The Supreme Court on Monday (July 8th) upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a liquor vendor for murdering an anti-liquor activist in December 1999. The Court held that the prosecution has proven its case against the convict, one Joy Devaraj (convict/appellant), beyond reasonable doubt.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a liquor vendor, Joy Devaraj, for the murder of an anti-liquor activist in December 1999.
A division bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mithal affirmed that the prosecution had proven its case against Devaraj beyond reasonable doubt.
The Bench stated that Devaraj, along with other co-accused, had arrived at the crime scene with the premeditated intention to harm the victim. This was evident from their formation of an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, with the common intention to attack and terminate the victim’s anti-liquor movement.
The Supreme Court dismissed Devaraj’s appeal against the Kerala High Court’s 2011 judgment, which had confirmed his conviction. The Court also cancelled the bail granted to Devaraj in February 2015, directing him to surrender before the concerned court within three weeks.
“In conclusion, we agree with the High Court’s affirmance of the conviction and find that the impugned judgment warrants no interference. The criminal appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed. The order dated 13th February, 2015 granting bail to the appellant stands vacated. We direct the appellant to surrender before the concerned court immediately but not later than 3 (three) weeks from date to serve out the rest of his sentence,”
-the Court ordered.
The victim, Bobby, was an active participant in an anti-liquor movement aimed at encouraging people to abstain from alcohol. The incident that led to the fatal attack occurred after one of Bobby’s movement members had an altercation with one of the co-accused, an alleged illicit liquor vendor. Bobby supported his fellow movement member, which likely provoked the subsequent fatal attack.
On the evening of the incident, Devaraj, armed with a dagger, along with fourteen other co-accused, confronted Bobby. Despite Bobby’s attempts to flee, Devaraj stabbed him with the dagger, while the others struck him with hockey sticks. Bobby later succumbed to his injuries.
The trial court convicted Devaraj under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment. The other fourteen co-accused received lesser sentences based on their roles in the crime.
In 2007, Devaraj appealed his conviction to the Kerala High Court, which dismissed the appeal in 2011. Devaraj then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, Devaraj argued inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements regarding the weapon used in the crime, with some witnesses mentioning an axe and others a dagger. He also highlighted significant variations in the testimonies of other witnesses.
The Court acknowledged that an attack by an unlawful assembly of fifteen people with weapons could lead to a chaotic situation, making it unreasonable to expect each witness to have an impeccable recollection of events.
“We presume, it must have been a very chaotic situation leading to certain discrepancies having arisen in the statements of the witnesses. We cannot expect all the witnesses, when under attack by the accused persons seeking to terrorize those protesting against liquor trade, to possess stellar memories with an accurate recollection of the events,”
-the Court observed.
The Court emphasized that it was Devaraj’s responsibility to prove that the inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements undermined their credibility.
“In the present case, there is evidence to the effect that the appellant was part of an unlawful assembly which gathered at the place of occurrence. The victim had in mind bringing a thriving trade in liquor to be brought to a grinding halt. There was, thus, definite motive for the accused persons including the appellant to throttle the voice of the victim. In such a scenario, the appellant was required to point out serious loopholes in the prosecution story for discrediting the witnesses. Unfortunately, our faith in the credibility and reliability of the witnesses is unshaken. Although, there are a few inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses but the same are minor and not substantial, as argued, so as to erode the credibility of such witnesses,”
-the Court said.
Medical evidence corroborated that the victim had died due to injuries inflicted with a dagger.
“The appellant’s submission that only one of the eight injuries sustained by the victim is grievous and the rest are simple and hence there is no intention to cause death, cannot be accepted after examining the facts of the case. In Stalin v. State, this Court held that death caused by a single stab wound can also be considered murder if the requirements of section 300, IPC are fulfilled,”
-the apex court stated.
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had proven its case against Devaraj beyond reasonable doubt, thereby dismissing the appeal.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Murder Cases
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
