Kerala High Court
Madhu @ Basheer vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2026
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2026:KER:183
Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026/16TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 432 OF 2021
CRIME NO.740/2012 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2019 IN SC NO.1461 OF
2014 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP NO.116 OF 2012 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, NEYYATTINKARA
APPELLANT:
MADHU @ BASHEER,
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. NAGAPAN, T.C. 56/2246,
ELANKARATHARA VEEDU, NEAR QUARTERS, KARUMAM VILLA,
MANUKULADICHAMANGALAM DESOM, (FROM CHEMBARATHIVILLA
PUTHEN VEEDU, MURUKUMPUZHA)
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI 31.
2026:KER:183
Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 2
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
NEMOM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 020
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.11.2025, THE COURT ON 06.01.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:183
Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 3
JUDGMENT
K. V. Jayakumar, J. This appeal is preferred by the sole accused in S.C. No.1461/2014 of the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant stood for trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for the sake of brevity).
2. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- with default sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. It is further directed that if the fine amount is realised, it shall be paid as compensation to the mother of the deceased.
The prosecution case 4. In this case, the prosecution depicts the story of a brutal murder of a boy aged 19 years, namely Shehanshah, on a trivial reason that the deceased had not repaid a meagre sum of Rs. 100/- allegedly borrowed from the accused.
5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.05.2012 at about 7.30 p.m. at Kariyara on the public road from Karumom to Madupalam in Nenmon Village, the deceased, Shehanshah, was conversing with PWs. 2, 4, and 5, the accused, due to previous animosity, caught hold of the shirt 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 4 of the deceased and abused him. When PWs 2, 4, and 5 intervened, the accused took MO1, a broken metallic handle of a ladle from his waist and inflicted a stab injury on the middle of the deceased's back. Thereafter, PWs. 2 and 5 took the deceased Shehanshah to PW13, a Homeo Medical Practitioner and then to PRS Hospital. Since his condition was critical, he was taken to KIMS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The injured succumbed to his injuries on 12.05.2012 at 5.30 a.m. at KIMS Hospital. The Registration of FIR and the Investigation
6. On the basis of Ext.P1 FIS lodged by PW3 (Ashraf), the uncle of the deceased, PW22, (Robi) SI of Police, registered Ext.P13 FIR. PW23 (S. Anil Kumar) took up the investigation on 12.05.2012 itself. He conducted the inquest of the body of the deceased Shehanshah and prepared Ext.P3 Inquest Report. He, thereafter, visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ext.P4 scene mahazar in the presence of the witnesses. Blood stains were collected from the place of occurrence and forwarded to the court. He arrested the accused on 12.05.2012, at 5:00 p.m, after preparing Ext.P15 arrest memo and Ext.P16 inspection memo.
7. Thereafter, he interrogated the accused and recorded his confession. On the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused and as led by him, MO-1, the handle of the steel ladle was recovered from the house of the accused at Karumom, from beneath a plastic chair. Ext. P5 is the recovery mahazar and Ext.P5(a) is the exculpatory portion of the 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 5 confession statement. PW23 identified MO-1 in the Court.
8. Thereafter, the dress and belt worn by the deceased were seized from PRS Hospital, as per Ext.P7 mahazar. He identified MO-2 (grey coloured shirt), MO-3 (blue colour jeans pants) and MO-4 belt. He also seized Ext.P9 case sheet from PRS Hospital. Thereafter, the material objects were forwarded to the court. He questioned material witnesses, completed the investigation and laid the charge before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
The Committal and the Proceedings before the Trial Court.
9. The jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram. The Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, made over the case to the Additional Sessions Court-VI for trial and disposal.
10. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, framed charge under Section 302 of the IPC. When the charge was read over to the accused, he denied the charge, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.
11. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses and marked Exts. P1 to P24 through them. MOs 1 to 5 were identified and marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and he pleaded innocence. On the side of the defence, Exts.D1 and D2 case diary contradictions were 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 6 marked.
12. The learned Sessions Judge after a full fledged trial found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant 13. Sri. Lal K. Joseph, the counsel appearing for the appellant, relinquished his Vakalat. Thereafter, Adv. Praveen H., a competent young lawyer having expertise in criminal law, was appointed as the Legal Aid Counsel. Sri. Praveen, the Legal Aid Counsel, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused without properly appreciating the evidence on record. The prosecution has failed to allege and prove the charge against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
14. The learned counsel submitted that the 13-hour delay in registering the FIR is fatal to the prosecution case. He argued that the prosecution story is false and unbelievable, and that the evidence of PWs 2, 4, and 5, the eyewitnesses, is not reliable. It was further pointed out that PW2 (Vishnu), PW4 (Kiran), and PW5 (Manu), who were allegedly friends of the deceased, were absent during the cremation of Shehanshah. After the incident, they neither went to the house of the deceased nor attempted to console PW8, the mother of the deceased. The versions of PWs. 2, 4, and 5 are unnatural, unbelievable, and contrary to the ordinary course of human conduct.
2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 7
15. It is further pointed out that a motive alleged by the prosecution, the non-payment of Rs.100/- borrowed by the deceased from the accused, is inherently unbelievable. No evidence is adduced by the prosecution to prove that the appellant and the accused are acquainted with each other and there was a financial transaction between them. It is pointed out that no prudent man would commit murder for a trivial and flimsy reason.
16. The learned counsel would then point out that the recovery of MO-1 weapon is also very much doubtful. The prosecution has no definite and consistent case as to the nature of the weapon used for the alleged commission of the crime. The descriptions of the weapon by the material witnesses are different.
17. The ocular evidence is in conflict with the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution. PW17 (Dr. Sivamohan) in Ext.P10 wound certificate noted the history as "fall from scooter/fall over glass pieces". It is pointed out that the incident occurred in a different manner and not as alleged by the prosecution.
18. The learned Legal Aid Counsel would further argue that the investigation in this case was faulty and tainted. The scooter allegedly used by the deceased was not seized.
19. He would then point out that the trial court has failed to appreciate the defence evidence in its right perspective. It is trite law that equal weight be given to the prosecution evidence and the defence 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 8 version.
20. The learned counsel would further submit that an offence punishable under section 302 IPC would not be attracted, even if the entire story of the prosecution is taken on its face value. Instead, the available evidence on record may attract an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
The Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor 21. The learned Public Prosecutor, Smt. Neema T.V., submitted that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the eyewitnesses PWs. 1, 2, 4 and 5 is reliable and trustworthy. According to the Public Prosecutor, there is overwhelming evidence in this case to prove the charge against the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Sessions Judge evaluated the evidence on record in its correct perspective and arrived at a proper conclusion. No interference whatsoever is required in this matter.
The Analysis 22. The definite case of the prosecution is that the accused due to his previous animosity in connection with the non-repayment of an amount of Rs.100/- by the deceased, attacked him with MO-1 handle of the ladle and inflicted an injury on the back of the deceased. Even though 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 9 the deceased was taken to PRS Hospital and thereafter to KIMS Hospital, his life could not be saved.
The Death of Shehanshah - Whether Homicide 23. The first and foremost question to be decided is whether the death of the victim is homicidal. PW1 (Sadhi @ Thamaramon), PW2 (Vishnu), PW4 (Kiran), PW5 (Manu) are the eyewitnesses of the incident. They would unequivocally state that the accused inflicted an injury on the back of the deceased with a weapon like a ladle.
24. PW21 (Dr. K. Sasikala), proved Ext.P12 postmortem certificate and gave evidence with respect to the injuries found on the body of the deceased. As per Ext.P12 postmortem certificate, injury No.1 is a sutured penetrating wound 1.5 cm long obliquely placed on the right side of the back of trunk. The second injury noted in the postmortem certificate is a sutured surgical intercostal drainage wound 1.5 cm long on right side of chest 12 cm below the armpit.
25. According to Dr. Sasikala, the death was due to penetrating injury sustained to the right side of the back of chest. She opined that the injury No.1 noted in Ext.P12 postmortem certificate was sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death of the victim. She further stated that injury No.1 could be caused by a weapon like MO-1. She made it clear that injury No.1 could not be caused in an accidental fall on a glass piece. On a careful analysis of the evidence of PWs. 21, 2, 4 and 5, we 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 10 find no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the learned Sessions judge that the death of Shehanshah is homicidal.
The Evidence of Ocular Witnesses 26. The material witnesses in this case are PWs. 1, 2, 4 and 5. PW1 is a shop owner in the locality. PWs. 2, 4 and 5 are the friends of the deceased boy, who were present at the scene of the occurrence. Now we shall proceed to examine their evidence in detail. 27. PW1 (Sadhi @ Thamaramon) would testify that his mother is running a petty shop at Karumom. He stated that he would sell lottery tickets from 8:00 a.m to 3:00 pm everyday and thereafter would assist his mother in the shop. He identified the accused in the dock. 28. According to him, at about 7.15 p.m., the deceased boy was conversing with his three friends in front of his shop. At that time, the accused came to his shop and purchased two packets of 'Pak'. Thereafter, the accused approached the boys, and asked them "where is the money"
and abused them. The deceased boy replied that money would be repaid on the subsequent day. The accused then caught hold of the shirt of the deceased. In the meantime, the others intervened and there was a scuffle. Immediately the accused took a weapon like an iron rod and inflicted a piercing injury on the back of the deceased. After the incident, the boy rushed to his shop followed by the accused and the others. There also the accused abused him and demanded the money.
2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 11 29. At that time, the boy took a currency note of Rs.100/- and gave it to PW5 (Manu) and asked Manu to deliver it to the accused. The accused told Manu that the amount should be repaid by the debtor himself. Thereupon, PW5 returned the amount to the injured. The injured took back the amount and handed it over to the accused using one hand, while pressing the wound with the other hand. The accused stared at the deceased and proceeded to his house.
30. Thereafter, when the deceased boy removed his shirt found blood on it. He wiped the blood with his shirt. Thereafter, PW1 asked the friends of the injured to take him to a hospital. PW1 further stated that on the subsequent day, he got information that the boy was dead. 31. The Circle Inspector contacted him through mobile phone and enquired about the matter. According to PW1, the deceased boy came to the scene of occurrence at about 5:00 p.m. in a black scooter. He would also say that the friends of the deceased who were present at the scene of occurrence were PW2 (Vishnu), PW4 (Kiran) and PW5 (Manu). He identified the MO-1 broken metallic handle of a ladle. According to him, the weapon of offence looks like a steel rod. He would also identify MOs. 2 to 4, the dress and belt worn by the deceased.
32. PW2 (Vishnu) is a friend of the deceased and an eyewitness to the incident. According to him, on 11.05.2012 at about 5 p.m. while he was standing in front of his house, Shehanshah came there in a scooter and together they proceeded to the playground for playing cricket. Nobody 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 12 was available there to play cricket and they proceeded to the nearby pond. He along with the deceased, PW4 (Kiran) and PW5 (Manu) conversed with each other. In the meanwhile, the accused came to the scene and caught hold of the shirt worn by the deceased and uttered the words 'give money'. There was a scuffle. He along with Manu and Kiran attempted to obstruct the accused. Shehanshah told the accused that he would repay the amount on the subsequent day. Thereafter, the accused left the place.
33. The witness further stated that after 10 to 15 minutes, they reached in front of a shop, wherein they met Manu and Kiran. While the friends were conversing, the accused came there to purchase something from the shop. Immediately, the accused caught hold of the shirt worn by the deceased and demanded the amount borrowed. Shehanshah replied politely "uncle, I already told you that I will return the amount tomorrow"
and "why are you demanding money again and again". There was an altercation, push and pull. In the meantime, the accused inflicted a stab injury on Shehanshah. PW2 and the friends, Kiran and Manu, noticed a wound on the body of the deceased. At that time, the accused screamed again "take money ......... take money". When Manu paid Rs.100/- to the accused, he refused to accept and said that the deceased himself has to return the amount. Accordingly, Shehanshah paid the amount directly to the accused. The deceased leaned towards PW4 (Kiran) and fainted. One Unni gave a soda to him. The deceased boy drank soda and washed the wound. PW4 and PW5 (Kiran and Manu) took him to a hospital.
2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 13
34. PW2 further stated that he called Anoop and Ribin (PWs. 9 and 6) and informed them of the matter. He along with PW6 and PW9 (Ribin and Anoop), met the deceased in the hospital. The deceased was taken to PRS Hospital in the Apache Motorcycle of Anoop. On the way to the hospital, Shehanshah told them not to inform his mother about the matter, as she would get angry. He also said that they can tell the mother that Shehanshah got injured in an accident. PW2 explained that, that is why, while narrating the incident to the doctor, they told him that the deceased got injured in an accident. Later, he came to know that Shehanshah is no more. PW2 asserted that the non-repayment of the debt and consequential animosity are the reasons for the incident. He also identified MO-1 weapon, allegedly used for the commission of the crime. 35. PW3 (Ashraf) is the uncle of the deceased boy. He came to know about the incident when his sister Abitha contacted him over a mobile phone. He rushed to the hospital and met the injured Shehanshah. He has noted an injury on the back. He further stated that, on seeing the wound, he felt that it was a stab wound. The deceased was taken to the KIMS Hospital from PRS hospital for expert management. Shehanshah succumbed to the injuries at KIMS hospital. He lodged Ext.P1 FIS. He also identified MOs 2 to 4, the dress and belt of the deceased.
36. PW4 (Kiran) was a friend and an eyewitness to the incident. PW4 would say that while he and Manu were standing near the shop of PW1 Thamaramon, the deceased and Vishnu reached there on a bike. In 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 14 the meantime, the accused reached there and asked Shehanshah to repay the amount. The accused purchased something from the shop. PW4 further stated that thereafter, the accused caught hold of the shirt worn by the deceased and inflicted a stab injury using a weapon like pipe. 37. PW4 asserted that the accused repeatedly demanded money from Shehanshah. When Manu PW5 handed over a currency note of Rs.100/-, the accused refused to accept it. The accused told them that the amount is to be repaid by the hands of the deceased himself. Later, Shehanshah paid the amount to the accused.
38. He along with Manu took Shehan Shah in the Activa Scooter to Dr. Sasikumar, PW13. PW13, Dr. Sasikumar, a Homeo doctor, advised them to take the injured to some other hospital. Meanwhile, Anoop and Ribin reached there. They took the deceased to PRS Hospital. PW4 Kiran and PW5 Manu accompanied them to PRS hospital in the Activa Scooter. PW4 further stated that, as instructed by the deceased, Shehansha, they stated to PW13 Dr.Sasikumar that Shehansha sustained injuries in an accident. According to PW4, Shehansha told them not to divulge the matter to his mother, as she would get angry. PW4 also spoke about the animosity of the accused due to the non-payment of the debt. He identified MO1 weapon and the accused.
39. PW5 (Manu) also stated that he witnessed the incident. According to him, the incident occurred near the shop of PW1 Thamaramon. He spoke about the two incidents: one near the pond and the 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 15 other near the shop of Thamaramon. He also unequivocally stated that the accused inflicted a stab injury on the back of the deceased using a steel pipe. He had also identified MO1 steel pipe allegedly used for inflicting stab injury. PW5 reiterated in his evidence that the reason for the animosity is the non-payment of the amount borrowed by the deceased from the accused.
40. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of the eyewitnesses PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5, we find no reason to disbelieve their version. All of them gave evidence about the incident in a similar fashion.
41. The learned Legal Aid Counsel has pointed out that there is contradiction and inconsistency in the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 4 and 5 as to the description and nature of the weapon used. According to PW5, the weapon looks like a steel pipe. PW4 would say that the weapon used is a steel pipe. PW1 stated that the weapon looks like a steel rod.
42. PW23, Investigating Officer, had seized MO1 handle of a steel ladle at the instance of the accused from his house beneath a plastic chair. In Ext.P5, recovery mahazar the steel handle of a ladle recovered is having a length of 20.5cms and the width of 2 cm in the middle and a hole at the one end. The broken end of the ladle had a sharp edge. The contradiction as to the nature and description of MO1 weapon referred to above is not material, relevant and significant for the adjudication of the fact in issue, in our considered view. We are not impressed by the argument advanced by the Legal Aid Counsel that the discrepancies with 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 16 regard to the description of weapon is fatal to the prosecution case.
43. PW6 (Ribin) and PW9 (Anoop) are the witnesses who took the victim to PRS Hospital. Both these witnesses would state that they took him to PRS Hospital in an Apache Motorcycle for better treatment.
Medical Evidence 44. According to PWs. 2, 4 and 5, the ocular witnesses, the injured was first taken to PW13 Dr. K. C. Sasikumar, a Homeo doctor advised them to take the injured to a better hospital. Accordingly, the injured was taken to PRS Hospital and from there to KIMS Hospital. 45. Now we shall proceed to evaluate the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution.
46. PW13 Dr. K. C Sasikumar is a Homeopathic Practitioner at Kurumath. He deposed that, in the year 2012, a young man was taken to his clinic by two other persons. The bystanders told him that the injury was caused by a fall on a glass piece. He felt that it was a serious injury and therefore, referred to a better hospital. In cross-examination, he would say that the injury was a small one and there was no bleeding. 47. PW17 Dr.Sivamohan is the Casualty Medical Officer of PRS Hospital, Tiruvannathanapuram. He examined a boy named Shehanshah aged 18 years, at 8.30 p.m. The history narrated to him was 'fall on a glass piece while riding a Motorcycle'. He issued Ext.P10 wound certificate, wherein he has noted an incised wound 1.5cm x 25 cm on the 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 17 right lower chest back side near the vertebral column. Dr. Sivamohan opined that the injury noted in Ext.P10 certificate could be caused by a weapon like MO1.
48. PW12 (Dr.Nazar Y. A) was the Cardiac Consultant of KIMS Hospital, PRS Hospital and Medicity. In the year 2012, he got a phone call from PRS Hospital that a young boy aged about 18 - 19 years sustained injuries to the chest and was referred to KIMS Hospital. He requested to arrange the operation theatre and rushed to KIMS Hospital. While he was making arrangements in the theatre, the patient expired. He has noted an injury on the backside of the chest. PW21, Dr. Sasikala, was examined to prove Ext.P12 postmortem certificate. Dr.Sasikala was the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr.Rema of Medical College Hospital. Dr.Sasikala who was acquainted with the handwriting and signature of Dr.Rema has proved Ext.P12 postmortem certificate. According to Dr.Sasikala, Injury No.1 is a satured penetrative wound 1.5 Cm long obliquely placed on the right side of the back of trunk. Dr.Sasikala opined that the death was due to the penetrative injury sustained to the right side of the back of the chest. She ruled out the infliction of such injury from an accidental fall on a glass piece. The evidence of PW21 Dr.Sasikala would clearly indicate that the death was due to the penetrative injury on the back of chest. PWs.1, 2 4 and 5, the occurrence witnesses would categorically say that the accused 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 18 inflicted an injury on the back of the deceased using a weapon like MO1.
The Defence Version
49. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accused is falsely implicated in this case. He never lent any amount to the deceased and was not even acquainted with him. He has also took a plea of alibi that he was not present at the scene of occurrence during the relevant time.
50. The Legal Aid Counsel argued that the deceased died due to an accident while riding a Motorcycle and that is why he stated before PW17, Dr.Sivamohan, that the injured sustained injuries due to a fall on a glass piece while riding a Motorcycle. It is further submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the defence version in its correct perspective. The learned Sessions Judge has discarded Exts.D1 and D2 case diary contradictions.
51. Admittedly, the victim of this case is a young boy aged 19 years. PW.2, 4 and 5, the eye witnesses of this case gave clear evidence that the accused, due to animosity in connection with the non-repayment of a borrowed sum of Rs.100/-, abused, assaulted and inflicted a stab injury on the back of the deceased. The friends at first took him to a Homeopathic doctor PW13, Dr. Sasikumar. He was reluctant to accept the case and referred to a better hospital. Later, the injured was taken to PRS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and from there to KIMS Hospital, 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 19 Thiruvananthapuram. PWs. 2 and 4 testified that while the injured was taken to the hospital, he told them not to divulge the incident to his mother. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of this case, it is discernible that the boy was fearful about the consequences that would ensue, if the real facts were disclosed to his mother. It has come out in evidence that due to this fear, and as per the instruction of the deceased, the friends who took and accompanied him to PRS Hospital narrated a false story of an accidental fall on a glass piece while riding in a motorcycle.
52. The learned Legal Aid Counsel highlighted this fact and submitted that the incident occurred in a manner different from that alleged and charged by the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that no evidence is forthcoming to prove that the injury sustained to the victim was caused by a fall from the scooter.
53. The case diary contradiction projected by the learned Legal Aid Counsel is immaterial and insignificant in our considered view.
The Motive 54. The learned counsel would then point out that there is no motive for the alleged commission of the crime. PWs. 2, 4, and 5, the material witnesses gave clear, cogent evidence with respect to the motive for the commission of the crime. They asserted that the deceased borrowed a sum of Rs.100/- from the accused. When the deceased failed to repay the said amount, the accused repeatedly demanded the amount 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 20 back. Due to this animosity, the accused abused, assaulted, attacked and inflicted a stab injury on the back of the chest of the deceased, which ultimately resulted in the death of a young boy aged 19 years.
55. In State of Kerala v. Rejikumar @ Reji1, this Court held that motive is irrelevant when there is direct evidence. Recently, the Apex Court in Madan v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 held that it is a settled law that though motive could be an important aspect in a case based on circumstantial evidence, in the case of direct evidence, the motive would not be that much relevant.
56. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes.
57. In Reg v. Palmer (Shorthand report at page 308 CCC May 1856), it was observed as follows:
"But if there be any motive which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you the the adequacy of that motive is of lilac importance. We know, from experience of criminal courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from very slight motives: not merely from malice and revenge, but to gain a small pecuniary advantage, and to drive off for a time pressing difficulties."1
2014 KHC 853 2 2023 KHC 6986 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 21
58. In Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar3 the Apex Court held that 'a mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailant."
59. In the instant case, there is overwhelming evidence to prove the motive for the alleged commission of the crime. In a case of this nature, where there is sufficient direct evidence as to the infliction of injury and the death ensued, the presence or absence of motive is not much significant.
60. The next submission of the learned Legal Aid Counsel is that there is a delay of 13 hours in lodging Ext.P1 FIS. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred at about 7.45 p.m on 11.05.2012. Ext.P1 FIS was lodged on the next day at 9 a.m. i.e, after the lapse of 13 hours. The counsel argued that the accused was known to the victim and the witnesses. Therefore, the name and identity of the assailant could have found a place in Ext.P1 FIS.
61. We are unable to accept the aforementioned contention. The material witnesses who accompanied the deceased were struggling to save the life of the young boy. Therefore, the delay of 13 hours and the non-mentioning of the name is not fatal to the prosecution in our view. It is pertinent to note that the accused was arrested on the very next day (12.05.2012) and the recovery of MO1 was effected from the house of the 3 AIR 1997 SC 1808 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 22 accused on the basis of his disclosure statement.
62. The learned counsel advanced yet another argument that the conduct of the material witnesses PWs. 2, 4 and 5 is against the ordinary course of conduct normally expected from prudent persons. It is submitted that the friends of the deceased who accompanied the boy to the hospital did not inform the matter to PW8, the mother of the victim, nor attempted to console her. According to the Legal Aid Counsel, they are not real eyewitnesses and they are planted witnesses.
63. We are not persuaded by the said contention. The material witnesses, who are the friends of the victim, stated that the injured himself instructed them not to divulge the incident to his mother due to the fear of the reaction from the mother of the victim. In such circumstances, they cannot be blamed for not attending the funeral of the deceased. There is no straight-jacketed formula fixing the behavioural pattern of the person while facing a given situation. People may react differently when facing a tragic situation.
64. The last but not least submission is that even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted on its face value, the offence under Section 302 IPC will not be attracted. At best, an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC may be attracted.
65. The learned counsel would also point out that the investigation of this case is defective and faulty. The scooter and the bike allegedly used by the victim and the witnesses were not seized by the 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 23 police. The non-seizure of the vehicles is a serious lapse of the police, according to the counsel. It is also pointed out that the independent witnesses in the locality were not examined. Time and again, the Apex Court observed that defective investigation is not a ground for the acquittal of the case if the evidence tendered by the prosecution inspires the confidence of the Court·
66. In Karnel Singh v. State of M.P.4 the Hon'ble Apex court observed that, in cases of defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the Investigating Officer if the investigation is designedly defective.
67. In Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab5, relying on Karnel Singh(Supra), Paras Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar6, Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors.,7 Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and Ors.,8 it was held that in the case of a defective investigation, the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.
41995 (5) SCC 518 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 977 5 2004 (3) SCC 654: AIR 2004 SC 1920 6 1999 (2) SCC 126 7 1998 (4) SCC 517 8 2003 (2) SCC 518 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 24
68. In Munna Lal v. State of U.P.,9 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a defective investigation is not always fatal to the prosecution where ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. While in such a case the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence, a faulty investigation cannot in all cases be a determinative factor to throw out a credible prosecution version
69. The learned Sessions Judge, placing reliance on the dictum laid down in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab10 held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the accused under Section 302 IPC, beyond a reasonable doubt. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of Virsa Singh (supra) read thus:
"12. To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under S.300 "thirdly";
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is 9 (2023) 18 SCC 661 10 AIR 1958 SC 465 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 25 sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
13. Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under S.300 "thirdly". It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real distinction between the two). It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No one has a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and claim that they are not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deduced, that the injury was accidental or otherwise unintentional." (emphasis supplied)
70. The dictum laid down in Virsa Singh (supra) was followed by the Apex Court in several cases. (See Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala11, 11 1966 SCC OnLIne SC 50 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 26 Sudershan Kumar v. State of Delhi12, Ram Murti v. State of Haryana13, State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya14, Mahadeo Ganpat Badavane v. State of Maharashtra15, Morcha v. State of Rajasthan16, Bakhtawar and Another v. the State of Haryana17, State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam18, Ramashraya and Another v. State of M.P.19 , Khuman Singh and Others v. State of M.P.20, Suchand Bouri v. State of W.B.21, Aradadi Ramudu Slias Aggiramudu v. State Through Inspector of Police, Yanam22 and Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra23.) 71. In view of Virsa Singh (supra) and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in other judgments we have no hesitation in holding that an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC would attract in the facts of the instant case.
72. On a careful analysis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden of proving the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of PWs.2, 4 and 5 is reliable, natural and 12 1975(3) SCC 831 13 (1976) 4 SCC 308 14 (1976) 4 SCC 382 15 1977(3) SCC 264 16 1979(1) SCC 161 17 1979(4) SCC 698 18 1995 (1) SCC 326 19 2001(3) SCC 439 20 2005 KHC 1632 21 (2009) 17 SCC 63 22 2012(5) SCC 134 23 (2023)13 SCC 365 2026:KER:183 Crl.Appeal No.432/2021 27 consistent. The learned Sessions Judge, after a careful and meticulous analysis of the evidence, has arrived at a proper conclusion as to the guilt, conviction and sentence. We find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. Criminal Appeal fails and is dismissed.
In the result, Crl. Appeal No. 432/2021 is dismissed. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge as to the conviction and sentence is hereby upheld.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
msp/Sbna