MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 916 · Decided: 01-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 916 
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 839 of 2006) 
SEPTEMBER 01, 2010 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 143, 147, 148 and 341 -
C Death of victim due to political rivalry - Incident witnessed by 
wife and others - Conviction and sentence ulss. 302, 143, 
147, 148 and 341 by Session Court - Order of conviction 
upheld by High Coutt -
Death sentence reduced to 
imprisonment for life - Interference with - Held: Not called for 
o - Consistent _eye-witness account of three witness_es-wife, 
PW2 and PW 3, together with the evidence of witnesses for 
the period immediately after the incident - Dying declaration 
corroborates eye-witness account given by wife,. PW2 and 
PW3 - Nature of injuries consistent with the weapons used 
E 
by assailants - No delay in lodging FIR and in sending the 
copy of FIR to Magistrate - Evidence of wife could not be 
discarded on the basis that she was an interested witness and 
of PW 2 and PW 3 that they were chance/partisan witnesses 
- Non-holding of test identification parade did not cause any 
F 
prejudice to accused - All accused identified in court - Thus, 
there is no reason to disturb the concurrent conclusions 
reached by trial court and.High Court- Evidence - Witnesses 
- Interested witness/chance witness/partisan witnesses -
Identification - Test identification parade - Delay in lodging 
G FIR. 
Many political murders and other crimes took place 
in 'K' district of Kera la. 'MV', an activist of the Communist 
Party of India (Marxist) was murdered. Thereafter, 'PC'-
leader of BJP, received death threats, thinking to be the 
H 
916 
MYLADIMMAL SURENDRAN & ORS. v. STATE OF 
917 
KERA LA 
brain behind the murder of 'MV'. 'PC' was then provided 
A 
police security. On the fateful day, accused persons-A1 
to AS, armed with deadly weapons, hacked 'PC' to death 
in broad day light, in front of his wife-PW 1. The father of 
the deceased-CW1 also witnessed the incident. Accused-
A2 absconded. The Court of Session convicted the 
B 
appellants-accused persons A1, A3 to AS for the offences 
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 302 
IPC. They were sentenced to death for the offence under 
Section 302 IPC. For offences under Sections 143, 147, 
148, 341 they were sentenced to undergo rigorous c 
imprisonment for different periods, varying from two 
months to three years. The High Court upheld the order 
of conviction but converted death sentence to 
.' imprisonment for life. Therefore, the appellants filed the 
instant appeals. 
o 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:. 1.1 Given the seriousness of the allegations 
made as also the imposition of the death penalty by the 
trial court, the High Court correctly considered the entire 
E 
evidence with great care and caution. The High Court 
took cautionary approach because this was one of the 
many political murders and crimes which had been 
committed in 'K' district during the relevant time. The 
deceased was a BJP leader and the accused were 
F 
workers of the Marxist Party. It came in evidence before 
the trial court that the deceased was a candidate of the 
BJP in the General Election for the 'P' Assembly 
Constituency. Even though he got only 10,000 votes, he 
was threat~ned that he would be kill~d. Consequently, the 
G 
police aid post was established about 1 SO meters near 
the house of 'PC'. The added reason for danger to the life 
of the deceased was that he was suspected to be a 
mastermind behind the murder of a Marxist Party activist 
called 'MV'. Demands were made by the Marxist Party, as 
H 
918 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A well as the public in general, for the deceased to be 
arrayed as an accused in the said murder. The High Court 
also noticed that the danger to the life of the deceased 
became stronger when the LDF Government came to 
power. The house of the deceased was situated in a 
B disturbed area. [Para 11] (930-A-E] 
1.2 The High Court examined the entire evidence and 
concurred with the conclusions reached by the trial court. 
There is no reason to differ with the conclusions which 
C seem to flow naturally from the evidence on record. [Para 
12] (930-F-G] 
1.3 The wife was an eye-witness to the murderous 
assault, which resulted in the death of her husband. The 
wife-PW1 categorically stated that the accused persons 
D attacked her husband at the stated time and place; and 
that two o

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