KANAKARAJAN @ KANAKAN versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2017] 5 S.C.R. 76 · Decided: 21-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2017) 5 S.C.R. 76 
KANAKARAJAN @ KANAKAN 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 841 of2007) 
APRIL 21, 2017 
[N. V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.143, 147, 148, 342 and 302 - Murder 
- Infirmities in prosecution case - Benefit of reasonable doubt -
Acquittal of accused - Case of prosecution was that at night, while 
a religious procession was going on in a Temple compound, nine 
accused attacked victim-deceased and when PW-2 tried to intervene, 
he too was beaten by the accused persons - On way .to hospital, 
victim-deceased succumbed to injuries - Out of nine accused, one 
accused A-2 was found hanging from a tree on the next day and 
D 
was declared dead - Trial court acquitted all accused except A-1, 
A-5 and convicted them ulss.143, 147, 148, 342 and 302 - High 
Court acquitted A-5 and upheld the conviction of A-1 - Appellant-
A-1 contended that the entire case is fabricated and he has been 
falsely implicated in the case - Held: The conduct of PW-2 in not 
E 
F 
G 
H 
accompanying the accused from one hospital to another, not giving 
complaint to the police and not getting injuries treated raises serious 
doubts and supports the case of defense that PW-2 is kingpin who 
has implicated the accused with the help of his brother-in-law who 
is in police department - Prosecution witnesses were not cogent 
and trustworthy to form basis to convict the appellant - Non-
examination of credible independent witnesses and non-conduction 
of test identification parade by investigating agencies, was very 
fatal to the case of prosecution - Further, some witnesses turned 
hostile - Also, investigating agencies failed in their duty to 
thoroughly investigate and find out reasons for death of A-2 who is 
alleged to be the prime accused - Prosecution case filled with 
infirmities and lacunas and thus, grant of benefit of reasonable 
doubt extended to the appellant. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances a 
closer look at the evidence of prosecution witnesses, in particular 
76 
KANAKARAJAN @ KANAKAN v. STATE OF KERALA 
77 
PW2, PW4 PWS, PWll, PW12, PW21 and PW22, would reveal A 
that these witnesses are not cogent and trustworthy to form basis 
to convict the appellant. Admittedly the incident had taken place 
in the midst of several hundred people and the prosecution 
witnesses in equivocal terms stated that the police personnel 
were present. There is nothing on record to show that the police 
B 
constables available at the scene of offence were examined or 
that they have played any role in preventing the accused. The 
conduct of PW2 in not accompanying the accused to the second 
hospital, not giving the complaint to the police and not getting 
his injuries treated raises serious doubts and supports the case 
of the defense that PW2 is the king pin who has implicated the 
C 
accused with the help of his brother-in-law who is in the police 
department. Above all when the High Court disbelieves the 
presence of PW2, at the scene of offence, it ought not to have 
·taken into consideration his evidence to convict the appellant. 
The prosecution has not taken minimum care to examine the 
independent witnesses in support of their case and particularly 
D 
when it is nobody's case that independent witnesses were not 
available. [Para 17] [84-C-F] 
2. Non examination of credible independent witnesses in 
this case is very much fatal to the prosecution's case. Particularly 
when it is their own case that there were several shops and houses 
in the vicinity and several people were present. It is not nece~sary 
that in each and every case on the ground of non examination of 
independent witnesses the case of the prosecution has to be 
brushed aside, if the evidence of prosecution witnesses is 
consistent, cogent and corroborated by other evidence it can be 
safely relied upon, but it is not so in the case at hand. The High 
Court disbelieved the presence of PW2, PW3 turned hostile, 
statements of PW4, PWS and PW 22 do not inspire confidence. 
E 
F 
No other independent witness is examined. PWll the 
panchwitness for recovery of weapon has also turned hostile and 
deposed that he signed without reading the same. Moreover G 
there is no evidence to show any results of forensic examination 
of the weapon so recovered. The High Court, while convicting 
the appellant, should have been more cautious while weighing 
the evidence of these prosecution witne

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.