Political Vendetta Turns Fatal: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Kerala Attack Case.


16 April 2025 Criminal Trial >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a special leave petition filed by an accused convicted for his role in a violent attack that resulted in the death of one person and injuries to three others in Kerala. The incident, stemming from a seemingly trivial altercation that escalated due to political overtones, saw the apex court uphold the conviction of the appellant for conspiracy and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The case originated from a dispute over the sale of coir mats by a local self-help group. The appellant, a politically influential Municipal Councillor, had insisted on the deceased purchasing the mats. The deceased's refusal and subsequent raising of the issue in a Ward Council Meeting, where the appellant reacted strongly, set the stage for the deadly attack later that night.

According to the prosecution, the appellant and other accused, all members of the same ruling political party, went to the deceased's house. While the main attackers assaulted the family members with wooden logs lying at the premises, the appellant stood outside, allegedly exhorting them to kill the inmates. The attack resulted in the death of the deceased and injuries to his wife, son, and daughter-in-law.

The Trial Court convicted all the accused, including the appellant, for various offences including murder and conspiracy. However, the High Court, in appeal, acquitted one accused and modified the convictions of the others. The appellant, initially sentenced to death by the Trial Court, saw his conviction altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code) read with conspiracy (Section 120B IPC), along with other minor offences. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 304 Part II and 5 years under Section 450 (house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life) both read with Section 120B IPC.

 
 

Counsel for the appellant argued that he was wrongly implicated as the main conspirator, despite not participating in the frontal attack. It was contended that key witnesses did not initially name him in their statements to the police and that the testimony of another witness, belonging to a rival political party with past disputes with the appellant, was unreliable. The absence of pre-meditated weapons brought to the scene was also highlighted.


However, the Supreme Court, after meticulously examining the High Court's judgment and the evidence on record, found no merit in the appellant's arguments. The Court acknowledged the initial inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses and noted the politically charged atmosphere of the investigation, where attempts were made to shield the appellant due to his influence.

Despite the flawed initial investigation, the Court relied on the subsequent statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where witnesses clearly implicated the appellant. The motive for the attack, stemming from the public altercation in the Ward Council Meeting, was deemed established. The presence of the appellant near the crime scene, in the company of the other accused just before the attack, further solidified his involvement.

The Court distinguished the appellant's case from that of the acquitted co-accused, whose presence in the vicinity was deemed natural due to his residence. In contrast, the appellant's presence outside the deceased's house during the attack, coupled with the established motive and prior altercations, pointed towards his culpability in the conspiracy.

The Supreme Court also addressed the argument regarding the witness from the rival political party, noting that his testimony about seeing the accused together before the incident was largely unchallenged during cross-examination. The testimony of a defence witness, who claimed no arguments occurred in the Ward Council Meeting, was dismissed as unreliable.

Upholding the High Court's finding of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the Supreme Court reasoned that while a direct intention to cause death might not be attributable, the appellant, being present and having instigated the attack, had the knowledge that the assault with wooden logs could likely cause death. The fact that the accused picked up the logs at the scene, within the appellant's sight, further supported this conclusion.

Consequently, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court, dismissing the special leave petition. The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring justice even in cases with strong political undertones and flawed initial investigations, provided that the evidence on record sufficiently establishes the guilt of the accused.


Section 120B., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 143., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 147., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 323., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 324., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 427., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 449., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 164., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973     

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973