Post By 24law: November 4, 2025
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala, Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian set aside the conviction and death sentence imposed on a migrant labourer accused of raping and murdering a 60-year-old woman at Puthenvelikkara, Ernakulam. The Court held that the accused was entitled to acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the sole eyewitness, the deceased’s intellectually disabled son, was not competent to testify as no competency (voir dire) test had been conducted, and other circumstantial and scientific evidence, including alleged confessions and forensic findings, were unreliable or inadmissible. Consequently, the Bench declined to confirm the death sentence and directed that the accused be released unless required in any other case.
The proceedings arose from the conviction of the accused, Parimal Sahu, for offences under Sections 449, 376A, 302 and 201 of the IPC, relating to the alleged rape and murder of a 60-year-old woman residing with her intellectually disabled son in Puthenvelikkara, Ernakulam. The prosecution case was that between 11:00 p.m. on 18.03.2018 and 1:30 a.m. on 19.03.2018, the accused trespassed into the victim’s house, assaulted her with a granite stone, raped her, and murdered her, later attempting to destroy evidence. During trial, the prosecution examined 43 witnesses and relied primarily on the testimony of PW4, the intellectually disabled son of the deceased, as the sole eyewitness. The prosecution also relied on alleged extrajudicial confessions made by the accused to two doctors, recovery of a stone under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, bite-mark comparison, medical findings, and circumstantial links regarding the accused's proximity to the scene.
The defence challenged the competence of PW4, citing his documented IQ of 47 and mental age of 7½ years, as certified by PW23 and recorded in Ext.P18 . It was argued that no voir dire test was conducted before recording PW4’s testimony. The defence also questioned the admissibility of the alleged confessions, contending that they were obtained while the accused was in police custody, attracting the bar under Section 26 of the Evidence Act. The recovery of MO4 and the scientific evidence linking bite marks to dental casts were also disputed on grounds of unreliable chain of custody and prior police presence at the scene.
The Court recorded that “PW4, who is the sole witness to the occurrence, was certified… as having an IQ of only 47 and an intellectual capacity equivalent to that of a 7½-year-old child” and observed that “no competency examination appears to have been conducted prior to recording the evidence of PW4.” The Bench stated that the “failure of the trial judge to conduct a voir dire examination… must be held to be a fatal irregularity”. The Court noted that although PW4’s chief-examination appeared coherent, his cross-examination “was marred by a lot of incoherent and unintelligible answers,” quoting his contradictory responses such as “it was Munna who said it” and “Munna came on hearing the noise,” which conflicted with his earlier claim that the accused was the assailant. The Court recorded that these responses “persuade us to conclude that the competence of the said witness is seriously in doubt” and that PW4 “was a tutored witness”.
On the alleged extrajudicial confessions, the Court stated that the accused “was in police custody” when produced before PW17 and PW20, and held that “any confession made… whilst in police custody is hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act and is inadmissible against the accused.” The Court recorded that PW17 merely repeated what the accused allegedly told her, noting that her opinion “is not an opinion arrived at by her on the basis of any expertise” but just a reproduction of the accused’s narrative. Regarding recovery, the Bench observed that MO4 was recovered from an “open area” inside the compound where police officers and locals were already present the previous day. It recorded that “the stone was not recovered from a concealed or hidden place” and held that the recovery was “highly doubtful” as it could not be shown that it was discovered solely on the strength of the accused’s disclosure.
On bite-mark evidence, the Court recorded that PW17 did not describe the injuries as bite marks and that PW20’s conclusion appeared influenced by what he was told. It stated that “there is no convincing material on record to establish that the dental casts examined by PW22 are the same casts prepared by PW17,” and observed that absence of epithelial cells in the deceased’s nail clippings contradicted the prosecution narrative. “In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith from the prison concerned, if his continued detention is not required in connection with any other case. The death sentence reference is answered in the negative.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant/Accused: Smt. Mitha Sudhindran, Smt. Shreya Rastogi, Smt. Nadia Shalin, Smt. Moulika Diwakar, Sri. Riji Rajendran, Smt. Bhairavi S.N.
For the State of Kerala: Smt. Ambika Devi S., Special Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Parimal Sahu v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:82014
Case Number: DSR No.1/2021 & Crl.A No.974/2022
Bench: Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Jobin Sebastian
Source: https://24law.in/story/kerala-high-court-acquits-assam-migrant-labourer-sentenced-to-death-for-rape-murder-of-60-year-old
No comments:
Post a Comment