Kerala High Court Acquits Convicted Migrant Worker in High-Profile Rape and Murder Case

Flaws in witness competency, inadmissible confessions, and unreliable scientific evidence led to the acquittal of Assam migrant worker in a gruesome crime.

In a landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court has overturned the conviction and death sentence of Parimal Sahu, a migrant laborer from Assam, accused of the rape and murder of a 60-year-old widow in North Paravur. The court's decision, delivered by the bench of Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Mr. Jobin Sebastian, highlighted significant lapses in the trial proceedings, including reliance on an intellectually disabled witness, inadmissible confessions, and questionable scientific evidence.

The case, which drew considerable attention, involved allegations that Sahu trespassed into the victim's home and committed the heinous act, with the victim's intellectually disabled son purportedly witnessing the crime. However, the High Court found that the trial court had failed to conduct a competency test, known as a voir dire, to determine the witness's ability to testify, thereby rendering his testimony unreliable.

The court also dismissed the alleged extrajudicial confessions made to doctors while Sahu was in police custody, citing Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deems such confessions inadmissible. Furthermore, the recovery of the alleged weapon and the bite mark analysis were questioned due to lack of proper custody documentation and the high potential for false positives.

In their comprehensive judgment, the justices emphasized the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies and lapses in the investigation and evidence presentation. The ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of the accused, ensuring that convictions are based on solid and unequivocal evidence.

The acquittal has sparked discussions on the handling of evidence and the need for stringent adherence to procedural safeguards in criminal trials, especially those involving vulnerable witnesses and scientific evidence.

Bottom Line:

Competency of intellectually disabled witness to testify, admissibility of extrajudicial confessions made in police custody, reliability of scientific evidence, and requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 118, 26, 27; Indian Penal Code Sections 449, 376A, 302, 201; Criminal Procedure Code Sections 209, 227, 313, 232, 366; Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

State of Kerala v. Parimal Sahu, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2802833