Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Political Clash Case: Edakkandi Dineshan vs. State of Kerala (2025)

Date of the Judgment: 6 January 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 28

Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Can minor inconsistencies in witness statements undermine a criminal conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a deadly clash between political groups. The Court examined whether the High Court of Kerala was correct in upholding the conviction of certain accused individuals despite claims of contradictions in witness testimonies and a flawed investigation. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

Case Background

On March 1, 2002, a hartal (strike) called by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh/Vishva Hindu Parishad (RSS/VHP) led to violent clashes with members of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)). A group of eleven individuals, fearing the violence, sought refuge near a shed by the Meloor river. Around midnight, they were attacked by a group of armed assailants from both the eastern and northern sides. While most of the group managed to escape, two individuals, Sunil and Sujeesh, who were sleeping, were fatally injured. Sujeesh was taken to a hospital in Thalassery where he was declared dead. Based on the statement of PW-1, an FIR was registered on March 2, 2002, at P.S. Dharmadam. The body of Sunil was discovered later that morning near the scene of the incident.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court found all the accused persons guilty under Sections 143, 147, 506(ii), and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Accused A2, A3, A11, and A12 were also found guilty under Section 148 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. A15 was acquitted of all charges. The High Court of Kerala, upon appeal, upheld the convictions of A1 to A3 and A11 and A12, while acquitting A4 to A10, A13 and A14. The acquittal of A15 was also confirmed. This appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by A1 to A3 and A11 and A12.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with the punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 147 of the IPC: Addresses the punishment for rioting.
• Section 148 of the IPC: Pertains to rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149 of the IPC: Defines the concept of common object in an unlawful assembly, making each member liable for offenses committed in furtherance of that object.
• Section 302 of the IPC: Specifies the punishment for murder.
• Section 506(ii) of the IPC: Deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation.
• Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908: Addresses the unlawful and malicious use of explosives.
• Section 27 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA): Pertains to the admissibility of information leading to discovery of facts.
• Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C): Deals with the procedure for registering a First Information Report (FIR).
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C): Deals with the examination of witnesses by police.
• Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA): Deals with cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.
• Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA): Deals with impeaching the credit of a witness.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The FIR was ante-timed and the prosecution’s story was not credible. The FIR was registered at 3:00 AM but communicated to the police station at 3:45 AM. The Magistrate did not note the time, and the handwriting of the person who noted the time was not examined.
• The FIR incorrectly recorded Sunil’s death at 3:00 AM, while his body was discovered only at 7:30 AM. There were interpolations in the FIR, including the insertion of names of A14 and A15 and correction of the date.
• The prosecution implicated innocent individuals, as evidenced by the testimonies of eyewitnesses PW1, PW2, and PW4, who initially stated that Ashraf was present at the scene.
• There was a violation of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) due to the delayed lodging of the FIR.
• Sunil was murdered elsewhere, and his body was brought to the scene to implicate the appellants.
• The recovery of weapons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) was not credible. The recovery mahazar did not mention a “police jeep,” and there was no examination of the jeep for bloodstains.
• The doctor who examined Sujeesh did not record the names of those who brought the body.
• Eyewitnesses could not have seen the incident due to obstacles like coconut husks, mangroves, and a shed.
• The inquest report was not properly made, and eyewitnesses gave parrot-like statements due to political enmity.
• It was improbable for eyewitnesses to remain standing when a bomb was thrown, rather than fleeing. The recovery of the bomb was also not conducted properly.

State of Kerala’s Arguments:

• The High Court’s judgment was well-reasoned, and the accused were rightly convicted based on the evidence. The appeal should be dismissed.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues, but the core issue was whether the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence in upholding the conviction of the accused, despite the arguments raised by the appellants regarding contradictions and faulty investigation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Rammi vs State of MP [1999 8 SCC 649]* to emphasize that not all inconsistencies in witness statements are sufficient to discredit their testimony.
• The Court followed Birbal Nath vs State of Rajasthan [2023 INSC 957]* to reiterate that statements to police can be used to contradict a witness but not to discredit them entirely.
• The Court followed Tehshildar Singh v State of UP [AIR 1959 SC 1012]* to clarify that to contradict a witness means to discredit them, and minor variations are insufficient for this.
• The Court followed Ram Vijay Singh vs State of UP [2021 SCC Online SC 142]* to state that the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not a rule of law in India.
• The Court followed Paras Yadav & ors. vs. State of Bihar [1999 (2) SCC 126]* to hold that defective investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal.
• The Court followed Raju alias Balachandran and ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012) 12 SCC 701]* to emphasize that the evidence of an interested witness should be carefully examined but can be relied upon if it has a ring of truth.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court focused on the consistency and credibility of the eyewitness testimonies, the medical evidence confirming homicidal deaths, and the recovery of weapons. The Court also emphasized that minor contradictions in witness statements and lapses in investigation do not automatically invalidate the prosecution’s case. The Court considered the political rivalry between the groups, but also noted that the witnesses were familiar with the accused and the area.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the arguments that the FIR was ante-timed, that Sunil’s body was moved, and that the eyewitnesses were not credible. The Court emphasized the principle that minor contradictions do not invalidate the entire testimony and that faulty investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal. The Court stated, “It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff.” The Court also held, “The principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ does not apply to the Indian criminal jurisprudence.” The Court further stated, “It is the quality if evidence which is relevant in criminal trial and not the quantity.”

Key Takeaways

• Minor inconsistencies in witness statements do not automatically discredit their testimony.
• Faulty investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal if there is other credible evidence.
• The principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply in Indian criminal jurisprudence.
• The quality of evidence is more important than the quantity of evidence.
• The courts must separate the grain from the chaff in assessing evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. No specific directions were given.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that minor inconsistencies in witness statements and lapses in investigation do not automatically invalidate a conviction if there is other credible evidence supporting the prosecution’s case. This judgment reinforces the principle that the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity and that the courts must separate the grain from the chaff. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s conviction of the accused. The Court emphasized that minor contradictions in witness testimonies and lapses in investigation do not automatically invalidate the prosecution’s case if there is other credible evidence. The judgment reinforces the importance of assessing the quality of evidence and separating the grain from the chaff in criminal trials.