These remarks were made while rejecting an appeal by five convicts in a 2002 murder case. The convicts’ counsel argued that procedural flaws in the inquest report and politically motivated, repetitive testimonies from eyewitnesses undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (Jan 6) emphasized that crime creates societal fear, unjust if allowed to perpetuate.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and P.B. Varale highlighted that in a civilized society, the criminal justice system aims to safeguard individual dignity, restore societal order, and foster faith and cohesion within the community.
“Crime induces societal fear and adversely impacts the collective conscience. It is unjust if such a state of affairs is permitted to continue. Courts, in fulfilling their duties, must balance the interests of the accused and those of the state and society,”
the bench observed.
These remarks were made while rejecting an appeal by five convicts in a 2002 murder case. The convicts’ counsel argued that procedural flaws in the inquest report and politically motivated, repetitive testimonies from eyewitnesses undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
The court, however, held that inconsistencies in witness statements did not render their testimonies unreliable.
It further noted, “The discovery of Sujeesh’s body at a location slightly distant from where Sunil’s body was found cannot alone be a decisive factor to dismiss the prosecution’s case.”
The case pertained to events on March 1, 2002, when the RSS and VHP called for a bandh, leading to violent clashes between CPI(M) and RSS members. A group of 11 RSS/VHP members, hiding to escape a CPI(M)-led mob, was attacked, resulting in the deaths of two individuals.
In 2006, a trial court convicted 14 CPI(M) members and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the murders in the 2002 case. However, the Kerala High Court, in 2011, upheld the conviction of five individuals, acquitted eight others, and noted that one accused had passed away during the appeal process. The five convicted individuals challenged the high court’s decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that inconsistencies in witness testimonies cast doubt on their guilt.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, stating that the contradictions in witness statements were minor and did not undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
The bench observed, “Some contradictions, which this Court considers immaterial, cannot render the entire prosecution story false.”
The court found the testimonies of eyewitnesses to be “honest, truthful, and trustworthy,” and supported the high court’s reliance on these accounts as “well-reasoned.”
Regarding the defence’s argument that Sujeesh’s body was found at a different location than Sunil’s, the court dismissed it, citing the chaotic circumstances under which the victims were trying to escape the mob.
The bench noted, “It is natural that Sujeesh might have fled to another spot to hide, resulting in his body being found away from the other victim.”
The Supreme Court also rejected the claim that investigative lapses warranted acquittal, emphasizing that defective investigations do not automatically absolve the accused. “Courts are empowered to consider other evidence, such as eyewitness testimonies and medical reports, to arrive at a conclusion,” the judgment stated.
The bench addressed the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything), clarifying that it does not apply in Indian criminal jurisprudence. The court held, “If a witness’s testimony inspires confidence despite some falsehoods, the court can rely on credible parts of the testimony to base a conviction.”
Upholding the Kerala High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the life sentences for the five convicts: E. Dineshan, P. Sivadasan, E. Ashokan, Vellora Pradeepan, and Badiyil Rineef.
Case Title- Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan & Ors. v. State of Kerala
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
