Supreme Court Upholds Convictions in Politically Motivated Murder Case in Kerala.

The Supreme Court of India in case of Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan & Ors vs State Of Kerela has passed an important judgment, confirming the conviction of several accused persons in a brutal assault that took place during a politically charged hartal in Kerala. This case presents the tragic consequences of political rivalry gone violent and the commitment of the courts to uphold justice despite challenges a complex investigation can pose.

Background of the Case: The case arose from a hartal/general strike called by the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh/Vishva Hindu Parishad (RSS/VHP) on 1 March 2002. The hartal saw clashes between members of the RSS/VHP and the Communist Party of India (M) (CPI(M)), leading to a tense and volatile situation. Fearing for their safety, eleven who had defected from the CPI(M) and joined the RSS took shelter near the Meloor river. A deadly mob attacked them with lethal weapons around midnight.

Two from the group Sunil and Sujeesh- were seriously wounded in the assault. Sujeesh was brought dead to the hospital, whereas Sunil's body was found the next morning.

Based on the eyewitness account, an FIR was lodged against fifteen persons for the alleged commission of offences of murder, rioting, and offenses under the Explosive Substances Act.

The trial court convicted all the accused, except one, under various sections of the IPC. The High Court of Kerala, in furtherance of an appeal preferred by the accused, acquitted A4 to A10, A13, A14 and A15, thereby confirmed the conviction of A1 to A3, A11, and A12. A1 died thereafter, and the proceedings against him were abated. The other convicted appellants filed this appeal against the order passed by the High Court.

The Supreme Court paid proper attention to the evidence presented from both parties, underlining in the judgment and observed the following:

Material Contradictions and Witness Testimony: Appellants had argued that discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, more so for those eyewitnesses, were fatal to the case and required their acquittal. The Court identified the discrepancies but said these were minor and had no effect upon the veracity of witnesses. The Court explained that minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not disprove their testimony, especially where the substratum of the narrative remains the same.

Understanding the Statement in Context: The Court has thus emphasized that statements by witnesses have to be appreciated in the context of the events and circumstances. The appellant-accused argued that since the FIR mentioned Sunil's death before the recovery of the dead body, it was an indication of falsity. However, the Court considered that in the given chaotic situation, the eyewitness's statement to the police that Sunil was "missing" did not necessarily imply knowledge of his death at that time.

Focus on Credibility and Corroboration: While the Court recognized flaws in the investigation, it said a defective investigation alone cannot entail the acquittal of the accused. It was to focus on the overall credibility of the prosecution's case based on factors such as the consistency of eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and recovery of weapons. Thus, the Court treated the testimonies of the eyewitnesses who were known to the accused as truthful and consistent in pointing out the roles of the appellants in the attack.

Disapproval of "Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus": This is a rejection by the court of the rigid principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, meaning false in one thing, false in everything-that if the witness tells a lie in one particular aspect, his testimony should be discarded, which is not a rigid rule in Indian law. The Court emphasized its duty to carefully assess the evidence, separating reliable aspects from unreliable ones, and base its judgment on a holistic view of the case.

Distinguishing a Civil from a Criminal Matter: Although the case involved a politically motivated attack, the Court has drawn a fine line of distinction between the criminality of the offenses and the eventual civil disputes arising from the political rivalry that formed the foundation of the present case. The judgment was not to delve into the political rivalries but rather deal only with evidence of the violence.

The Supreme Court eventually upheld the conviction of the appellants since there was enough evidence presented to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court further expressed that a right to peaceful assembly and demonstration must not extend to promote and escalate acts of violence.

This judgement also re-emphasizes, the established principle to look at eye witness testimony, in its wholesome, considering consistencies, or inconsistencies having regard to the Topography of surrounding events and it outlines the role that the court will play in preventing the process of criminal trial from being abused either to settle personal or political scores.

Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale Between: Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan & Ors vs State Of Kerela Date of Order: 06-01-2025