Crl.Appeal No. 282 of 2025 1 2025:KER:28839 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.A NO. 282 OF 2025 CRIME NO.85/2017 OF PALLIKKATHODE POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2024 IN SC NO.41 OF 2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RESPONDENT/ACCUSED: JIJO.M.GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE,NANDIKKATTU HOUSE, MAYILADIKARA BHAGOM, ANIKKADU VILLAGE, PIN - 686503 Crl.Appeal No. 282 of 2025 2 2025:KER:28839 BY ADVS. SOORAJ M KARTHA SWARAN JOSE(K/350/2018) VRINDA SOMAN(K/234/2021) OTHER PRESENT: SMT VRINDA SOMAN, FOR PARTY RESP THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Appeal No. 282 of 2025 3 2025:KER:28839 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, & P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ. -------------------------------------. Crl.Appeal No. 282 of 2025 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April 2025 JUDGMENT P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This appeal is filed under Section 419(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by the State challenging the judgment passed by the Sessions Court, Kottayam in SC No.41/2019, acquitting the sole accused in that case, who faced indictment under Section 302 IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that on 26/1/2017 at about 10 pm, while deceased Abhijith was attending the music festival along with his parents, in St.Mathews CMS Church, Myladikkara, the accused invited the deceased for dinner and took him and Crl.Appeal No. 282 of 2025 4 2025:KER:28839 served food and liquor to him. While returning, due to animosity, the accused with an intention to kill Abhijith pushed him into an abandoned well situated in the property of PW13 Johnson, resulting in him getting drowned. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW22 and has marked Exts.P1 to P31 and MO1 to MO7. The FSL report was also marked as Ext.X1. During examination of prosecution witnesses, Exts.D1 to D4 were also marked from the side of the accused. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found that the prosecution has failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that there is no direct evidence in this case and the prosecution is heavily relying upon the testimonies of PW1 and PW3 to prove that the deceased was last seen with the accused. She contended that the accused Crl.Appeal No. 282 of 2025 5 2025:KER:28839 has not offered any plausible explanation as to how the deceased fell into the well and got drowned while he was along with him. She argued that the evidence of PW1 and PW3 that it is the accused who had taken away the deceased from the premises of the church is credible and cogent and the trial court had erred in not relying upon this evidence. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the only evidence available in this case is the evidence of PW1 and PW3, who are the parents of the deceased. He submitted that both PW1 and PW3 made considerable improvements while tendering evidence and in their previous statement, they were never having a version that the deceased had accompanied the accused, when he called him. He further submitted that the medical evidence adduced also supports only the defence version that the deceased died due to drowning and nothing more. Crl.Appeal No. 282 of 2025 6 2025:KER:28839 6. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and the evidence of the material witnesses, the copy of which were made available to us by the learned Public Prosecutor. On going through the materials, it is to be seen that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the prosecution is only relying upon the evidence of PW1 and PW3, who are the parents of the deceased, to bring home the guilt of the accused. It is true that both PW1 and PW3 have given evidence to the effect that the deceased had gone along with the accused and it is thereafter, the deceased was found missing. But, it is also to be seen that the accused has successfully brought out that the afore version of PW1 and PW3 do not find a place in their previous statements, wherein their version was that the deceased had gone along with his friends and thereafter was found missing. The above omission, being a material one, amounts to contradiction thereby, affecting the creditworthiness of the testimonies of PW1 and PW3 on this aspect. Further, it is to Crl.Appeal No. 282 of 2025 7 2025:KER:28839 be seen that the medical evidence adduced also do not speak about any external injuries suffered by the deceased indicating the use of force by anyone upon him and it only shows that the deceased has died due to drowning. In the light of the afore materials, the finding of the trial court that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that it was the accused who has caused the death of the deceased by drowning, cannot be faulted with. Ergo, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V Judge Sd/- P.V.BALAKRISHNAN dpk Judge