Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder in Kerala After 12 Years of Imprisonment

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has acquitted Vinobhai, who was convicted for the murder of Ramakrishnan in Kerala. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to his acquittal after more than twelve years in jail. This judgment underscores the importance of credible witness testimony and proper adherence to evidentiary standards in criminal cases.

Background of the Case

Vinobhai was convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of Ramakrishnan under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs. 1,00,000. The High Court of Kerala upheld the conviction, following which the appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.

The prosecution alleged that on December 31, 2010, at around 11:45 am, the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife, resulting in his death. It was stated that there was previous enmity between the two as the deceased had allegedly been involved in the murder of the appellant’s elder brother.

Arguments by the Parties

Arguments by the Appellant

The learned counsel for the appellant raised several key points challenging the prosecution’s case:

The conviction was based solely on the testimony of two alleged eyewitnesses—Shaju (PW-4) and Suresh (PW-5)—whose statements contained material omissions.
Another witness, Thressiamma (PW-6), did not support the prosecution, weakening the case.
There were several eyewitnesses present at the scene who were not examined by the prosecution, which should raise doubts about the credibility of the case.
Key omissions in witness testimony regarding the number of stab wounds and their locations should render the prosecution’s case unreliable.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Kerala)

The learned counsel for the respondent-State argued:

PW-4 and PW-5 consistently stated that the appellant stabbed the deceased multiple times.
Even if there were minor contradictions in their testimonies, they did not discredit the overall credibility of the prosecution’s case.
The recovery of the murder weapon and bloodstained clothes at the instance of the appellant supported the prosecution’s claims.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the evidence presented and identified key issues that cast doubt on the appellant’s conviction.

1. Unreliable Witness Testimony

The Court scrutinized the statements of PW-4 and PW-5 and found several contradictions and omissions:

PW-4 claimed he saw the accused stabbing the victim, but his statement that the deceased received two to three stab wounds on his back was missing from his initial testimony.
PW-5’s statement that the victim fell on his chest and received additional stab wounds was also absent from the original police report.
The prosecution failed to examine other eyewitnesses present at the scene, such as Sasi, further weakening the case.

These inconsistencies led the Court to conclude that the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 could not be fully trusted.

2. Failure to Provide Immediate Medical Assistance

The Court found it suspicious that neither PW-4 nor PW-5 attempted to take the victim to the hospital or inform the police immediately. Instead, PW-4 contacted Sumesh, a Panchayat member, but Sumesh was not examined as a witness. This conduct raised doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s witnesses.

3. Issues with Recovery Evidence

The prosecution relied heavily on the recovery of the murder weapon and the accused’s bloodstained clothes. However, the Supreme Court cited Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 984), stating:

“Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on their own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Court emphasized that recovery evidence alone, without corroborative testimony, was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled:

“In this case, there are material omissions which amount to contradiction. Coupled with the material omissions, if we consider the conduct of both the witnesses, their version does not inspire confidence.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the appellant’s conviction, ordering his immediate release unless required in any other case.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that convictions must be based on solid, credible evidence. The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that unreliable witness testimony, procedural lapses, and unsupported recovery evidence cannot form the basis for a conviction. The ruling ensures that individuals are not unjustly incarcerated due to flaws in the prosecution’s case.

Petitioner Name: Vinobhai.
Respondent Name: State of Kerala.
Judgment By: Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
Place Of Incident: Kerala.
Judgment Date: 29-01-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: vinobhai-vs-state-of-kerala-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-29-01-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Ujjal Bhuyan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category