shop

of Dineshan. It is submitted that the prosecution did not examine

any person from among the group of persons who allegedly came

running on seeing the attack. In other words, it is submitted that,

apart from the interested testimony of PW8, PW9, PW10, and

PW11, there was no other independent prosecution witness (other

than the official witnesses and the doctors) to establish the case

against the appellants/accused. It is pointed out from the First

Information Report (hereinafter referred to as the 'FIR') that

though it is stated that the FIR was registered at 2:00 p.m. on

27.05.2001, the FIS indicates that PW9 had already been admitted

at the Kasturba Medical College Hospital, Mangalore, at that time,

whereas Ext.P10, the discharge summary from the Kasturba

Medical College Hospital, Mangalore, indicates that PW9 was 2025:KER:69750

admitted only at 6:24 p.m. on 27.05.2001. It is submitted that

Exts.P4 and P5, wound certificates issued by PW4, give

contradictory reasons for the injuries allegedly suffered by PWs 10

and 11. It is submitted that Exts.P4 and P5 are also silent

regarding the identity of all the persons who allegedly attacked

PWs 10 and 11. It is submitted that even in Ext.P12 discharge

summary, the names of the persons who attacked PW9 have not

been mentioned. It is submitted that this coupled with the fact

that Ext.P9-FIS and Ext.P11-FIR appear to be antedated or ante-

timed, indicates that, owing to political rivalry, the names of the

present appellants were necessarily included in the array of

accused. It is submitted that the depositions of PW8, PW9, PW10,

and PW11 indicate that the injured persons and the accused were

all persons of the same locality, and they were all well known to

each other. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the failure

to indicate the identity of the assailants assumes significance. It is

submitted that the prosecution also failed to explain the reasons

for the injuries suffered by the accused No.7 (Achuthan), and this

is also fatal to the prosecution case.

3. The learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of 2025:KER:69750

the Supreme Court in Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State

of Maharashtra, 1982 (1) SCC 700, to contend that the

statement of the injured to the doctor, being first in point of time,

must be preferred to any subsequent statement made by the

injured. It is submitted that if this principle is applied to the facts

of this case, the failure to mention the names of the present

appellants is fatal to the prosecution case. The learned counsel

also referred to Rehmat v. State of Haryana, 1996 KHC

1280, to contend that while attending to persons who are

allegedly injured owing to an attack by some others, doctors

treating the injured persons are supposed to record the names of

the assailants. It is submitted that the failure to record the names

of the present appellants is also fatal to the prosecution case. The

learned counsel then placed reliance on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Babu Ram and Others v. State of

Punjab, (2008) 3 SCC 709, to contend that the failure to

mention the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of

occurrence in the course of altercation is a very important

circumstance from which the Court may draw an inference that

the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the 2025:KER:69750

occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. It is also

submitted that the same judgment is authority for the proposition

that the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the

injuries on the person of the accused assumes greater significance

where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or

where the defence gives a version which competes in probability

with that of the prosecution. The learned counsel has also placed

for the consideration of this Court the decision of the Supreme

Court in Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar, AIR

1976 SC 2263, which was relied upon and followed by the

Supreme Court in Babu Ram (supra). It is submitted that all

the above circumstances put together indicate that the

prosecution has failed to prove the case against the

appellants/accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore the

appellants/accused are to be acquitted, giving them the benefit of

doubt.

4. Smt. Seena C, the learned Public Prosecutor, has taken

this Court again to the depositions of PWs 8, 9, 10, and 11. She

also referred to Exhibit P1 scene mahazar to contend that there is

clear evidence of the commission of the alleged offence by the 2025:KER:69750

appellants. It is submitted that, though PW3, the owner of the

jeep in which the accused had travelled, had turned hostile to the

prosecution, it must be noticed that he admitted that the jeep was

being driven by his brother named Santhosh, who was also one of

the accused in the case. It is submitted that, where the medical

evidence corroborates the evidence of injured witnesses, the

evidence of the injured witnesses carries great weight. In support

of this contention, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied on the

judgment of the Supreme Court in State through the

Inspector of Police V. Laly @ Manikandan and Another,

2022 KHC 7089, and to the judgment in Balu Sudam

Khalde and Another V. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC

OnLine SC 355, which was subsequently followed by the

Supreme Court in Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and Other V.

State of Punjab (judgment dated 25.09.2024 in Crl. Appeal

No.1389 of 2012). She further submits that the contention of the

learned counsel for the appellants that the FIS was antedated or

ante-timed cannot be accepted. It is submitted that a reading of

the FIS will indicate that the first informant had gone to the police

station to lodge the FIR after the person who suffered the major 2025:KER:69750

injury was taken in a jeep to a hospital in Mangalore. It is

submitted that, even according to the FIS, it is clear that the

seriously injured witnesses were taken to Mangalore by one

Dayanandan and others. It is submitted that non-examination of

Dineshan is not fatal to the prosecution's case, as the person who

gave the FIS was also an eyewitness to the incident, and he was

running a ration shop directly in front of the place where the

incident occurred. It is submitted that the entire genesis of the

incident was clearly explained by the first informant, who was

examined as PW8. It is submitted that, in such circumstances,

there is no merit in any of the contentions taken by the learned

counsel appearing for the appellants.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

would submit, in reply, that even the preparation of the scene

mahazar, which was allegedly prepared at about 04:30 PM on

27.05.2001, is doubtful as the first informant has clearly stated

about the admission of the main injured at a hospital at

Mangalore, which happened only at 06:24 PM on the same day. It

is submitted that, in such circumstances, the appellants ought to

have been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has failed 2025:KER:69750

to prove the case against the appellants beyond all reasonable

doubt. It is submitted that, since the standard of proof required in

such cases is high, all lacunae in the prosecution's case should

come to the benefit of the appellants/accused.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the

opinion that the appellants are entitled to succeed. The

prosecution case in brief is that the appellants, who belong to a

political party in rivalry with the political party to which the

injured and others belong, had attacked the injured persons owing

to such political rivalry. It is in such circumstances that the

contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the

appellants and the injured persons and others were well known to

each other, and yet the injured persons did not deem it necessary

to mention the name of all the accused persons as being

responsible for causing injuries at the time when they were

examined by the doctor assumes significance. In Mohanlal

Gangaram Gehani (supra), the Supreme Court held as

follows:-

"Thus, the reason given by the High Court for distrusting the evidence of Dr Heena is wholly unsustainable.

2025:KER:69750

Moreover, the statement of the injured to Dr Heena being the first statement in point of time must be preferred to any subsequent statement that Shetty may have made. In fact, the admitted position is that Shetty did not know the appellant before the occurrence nor did he know his name which was disclosed to him by one Salim. Therefore, Salim who is now dead, being the source of information of Shetty would be of doubtful admissibility as it is not covered by Section 32 of the Evidence Act. And, once we believe the evidence of PW 11, as we must, then the entire bottom out of the prosecution case is knocked out."

(Emphasis is supplied)

It is also relevant in this context to note that Exts.P4, P5, and P10

do not spell out the names of the assailants. While no names are

mentioned in Exts.P4 and P5, the names mentioned in Ext.P10 are

those of the 1st accused (O. Govindan) and N. Pavithran (accused

No.18). Paragraph 10 of Rehmat (supra) reads thus:

"10. There is also another aspect which goes in favour of the appellant. Admittedly Padam Singh (PW 4) along with Vijay Singh had first gone to the Primary Health Centre for medical help but he did not disclose the name of the assailant to the doctor. Ordinarily, in a medico-legal case, the doctor is supposed to write down the history of the 2025:KER:69750

injured but admittedly in this case, medical papers of Padam Singh (PW 4) do not indicate the name of the assailant. The names were disclosed only at the time when the complaint was recorded by SI Narain Singh at about 9.00 p.m. which was treated as a formal FIR. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, rightly urged that the appellant was later on implicated in the present crime at the instance of the complainant and his friends. It may also be stated that the prosecution case even otherwise appears to us improbable because Padam Singh (PW 4) claims to have got up early in the morning and seen the appellant running from the side of his room at about 3.30 a.m. In these circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Sections 307/393 of the Penal Code, 1860."

7. Ext.D5 shows that one of the accused

(Achuthan, S/o. Narayanan) had suffered a lacerated wound on

his scalp (occipital region). The aforementioned Achuthan was

the 7th accused in the case. The prosecution has clearly failed to

explain the reasons for the injuries suffered by accused No.7. In

Babu Ram (supra), it was held as follows:

"18. It is a well-settled law that in a murder case, the non- explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences:

2025:KER:69750

"1. that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version;

2. that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;

3. that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case." (See Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar [(1976) 4 SCC 394 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 671 : AIR 1976 SC 2263] , SCC p. 401, para 12.)

19. Further, it is important to point out that the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one."

Even if this Court were to ignore the failure to mention the name

of the present appellants in Exts. P4, P5, and P10 and the failure

of the prosecution to explain the injuries on accused No.7 (not an

appellant) were not fatal to the prosecution case, it is clear that the 2025:KER:69750

FIR in this case shows that it was registered at 2:00 p.m. on

27.05.2001. The FIS leading to registration of the FIR indicates

that it must have been given only after PW9 was admitted to the

Kasturba Medical College Hospital, Mangalore, which is at 6:24

p.m. on 27.01.2001 (see Ext. P10). Further, though it is the

prosecution case that the assault took place in the front of the

shop of one Dineshan, the prosecution did not deem it necessary

to examine Dineshan. In the FIS, it is stated as follows:

"കതത, ഇരുമമ, വടത, വടതവവാൾ എനതവയുമവായത വനമ ഇറങത പത കക ദതനനേശകന പപീടതകകമ നനേകരെ വനമ വരുവ കുണതൽ .ഉള്ള ഷവാജത എനയവാൾ ഒരു നബവാബോംബമ, പപീടതകയുകട പുറതമ നറവാഡതൽ എറതഞമ കപവാടതചമ ഭപീകരെവാന്തരെപീകബോം സൃഷതച. ഉടൻതകന വരുവ കുണതൽ ഉള്ള പ്രശവാന്തമ ഷവാനനേവാജമ, സുനരെശൻ, അചച്യുതൻ പത്മനേവാഭൻ രെവാജപീവൻ, V. .നേവാരെവായണൻ എനതവരുബോം മറബോം കടയതൽ കയറത സുധപീറതകനേ തൂകത പപീടതകയുകട മുൻവശബോം നറവാഡതൽ കകവാണ്ടുവനമ കയതൽ കതടതത ലകബോം വപീടമ പ്രസവാദമ, മനനേവാജമ, സൺ ഓഫമ പവാറകണ്ണൻ പത വത ബബജു എനതവർ ഇരുമമ വടത കകവാണമ കകവാല്ലടവാ എനമ പറഞ്ഞുകകവാണമ സുധപീറതകനേ അടതച."

Thus, failure to examine Dineshan, who would have been a prime

witness for the prosecution, is significant.

8. The principles that can be culled out from the

judgments of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned Public

Prosecutor, that the statements by the injured witnesses carry

great weight, are unimpeachable. However, the shortcomings in 2025:KER:69750

the prosecution case discussed above lead me to conclude that the

prosecution has not established its case beyond a reasonable

doubt, and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted, giving them

the benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the conviction

and the sentence imposed on the appellants in S.C.No.811/2005