Hussain vs State Of Kerala

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

The Preamble of the Constitution of India holds out two solemn promises among others: Justice — social, economic and political — and Equality of status and of opportunity. These were not merely aspirational words. They were a declaration of intent by a nation that had seen, across centuries, what the organised denial of justice and equality could do to the human spirit. They were words written, in no small measure, for the emancipation of the downtrodden who had been humiliated, excluded, and shamed by deliberate social design.

On the 25th of November, 1949, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of our Constitution, stood up before the Constituent Assembly and stated what can only be described as a warning to posterity. (See Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume X, Page 979)

The conflict that Sri. B.R. Ambedkar described between political equality and social and economic inequality is still alive in Indian public life today. If any proof is required, one only needs to look at the facts of this case. The distance between the solemn promise in the Preamble and the facts of this case is a verdict not merely on the accused, but on "We the People".

These Appeals concern the brutal assault and death of Madhu, a 27-year-old tribal man, who, if the prosecution version is believed, was publicly beaten, stripped, paraded in a semi-naked condition, humiliated on social media, and subjected to sustained violence before succumbing to his injuries. The incident occurred in broad daylight, involved multiple accused persons, and was recorded on digital devices.

The alleged perpetrators of the crime, according to the prosecution, are 16 individuals, all residents of Mannarkkad and its surrounding areas. They stood trial before the Additional Sessions Court, Mannarkkad, in S.C.No. 265 of 2018 and were charged under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 294(b), 342, 352, 364, 367, 368, and 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and additionally under Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ["SC/ST (PoA) Act"].

The trial court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted a few and convicted the rest for lesser offences. Accused Nos. 4 and 11 were acquitted of all charges framed against them. Insofar as the remaining 14 accused is concerned, though the court did not find them guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, they were found guilty, convicted and sentenced for several of the other offences, the details of which are set out in the chart below:

The following appeals have been preferred before this Court, assailing the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence.

Crl. A. No. 601 of 2023 is filed by the 1st accused;

Crl. A. No. 602 of 2023 is filed by accused Nos. 2 and 5;

Crl. A. No. 598 of 2023 is filed by accused Nos. 3, 6, & 8 to 10;

Crl. A. No. 604 of 2023 is filed by accused Nos. 7, 12, 13, 14 and 15;

Crl. A No. 676 of 2023 is filed by the 16th accused; f ) Crl. A. No. 661 of 2023 is the appeal preferred by the State; and

CRA(V) No. 27 of 2024 is the appeal filed by the mother of the deceased, being the victim.

While the accused seek acquittal on all charges, the State and the victim challenge the acquittal of accused Nos. 4 and 11 and seek conviction of all the accused under Section 302 of the IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The scope of appellate reappreciation in such a case, where both acquittal and conviction are under challenge, is well settled. The Appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate, and reconsider the entire evidence, both on facts and law, and may arrive at its own conclusions, as held in Chandrappa v. State Of Karnataka¹ . However, this power must be exercised with caution, particularly when dealing with an order of acquittal, which carries a double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.

Madhu, son of Mallan, was a resident of Chindakki Ooru, Mukkali. He was a member of the Mudugar community, a Scheduled Tribe. He suffered from a mild mental illness and led a nomadic life, and used to reside in the Silent Valley Reserved Forest area away from his family. From time to time, he would come down from the forest and take food and other items from shops at Mukkali without the permission of the shop owners. This irked the accused, who were residents of Mukkali and the nearby areas, and they wanted to teach him a lesson.

On 22nd of February 2018, at around 12.15 p.m., the 2nd accused received information from CW19 that Madhu had been spotted in the Ajmudi forest area within the Vandikkadavu Teak Plantation. He conveyed the said information to the 9th accused over the mobile phone. The 9th accused informed the 3rd accused, who then passed the information to the remaining accused persons. This passing of information ignited a chain of events. Accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 12 arrived in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-50-D-2908 owned by the 10th accused in front of the shop of the 9th accused. Around the same time, Accused No. 13 arrived on his motorcycle and conferred with the 9th accused. The prosecution alleged that by approximately 12.30 p.m., this group had assembled and formed an unlawful assembly, with the common object of abducting Madhu from the forest, causing him grievous injuries, and ultimately causing his death.

Acting in furtherance of their common object, at about 12.40 p.m., Accused Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 travelled to the Vandikkadavu Teak Plantation in a Marshal Jeep belonging to the ninth accused, while Accused No. 13 followed on his motorcycle. After parking their vehicles, they joined the 2nd accused and unlawfully entered the reserved forest. The group trekked nearly two kilometres through the forest terrain along the Bhavani River, within Padavayal Village of Mannarkkad Taluk, beneath Ajmudi Hill. At about 1.10 p.m., they reached a rocky outcrop known as Andiyallachaal, where they spotted Madhu.

The prosecution alleged that the accused, after forcibly apprehending Madhu, stripped him of his clothing, tied his hands behind his back using his own dhoti, and began to assault him. They are alleged to have punched and kicked him repeatedly on his face and back, while preventing him from escaping. Accused Nos. 5, 7, 8, and 9 recorded the capture and subsequent abuse on their mobile phones, and the 8th accused deliberately circulated these videos on social media platforms with the clear intention of garnering views of Madhu's public humiliation. To further immobilise him, the 3rd accused tied his right hand with a zip cord taken from a bag. The 10th accused then placed a heavy sack containing rice and other items on Madhu's shoulders. Throughout this ordeal, the accused persons hurled continuous verbal abuse at Madhu, branding him a thief. The 2nd accused held the zip cord restraining his hands while the 7th accused gripped his left hand, forcing him to walk forward as the degrading abuse continued without pause through the mountainous terrain. In the meantime, the 3rd accused contacted Accused No. 14 and informed him of the capture and the movements of the group. On receiving the above information, Accused No. 14 drove to the Vandikkadavu area and unlawfully entered the forest and joined the group. Accused No. 15 also arrived at the scene and joined the assembly and they were having full and conscious knowledge of its violent purpose. Accused No. 14 allegedly assaulted Madhu by beating him on his back and recorded videos of the assault. Accused Nos. 2, 6, 7, 9, and 10 continued to punch repeatedly. The 3rd accused struck him on the back with a wooden stick causing the fracture of one of his ribs. The accused thereafter brought Madhu out of the forest to the shed at Vandikkadavu, from where they forced him, half-naked, bound, and visibly injured to walk nearly three kilometres along the public road to Mukkali Junction.

At about 2:30 p.m., Madhu was brought in front of Sreerag Bakery Cool Bar at Mukkali Junction. Here, Accused Nos. 4, 11, and 16 are alleged to have joined the unlawful assembly. The 11th accused loudly abused Madhu in public, calling him a thief, while the 16th accused assaulted him by delivering a knee blow to his back. Accused Nos. 4 and 8 once again recorded videos of the incident and circulated them on social media. The accused then forced Madhu to sit near the hundi (offering box) of Ponmala Dharmasastha Temple, situated close to the northern wall near the bakery premises. Accused No. 15 continued to restrain Madhu by holding the zip cord tied to his hand and punched him on the shoulder.

Meanwhile, the 1st accused arrived at the scene in his vehicle, fully aware of the ongoing assault and knowingly joined the unlawful assembly. It was alleged that the 1st accused was motivated by a personal grievance against Madhu owing to alleged thefts from his shop. The 1st accused is alleged to have stamped forcefully on Madhu's chest as he sat against the temple wall. The impact caused Madhu's head to strike the wall violently, inflicting grievous injuries which ultimately proved fatal.

In the meantime, the police reached Mukkali at about 3:00 p.m., and took Madhu into custody. While on the way to Mele Thavalam, Madhu became unwell. The Jeep was stopped briefly to enable Madhu to vomit. Madhu then became unresponsive. The police jeep reached Agali Community Health Centre (CHC) at about 4:15 pm. The duty doctor, Dr. Lima Francis, examined Madhu and "declared him brought dead".

PW83, the then Sub Inspector of Agali Police Station, registered Crime No. 87 of 2018 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. at 5.15 p.m., on 22 February 2018. Due to a power failure at the Police Station at the time, Ext. P81 FIR was manually registered. Ext. P80 FIS was based on the notes taken by PW83 at Mukkali, where he had noted the names and addresses of seven persons present there who had informed him about the incident.

After shifting Madhu's body to the mortuary, the Sub Collector of Ottapalam (PW67) conducted an inquest on the body of Madhu at Agali CHC and prepared Ext.P1 Inquest Report. As part of the inquest, the Sub Collector recorded statements of five persons. The MO26 series clothes of Madhu were seized at the time of the inquest. The body was then sent for postmortem examination.

The postmortem examination was conducted on 24 February 2018 at the Government Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, by PW86, Professor of Forensic Medicine and Police Surgeon, who also accompanied the Sub Collector. The postmortem examination revealed that the death was a case of homicide. The entire postmortem was video-recorded by PW103 (DCRB photographer) and the same was saved in Ext.P167 SD Card. The biological materials collected during postmortem were subsequently seized by the Investigating Officer as per Ext.P56 seizure mahazar on 25.02.2018. Ext.P82 is the Postmortem Certificate.

PW97, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, SMS & Agali Sub-Division, Agali, took over the investigation on 23.02.2018 as per the direction of the Inspector General of Police. He seized MO26 series clothes worn by Madhu at the time of his death as per Ext.P61 seizure mahazar. These dresses had been collected by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at the time of the inquest. Scientific Officer, Rini Thomas, (PW64) of DCRB, Thrissur, collected food articles, remnants of vomit and faeces from the police jeep bearing Registration No. KL-01-BW-5724 in which Madhu was brought from Mukkali. She also collected food materials from the forest at Aandiyallachaal. These samples were packed, sealed, labelled, and seized.

The Investigating Officer then prepared the scene mahazar of the place of occurrence at Mukkali junction. The sack and material objects that were in the police jeep during custody were seized as MO3 series, sack and items inside — MO16, MO31, MO20, MO34, MO18, MO21, MO36, MO37, MO12 and MO2 zip used to tie Madhu's hands, were produced as Ext.P99 property list.

At about 4.00 p.m., the Investigating Officer, along with his team and Scientific Officer Rini Thomas, visited the Aandiyallachaal Reserved Forest, where Madhu was allegedly apprehended by the accused. The Investigating Officer was accompanied by PW62, the Section Officer of Mukkali Forest Station, along with forest watchers Perumal and Panali. They seized food articles, spices, a big shopper bag, and a range of material objects and the same were produced as Ext.P100 property list.

On 24.02.2018, all 16 accused were formally arrested as per Ext.P101 series to P103 series arrest memos, arrest intimations, and inspection memos. The Investigating Officer then prepared a section alteration report on 24.02.2018, incorporating penal provisions into what had previously been registered as an unnatural death under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. On 24.02.2018, the Investigating Officer filed a report requesting the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ottapalam to transfer the records of the case to the Sessions Court. He also filed a report on the same day furnishing the complete addresses of all accused.

On 25.02.2018, the accused persons were produced before court along with Ext.P112 remand report.

Materials collected by the Doctor during postmortem were seized by the Investigating Officer on 25.02.2018, and the same were produced as per Ext.P113 property list. Blood samples of all 16 accused were collected by the Nursing Assistant of Tribal Speciality Hospital, Kottathara (PW61).

Vehicle bearing registration No.KL-32-B-5259 (Mahindra Xylo used by Accused No. 1) was seized as per Ext.P28 seizure mahazar; KL-11-H-8559 (Marshal Jeep used by Accused No. 9) was seized as per Ext.P29 seizure mahazar, and the same were produced as Ext.P116 property list.

Manual GD (Ext.P85) of Agali Police Station seized on 25.02.2018 as per Ext.P119 seizure mahazar.

On 26.2.2018, the Investigating Officer, with the assistance of Vinu, CPO from District Cyber Cell, Palakkad, examined the CCTV footage of Sreerag Bakery. The DVR (MO28) and adapter [MO28(a)] were seized as per Ext.P120 seizure mahazar.

Photographs of all accused were taken at Lamiya Studio (Ext.P30 series), by PW38 and the same were seized as per Ext.P69 seizure mahazar.

The caste certificates of the accused persons and Ext.P39 caste certificate of the deceased Madhu were collected through PW51 Tahsildar, Mannarkkad.

The Investigating Officer seized multiple mobile phones from the accused persons, each seizure being duly recorded through separate seizure mahazars. MO27(d) was seized from Accused No. 4 (Aneesh), as per Ext.P66 and produced under Ext.P104 property list. MO27, along with MO27(e) memory card, was seized from Accused No. 7 (Sidhique), under Ext.P62 and produced as Ext.P105. MO27(a) was recovered from Accused No. 5 (Radhakrishnan), as per Ext.P63 and produced under Ext.P106. MO27(b) was seized from Accused No. 9 (Najeeb), under Ext.P64 and produced as Ext.P107 dated 05.03.2018, while MO27(c) was seized from Accused No. 8 (Ubaid), under Ext.P65 and produced as Ext.P108 of the same date. Further, MO25, belonging to Accused No. 14 (Hareesh), was produced by his relative Aanand and seized in accordance with Ext.P58, and subsequently included in Ext.P137. The contents of all these mobile phones, comprising photographs and videos relating to the assault and of Madhu, were extracted and stored in Ext.P92(a) pen drive, accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act issued by the Cyber Forensic authority.

The CCTV footage of Ponniyammal Gurukulam, which was contained in DVR (MO29) and adapter [MO29(a)] were seized as per Ext.P31 seizure mahazar and produced as per Ext.P128 property list.

The call data records of the accused were also obtained and seized as per Ext.P59 seizure mahazar.

On 4.3.2018, the Xylo Car bearing Registration No. KL-32-B-5959, used by Accused No. 15 was seized as per Ext.P15 and the same was produced as Ext.P130 property list. The Motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-05-AJ-498 used by Accused No. 13 was seized as per Ext.P32 seizure mahazar and the same was produced as per Ext.P131 property list.

The recovery of MO24, the wooden stick allegedly used in the assault of Madhu, was effected pursuant to the confession statement of Accused No. 3 (Shamsudheen), marked as Ext.P132. Acting on this disclosure, the Investigating Officer recovered the said weapon in the presence of witnesses. The recovered article was subsequently produced and included in the property list as Ext.P133. Further, the autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-50-D-2908, allegedly connected with the incident, was seized under Ext.P70 seizure mahazar and produced as Ext.P134 property list.

On 05.03.2018, the Investigating Officer seized the CCTV footage from the Anavai Forest Station, including the DVR (MO23) and its adapter [MO23(a)], as per Ext.P44 seizure mahazar, and the same were produced under Ext.P127 property list. PW56, a Forest Department official, was a signatory to the said mahazar. The relevant CCTV visuals from various sources, including Sreerag Bakery, Ponniyammal Gurukulam, and Anavai Forest Station, were subsequently extracted by PW72 Vinu, Cyber Cell Expert of the District Cyber Cell, Palakkad, and stored in a DVD (MO30), as recorded in Ext.P72 seizure mahazar. Further, Ext.P34 comprises the sketch and scene plan of the reserved forest, while Ext.P45 contains details regarding the layout of the forest area. The registration particulars of all vehicles involved in the incident were obtained from the Joint RTO, Mannarkkad, and are marked as Ext.P47 series. Additionally, the medical treatment records of Madhu from institutions including the Mental Health Centre, Kozhikode, and the Government Tribal Specialty Hospital, Kottathara, were seized as per Ext.P67 seizure mahazar and produced under Ext.P145 property list.

On 17.03.2018, the Investigating Officer seized the Facebook and WhatsApp visuals that had been circulated by the accused persons in the WhatsApp group titled "Voice of Attappadi" and on Facebook, as recorded in Ext.P76 seizure mahazar. Screenshots of these visuals, marked as Ext.P35, Ext.P38, and Ext.P143 series, were produced through CW63 (Nikhul) and included in Ext.P144 property list. Further, the Internet Protocol Detail Records (IPDR) evidencing the usage of Facebook by Accused No. 8 (Ubaid) and Accused No. 4 (Aneesh), were seized under Ext.P74 seizure mahazar. The corresponding Facebook business records, along with the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, were produced as Ext.P68 series, Ext.P91, and Ext.P91(a), and collectively included in Ext.P157 Form 15.

The Investigating Officer (PW97) filed the final report on 22.05.2018 before the Special Court For SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases/Additional Sessions Court, Mannarkkad, against all 16 accused persons, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 302, 342, 352, 364, 367 and 368 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Along with the final report, the Investigating Officer submitted Ext.P155 report seeking incorporation of Section 352 of the IPC and Ext.P156 report for deletion of Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. The Investigating Officer also filed Ext.P158 report detailing the mobile phones used by the accused persons and Ext.P110 report requesting the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ottapalam, to transmit the case records to the Sessions Court.

The learned Sessions Court took cognizance of the offence and on the appearance of the accused, the charges were framed by following the procedure. The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty.

In the trial which followed, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW103 to prove its case. Exts. P1 to P168 were exhibited and marked. MO1 to MO37 (a) were also produced and identified. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During such examination, the accused denied all incriminating circumstances and allegations appearing in the evidence against them. Thereafter, the matter was considered under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. As the Court found that the case was not fit for passing an order of acquittal at that stage, the accused were called upon to adduce defence evidence. Accordingly, DW1 to DW8 were examined on behalf of the defence and Exts. D1 to D30 were marked.

The trial court, after an elaborate appreciation of evidence, recorded the following findings:

The identity of Madhu as a member of a Scheduled Tribe stood clearly proved. The caste certificates marked as Ext.P39 and Ext.P163, issued by competent authorities, established that Madhu belonged to the Hindu-Mudugar Scheduled Tribe. The court held that the bare denial by the accused was wholly insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

With respect to electronic evidence, the court found the same to be admissible and reliable. The CCTV footage, mobile phone videos, and other digital records were produced in original through PW95, an expert from the State Cyber Forensic Laboratory, along with certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. In the absence of any material indicating tampering, the court admitted the evidence, placing reliance on the principles laid down in Mukesh & Ors. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors² and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal³ .

The learned Sessions Judge profusely relied on CCTV footage from Mukkali Junction, which visually captured the presence of Madhu in a restrained condition, the gathering of accused persons, the physical positioning near the temple hundi area and the sequence of events immediately preceding Madhu's collapse. The Court accepted the footage to establish the presence and conduct of the accused at the crime scene.

The trial court after evaluation of the evidence noticed that as almost all eyewitnesses turned hostile, the prosecution case had to be evaluated on the basis of electronic evidence, namely, the CCTV footage and mobile phone video recordings. The court relied on the CCTV footage from Sreerag Bakery (Q2 file), Anavai Forest Station (Q1 file), and Ponniyammal Gurukulam (Q3 file), as well as the photos and videos in the mobile phones marked as Q5, Q6, and Q7 stored in Ext.P92(a) pen-drive, to attribute specific overt acts to the accused.

In respect of Accused No. 1, the court concluded that the relevant incident was captured between 3.36.10 and 3.36.13 in Camera 1 and Camera 3 of the Sreerag Bakery CCTV footage (Q2 file). The oral evidence of PW8 (Suresh) and PW19 (Manikandan), who claimed to have witnessed the act, was discarded, as according to the learned Sessions Judge, the CCTV clearly showed that both witnesses were not present at the scene at the relevant time. PW8 had moved towards Keeripaara road at 3.35.05 p.m. and returned only at 3.52.05 p.m., while PW19 was positioned near Joly's shop, about 50–100 meters away, and had already left in an autorickshaw. The CCTV footage revealed that the 1st accused entered the gathering at 3.35.15 p.m., and within a minute, between 3.36.10 and 3.36.13 seconds, a sudden and noticeable disturbance occurred within the crowd, clearly visible in Camera 3. At the same moment, the 7th accused, who was standing in front of Madhu, is seen abruptly rising and raising his hands towards the 1st accused, a spontaneous reaction treated as relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. Immediately thereafter, nearby persons, including Accused No. 14, rushed towards the spot, and once the 1st accused moved away, those present were seen looking in his direction. From these cumulative circumstances, the court concluded that the act of stamping by the 1st accused stood conclusively established, treating the CCTV as an independent and silent witness. f ) With respect to Accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 to 10, and 12 to 15, the court relied extensively on the mobile phone recordings. The Q7 file, which contained audio-visual recordings primarily from the mobile phone of Accused No. 9, revealed that a substantial portion of the assault had taken place in the Aandiyallachaal forest itself, as evidenced by both the visual content and the accompanying voice recordings. The Q6 file, consisting of photographs extracted from the mobile phone of Accused No. 5 [MO27(a)], showed the initial apprehension of Madhu in the forest between 1.00 p.m and 1.23 p.m, which was found to corroborate the timeline of events. The Q5 file, retrieved from the mobile phone of Accused No. 8 [MO27(c)], depicted multiple instances of the accused surrounding and assaulting Madhu, tying his hands first with his own dhoti and later with MO2 (black zip), placing a sack on his shoulders, and parading him through the forest and along the Silent Valley road to Mukkali. This sequence was further corroborated by the CCTV footage from Anavai Forest Station (Q1 file) and Ponniyammal Gurukulam (Q3 file), which showed the group walking along the public road with Madhu in a semi-nude condition. Additionally, MO24, the wooden stick used in the assault, was recovered from Accused No. 3 pursuant to a confession statement, as recorded in Ext.P52 recovery mahazar. The medical evidence confirmed that this weapon could have caused Injury No. 12, which was a rib fracture found on the body of the deceased.

The trial court placed substantial reliance on the medical evidence of PW86, the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Thrissur, to determine the nature and cause of death. The postmortem revealed a total of 44 ante-mortem injuries on the body of Madhu. The court further concluded that the death of Madhu was homicidal. Of these, injuries Nos. 1 to 15 were identified as the cause of death, with injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 12 being categorised as serious, while the remaining injuries (Nos. 4–11 and 13–44) were largely minor contusions and abrasions. The crucial medical opinion was that no single injury, taken in isolation, was sufficient to cause death. Rather, it was the cumulative or conjoint effect of all these injuries that resulted in death. The Doctor further deposed that even after sustaining these injuries, the victim could have continued to behave normally. He could have stood, walked and consumed food and carried out such activities. It was concluded on the basis of the Doctor's evidence that death would occur only after brain edema progressed over a period of 2–3 hours leading to unconsciousness and death.

The defence contention alleging custodial torture by the police was rejected. The argument that PW83, PW84, and PW89 had caused the death of Madhu either in the police jeep or at the Agali Police Station was the principal defence raised by all the accused. No material was brought on record to establish that the injuries were inflicted by the police. The theory of custodial torture was thus completely disbelieved. The time when Madhu was picked up by the police and the time of death at the CHC coupled with the evidence of PW86 to the effect that death would occur only after brain edema progressed over a period of 2–3 hours was used to rule out police torture as contended by the defence.

The motive for the occurrence was held to be established. Evidence of PW28 to PW31 and PW91 disclosed a series of thefts involving food and minor articles from shops in Mukkali and surrounding areas, and the belief among the accused that Madhu was responsible for the same. Though the court did not characterise Madhu as a habitual thief, it held that this belief constituted a relevant and established motive forming part of the chain of circumstances.

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 302 of the IPC but found sufficient material to conclude that the accused had acted collectively, that they had restrained Madhu, that they repeatedly assaulted the deceased, and jointly contributed to the sequence of violence. Holding so, they were convicted for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 342 and 304 Part II r/w. Section 149 of the IPC. The Court held that the common object of the unlawful assembly was not to murder Madhu, but rather to apprehend him and hand him over to the police. This conclusion was based on multiple factors, including the conduct of the accused in taking Madhu to Mukkali, informing the police in advance, and not causing any single fatal injury. The death, according to the court, resulted from the cumulative effect of the injuries inflicted, and not from any premeditated intention to murder. Consequently, the accused were found to have committed the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

Similarly, the charge under Section 364 of the IPC was not attracted as, according to the Court, the purpose of the abduction was not to kill. The charge under Section 368 of the IPC was also found not proved since Madhu was not concealed but taken through public spaces and handed over openly to the police. The Court further acquitted Accused Nos.2 to 15 under Section 352 of the IPC, noting that their actions constituted graver offences involving actual hurt, making the provision inapplicable.

Likewise, the offence under Section 368 of the IPC was found not made out, as Madhu was not concealed but was in fact publicly paraded and ultimately handed over to the police, with prior intimation having been given by the 3rd accused.

Though most of the witnesses had turned hostile, the learned Sessions Judge relied on their evidence to hold that Madhu was wrongfully confined at Mukkali Junction near the temple hundi, that the accused were present at the scene, and that the 1st accused had stamped upon the chest of the deceased.

The court also held that there is reliable evidence to conclude that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly, first in the forest area and later at Mukkali Junction, and acted in furtherance of a shared common object to assault, restrain, and humiliate Madhu.

Insofar as Accused No. 4 was concerned, the only allegation was that he had photographed Madhu and circulated the visuals. The court held that taking photographs was not part of the common object of the unlawful assembly, which was confined to apprehending and assaulting Madhu. In the absence of any overt act causing bodily injury or participation in the assault, vicarious liability under Section 149 of the IPC could not be fastened on him.

With respect to the charge under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, no witness testified that Accused No. 4 had posted the visuals on social media, and the Investigating Officer's opinion in that regard was held to be insufficient in law. Consequently, Accused No. 4 was acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C.

With respect to Accused No. 11, the learned Sessions Judge went on to hold that other than being seen in the CCTV footage at Mukkali as part of the crowd, no overt act had been proved. There was no evidence of assault, wrongful confinement, or verbal abuse. The allegation that he had called Madhu a thief was not supported by any oral testimony, and the CCTV footage contained no audio. Relying on settled precedents, the court held that a passive bystander who joins a gathering out of curiosity, without sharing the common object, cannot be made vicariously liable under Section 149 of the IPC. He too was acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C.

Insofar as Accused No. 16 is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge held that the evidence did not establish that he was part of the unlawful assembly at the time of commission of the principal offences, that he had no knowledge or participation in its common object, and had committed only a single, isolated act of minimal force. Consequently, it was held that the accused could not be held vicariously liable under Section 149 of the IPC or for any graver offences, and his act was reduced to mere criminal force punishable under Section 352 of the IPC.

The Court also held that the offence Section 294(b) of the IPC was not made out. Though certain words were discernible in the Q7 file, the court found that the utterances were not made in a public setting in the presence of others, and the specific abusive words were not clearly set out in the final report.

The charge under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, relating to circulation of visuals to humiliate, was also found not proved. Despite the production of Facebook business records and WhatsApp screenshots, no witness identified any particular accused as having posted the content. The administrator of the WhatsApp group was not examined, and given that several persons had recorded videos at the scene, the identity of the person who uploaded the visuals remained unestablished. The court held that the Investigating Officer's opinion alone was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Finally, the enhanced punishment provisions under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act were held inapplicable. The court found no evidence to establish that the accused had knowledge of Madhu's caste at the time of the incident. The motive, as found earlier, was based on the belief that Madhu had committed theft, and not on his caste identity. The court held that such knowledge is a personal and specific fact that cannot be inferred from video footage or general circumstances, and in the absence of oral evidence establishing such knowledge, the ingredients of these provisions were not satisfied. All the accused were accordingly acquitted of these charges as well.

Sri. Jeevesh, the learned Special Public Prosecutor and Sri.C.K.Radhakrishnan (Chalil), the learned counsel appearing for the victim, advanced elaborate submissions assailing the findings of the Trial Court. The learned counsel would take pains to highlight the fundamental character of what happened on 22nd February 2018. According to the learned counsel, a mentally ill tribal man — homeless, malnourished, wandering in the forests of Attappadi — was hunted down by an organised mob of shopkeepers, dragged from the forest, stripped, tied, beaten with a wooden stick, paraded half-naked for 3 kms through a public road, filmed for social media circulation, assaulted again at a crowded junction, and died within hours. They pointed out that every bit of the above gruesome act was captured by the perpetrators themselves on mobile phones and on the CCTV cameras placed by the forest department and some shop keepers. The evidence of the brutal violence was permanently recorded across 44 wounds on the body of Madhu. According to the learned counsel, though the Sessions Court found the charge against the accused proved beyond reasonable doubt, it proceeded to hold only 14 of the 16 accused guilty. The court then proceeded to hold that this was not murder but only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court also acquitted Accused No. 4, who participated actively and filmed the entire spectacle and Accused No.11, who stood throughout and called Madhu a thief of all offences. A fleabite sentence was awarded to Accused No. 16 against whom there was convincing evidence to show that he had kicked a tied, helpless, dying man. The Court also refused to convict any of the accused under the graver provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, notwithstanding that the prosecution has let in convincing evidence that Madhu was a tribal man which fact was known to all the accused. It is against these specific findings — the acquittals of Accused Nos. 4 and 11, the lesser conviction of Accused No. 16, the downgrading of the offence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC, and the failure to apply the SC/ST (PoA) Act, that the State and the victim have advanced their arguments before this Court.

Against the Acquittal of Accused No. 4 (Aneesh):

a. The CCTV footage from Q2 file (Sreerag Bakery) and the forensic report (Ext.P92) conclusively establish the physical presence of Accused No.4 at Mukkali junction throughout the relevant period. Accused No.4 was specifically and deliberately at the location where Madhu was being held, and he was engaged in an act of filming which required him to consciously direct his phone at the victim and operate it.

b. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Accused No.4 primarily on the ground that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to apprehend and beat Madhu, and that taking photographs fell outside the scope of that common object. This reasoning is fundamentally flawed according to the learned counsel. Section 149 of the IPC does not require that every specific act committed by each member of an unlawful assembly be individually enumerated in the common object. The section fastens liability on every member for every act done in prosecution of the common object, or which the members knew was likely to be committed in prosecution of that object. The common object, as found by the Sessions Judge himself, included the public humiliation, public degradation, and public insult of Madhu.

c. It was argued that the photography of a bound, stripped, and brutalised man in the midst of an ongoing mob attack is not a neutral or extraneous act. The mobile phone of Accused No. 4 contained three photographs and one video of Madhu taken during the incident and the EXIF metadata confirmed by PW95 establishes the time and device. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge found the social media posting charge unproved against Accused No.4 because no witness specifically identified him as the person who posted the images online. However, Ext.P68(a) is the Facebook business record associated with the account of the 4th accused which was accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Ext.P91 is the certified copy of the IPDR (Internet Protocol Detail Record) establishing A4's specific internet usage from his device at the relevant time on 22 February 2018. The mobile phone Q4 itself contained photographs of Madhu captured during the incident. The photographs were communicated through WhatsApp, as the file naming convention in the EXIF data makes clear. The combination of the account record, internet usage record, and device content creates a closed evidentiary circle. In these circumstances, Section 106 of the Evidence Act would squarely apply. It was the burden of Accused No.4 to explain how the images from his phone found their way into social media circulation, and he offered not a word of explanation. The Sessions Court identified this silence but did not draw the consequential adverse inference.

d. The Supreme Court in Mizaji v. State of UP⁴ has held that active participation in any form, including acts that further the collective enterprise, can constitute membership of an unlawful assembly. The capturing of these photographs, in context, is precisely such an act. It does not require Accused No.4 to have struck a blow. What it requires is that he did something, while a member of the assembly, that advanced the common object.

e. Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act specifically criminalises the recording and circulation of images with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Tribe. The Sessions Judge acquitted Accused No.4 on this charge for want of proof of posting. But the act of recording itself with the intent to humiliate is established on the evidence.

Against the Acquittal of Accused No. 11 (Abdul Kareem):

a. A11 was a shopkeeper at Mukkali, which area was the target of a series of thefts attributed to Madhu. The CCTV footage from Q2 establishes that A11 was present at Mukkali junction from the time Madhu was made to sit in front of the treasury box to the time the police arrived and took him away. His was a continuous presence in the immediate vicinity of an ongoing assault on a tied, helpless man. Relying on the observations of the Apex Court in Lalji And Others v. State Of U.P.⁵ , it was urged that prolonged presence at the scene of an unlawful assembly, without any attempt at dissociation, is itself sufficient to infer membership of that assembly. It is not necessary in every case to prove an overt act of physical violence. What is required is presence with knowledge of the common object and the absence of any effort to separate oneself from the group committing the violence.

b. The learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the 11th accused, has concluded that there is no evidence of the said accused calling Madhu a thief in public, and that the CCTV footage carried no audio. This finding is erroneous as the prosecution had established that the witnesses who were cited to prove this fact had turned adverse to the prosecution to give the accused a clean chit. The Sessions Judge has wrongly taken the view that Accused No. 11 might have been an innocent onlooker. As a matter of fact, Accused No. 11 was specifically named in the Ext. P80 FIS recorded within hours of the incident, and he was identified in the CCTV footage.

Against the conviction of Accused No. 16 (Muneer) for a lesser offence under Section 352 of the IPC:

a. Accused No. 16 is the son of PW31, a shopkeeper who had filed the theft case against Madhu in Crime No. 524/2016 in Agali Police Station. Accused No. 16 was cited as CW2 in that said case. He knew exactly who Madhu was. He knew why the mob had brought Madhu to Mukkali.The video evidence shows Accused No. 16 deliberately walking up behind Madhu and kicking him on the back with his leg. This was a deliberate act against Madhu. The Sessions Judge characterised the act of Accused No. 16 as a "stray assault", which is an erroneous finding. Accused No. 16 was fully aware of what was happening and his act was an act of deliberate violence against a helpless person. A person with that level of personal knowledge and personal connection to the events cannot be treated as an innocent curious spectator who happened to wander into the situation. Accused No. 16 arrived at Mukkali with full awareness and motive.

b. The learned Sessions Judge declined to apply Section 323 of the IPC to A16's act on the basis that Madhu's facial expression in the video showed "annoyance rather than pain." This, according to the learned counsel, is an entirely unsound basis for an acquittal for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. By the time Accused No.16 struck Madhu, Madhu had already sustained forty-four injuries. He was mentally ill, severely weakened, and had his hands tied. His capacity to register or visibly display pain was profoundly compromised by his ailment and because of the fact that he was cornered by a large group of people. The definition of "hurt" under Section 319 of the IPC requires only that bodily pain be caused and sets no threshold of severity, no requirement of visible expression, and no minimum duration. A blow with a leg to a person's back would necessarily cause some bodily pain. The threshold of Section 319 or 323 of the IPC is deliberately low because the legislative intent was to protect the bodily integrity of every person from every form of intentional physical contact that causes pain.

c. Accused No. 16 joined the assembly at Mukkali with knowledge of its common object. He was present at the assembly and he participated by striking Madhu. These facts, taken together, establish that Accused No. 16 was a knowing participant in the unlawful assembly and not a stranger who happened to commit an impulsive, isolated act. If Accused No. 16 was a member of the unlawful assembly, then Section 149 of the IPC applies to him as it applies to the other members, and he becomes liable for all the offences committed by the assembly in prosecution of its common object including the offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

Section 302 of the IPC vs Section 304 Part II of the IPC:

a. The learned Sessions Judge evaluated the entire evidence through the subjective lens of the purported objectives of the accused. The Court erroneously concluded that all that the accused wanted was to hand over Madhu to the police for which purpose they had called the Sub Inspector of Police beforehand. They also filmed the entire transaction openly. He concluded that if the intention was to murder they could have pushed him down from the forest down the cliffs. From these post-event inferences, he concluded there was no murderous intent. According to the learned counsel, by applying the law in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab⁶ , what the court had to consider was whether it has been proven that (a) a bodily injury was caused; (b) the injury was intentionally inflicted; and (c) the injury was, objectively assessed, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The question is not what the accused subjectively intended to achieve. The question is only whether the injury was deliberately inflicted and judged by medical science and common understanding, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Reliance is placed on the Postmortem Certificate and the evidence of PW86 and it is urged that the injury Nos. 1 and 2, together with uncal grooving (injury No. 3), had caused Madhu's death. No amount of reasoning about what the accused "could have done differently" changes the character of those acts or the nature of those injuries. The said reasoning is nothing but speculation and purely hypothetical and was entirely irrelevant to the legal analysis of the actual violence that was committed.

b. The question of application of Clause fourthly of Section 300 of the IPC was not considered. The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya⁷ drew the distinction between Section 302 and Section 304 of the IPC in terms of degree of probability. When the act is so imminently dangerous that death is not merely a possibility but a near-inevitable consequence, clause fourthly of Section 300 of the IPC is attracted. The threshold was crossed in this case. A mentally ill, malnourished, tribal man was subjected to sustained mob violence over several hours, and he was inflicted with forty-four injuries leading to severe head injuries and fractured ribs. He was then paraded for three kilometres in the heat, his hands tied, without any medical attention, in a weakened and deteriorating condition and he was made to carry a heavy sack. By the time Accused No.1 stamped him at Mukkali, Madhu was already in a state of serious neurological deterioration from the brain edema that had been building for two to three hours. The accused chose to deny Madhu medical care, and continued to subject him to physical abuse and the same contributed to his death. In those circumstances, death was not merely probable but was inevitable.

c. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in taking a view that all accused persons cannot be attributed with intent to commit murder but merely to hand Madhu over to the police. It was the 3rd accused who had called PW91, the police officer. The criminal liability of the rest of the accused who caused serious physical injuries must be assessed on the basis of what they did and not on the basis of what one of them said on the phone to a police officer. Under Section 149 of the IPC, each member is independently liable for their own acts as well as for the acts of others in the assembly. Just calling the police after committing serious violence is not a legal exculpation of that violence. The moral and legal quality of each violent act must be assessed at the moment of commission, not retroactively modified by subsequent conduct. The Sessions Court conflated post-event conduct with the intent at the time of the act, which is erroneous.

Sentence and Compensation :

a. The Sessions Judge found that the conjoint effect of all injuries formed a vicious cycle causing Madhu's death, and that all the accused who contributed to this vicious cycle are members of the same unlawful assembly. The learned Sessions Judge then assessed the murder question by looking at the individual act of each of the accused in isolation and finally holding that no single act was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. If the cause of death is the conjoint effect of all injuries, and if all the accused who caused those injuries are members of the same unlawful assembly, then the proper question under Section 149 of the IPC is whether the cumulative act of the entire assembly satisfies the requirements of Section 300 of the IPC.

Acquittal for the offences under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act:

a. Section 8 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PoA) Act, as amended in 2016, provides that when the prosecution establishes that an offence under the Act has been committed against a member of a Scheduled Tribe, the court shall presume that the accused had the requisite knowledge of the victim's caste or tribal identity unless the contrary is proved by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found the accused guilty under Section 3(1)(d) of the Act for parading a member of the Scheduled Tribe in a semi-naked condition through a public place. None of the accused offered any evidence to rebut the presumption. In those circumstances, the charges under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) ought to have been held proved.

b. The accused were long-term residents and traders in Mukkali, a town located within one of the most well-known Scheduled Tribe-dominant areas in Kerala. They had been conducting their businesses in that area for years. Several of them had prior encounters with Madhu himself and some of them had even lodged complaints of theft. In these circumstances, an inference of knowledge of Madhu's tribal identity does not require any elaborate evidentiary foundation. It follows as a matter of common sense and common observation from the context in which the accused lived and operated.

c. Accused No. 3 called PW91, Sub Inspector of Police (Subin) and informed him that a person found in "Aandiyallachaal forest" was being brought to Mukkali. Nothing more is required to establish A3's clear knowledge of Madhu's tribal identity made in the course of the commission of the offence.

d. In Crime No. 524 of 2016 (Ext.P89), the theft case filed by PW31, Madhu was the accused. In the investigation of that case, Accused No. 16 (PW31's son) was cited as CW2. It has come out that he had identified Madhu in CCTV footage in connection with that theft. He had formally participated in a criminal investigation as an identifying witness in a case where Madhu's identity was specifically at issue. That knowledge is evidence of the group's collective awareness of Madhu's identity.

e. The motive of the group was the belief entertained by the accused that Madhu was a thief and he committed thefts. The WhatsApp group messages referred to in the electronic evidence described in terms that include his community. The very characterisation used in the group message, according to the evidence, singled Madhu out as a person connected to the tribal community. The accused targeted this specific person, in this specific location, in this specific manner and the prior interactions all point to an awareness of his tribal identity that cannot be disentangled from the targeting itself.

The sentences imposed do not reflect the gravity of the offence. Even accepting the Section 304 Part II of the IPC finding at its face, the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment imposed uniformly on 13 accused for the killing of a mentally ill tribal man and for filming and circulating the same, is manifestly inadequate. The maximum punishment under Section 304 Part II of the IPC is ten years. The sentencing norm in cases of this gravity must be calibrated to the seriousness of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and the deliberate, organised, collective nature of the violence.

The compensation awarded under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C is on the lower side. The Sessions Court directed that 75% of the fine be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of Madhu and also addressed the District Legal Services Authority for victim compensation. It is submitted that the compensation awarded is inadequate, having regard to the direction of the Apex Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra⁸ and in Sangeet v. State of Haryana⁹ that courts must consider compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. in every case, mandate it where appropriate, and record specific reasons if it is not awarded adequately. This Court, in exercising its appellate powers under Section 386 of the Cr.P.C., has the power to enhance compensation independently of the fine, and the victim presses for that relief.

The peculiar facts and character of this case demands the full rigour of the law. It is pointed out that the Sessions Court had observed that "this is the first mob lynching case in God's Own Country. Let it be the last." An organised, mob killing of a mentally ill tribal man, which was documented by the perpetrators themselves and circulated in a WhatsApp group named for the tribal belt in which it occurred, is precisely the kind of case for which the SC/ST (PoA) Act was enacted and for which the penal provisions of the IPC must be applied in their full force. A conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC with a sentence of seven years, with acquittals for those who photographed and watched, and three months for one who kicked, is not the message that the law sends in a case like this, and it is not the message this Court should permit to stand.

a. The learned counsel appearing for the accused argued that since most material witnesses had turned hostile and the CCTV did not cover the injuries allegedly inflicted inside the forest area, no specific overt act attributable to any individual accused was proved.

b. The main defence that was taken by all 16 accused was that the death of Madhu while in the custody of the police was due to police brutality and not due to their acts. It was contended that Madhu was alive and uninjured when the accused handed him to the police at Mukkali at approximately 3:30 p.m., and the 44 injuries found on his body at the postmortem, which was conducted two days later, were inflicted by police personnel, either in the police jeep during transit or at Agali Police Station.

c. The defence came out with a detailed, layered attack on every procedural step taken by the police from the moment Madhu was taken into custody. It was contended that the failure on the part of the police to comply with the procedure was not an innocent lapse but an attempt to conceal the culpability of the police.

d. It was forcefully urged that the police officers who took Madhu into custody at Mukkali at approximately 3.30 p.m. violated each of the formalities that are to be complied with by the police as laid down in D.K Basu v. State Of West Bengal¹⁰ . No arrest memo was prepared by PW83, Sub Inspector of Police (Prasad Varkky), the arresting officer, at the time of arrest as mandated under law. Had the police prepared an inspection memo at Mukkali at 3.30 p.m. recording Madhu's physical condition as observed at that point, there would have been a baseline against which the 44 postmortem injuries could be assessed. It was contended that the injuries found on the body of Madhu were inflicted in the 45-minute window between 3.30 p.m. and 4.15 p.m., during which Madhu was entirely under police control.

e. It is pointed out that the CCTNS entry made at Agali Police Station on 22.02.2018 was recorded at 5:02 p.m. by the GD charge officer Rejimon and it is stated therein that Madhu had died "while being brought to Agali Police Station" in the police jeep. This would throw serious doubts on the case set up by the prosecution.

f. It is contended that when PW83 received information at Mukkali that a person had been injured by a mob and was being brought to the police, he was duty-bound under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. to register a First Information Report incorporating cognizable offences in view of the law laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh¹¹ . Instead, PW83 registered only an unnatural death report under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. at 5.15 p.m. By that time, Madhu had already died, and the body had been shifted to the mortuary. It is urged that registering an FIR under Section 154 with penal provisions would have: (a) triggered mandatory investigation procedures, (b) required formal documentation of the accused persons named in the FIS, and (c) created a contemporaneous record of police receipt of a seriously injured person.

g. In the FIS (Ext.P80) itself, PW83, who recorded the same, wrote that Madhu himself told him the names and phone numbers of seven persons who had attacked him. This was impossible as a dying, mentally ill man with brain edema could not have stated the phone numbers of the assailants. Nothing more was required to show that the FIS was a fabricated document to create a version of events in which information about the attackers came from Madhu himself rather than from the police's own knowledge acquired through other means.

h. Curiously, the FIR (Ext.P81) was registered manually at 5.15 p.m. The contention advanced by the prosecution was that this was on account of a power failure at Agali Police Station at the relevant time and the CCTNS computer system was not working. The evidence let in by the defence by examining DW2 (Assistant Engineer of KSEB, Agali Section) and DW3 (Assistant Engineer, 11 KV Sub Station, Mannarkkad) would reveal that such an assertion was false. Reliance was also placed on Exts.D14 (complaint register of KSEB Agali dated 22.02.2018), D15 (LT interruption register), D16 (HT interruption register), D17 (interruption register of 33 KV Sub Station, Agali), and D18 (operators' daily register of 33 KV Sub Station, Agali dated 22.02.2018) and it was argued that at point of time was a complaint registered with KSEB regarding power failure at Agali Police Station on the relevant date

CCTV cameras were installed at the Agali Police Station, if that be the case, the investigating officer was obligated to verify the CCTV footage at the Station to determine whether Madhu was brought into the station, and if so, in what condition. The failure to produce the said document would only reveal that the attempt was to conceal the incident of custodial torture.

j. The case of the prosecution specifically is that Madhu vomited at Mele Thavalam, which is located approximately 10 km from Mukkali on the road to Agali. The police jeep was stopped briefly and thereafter continued to Agali CHC, which was situated about 8 km away. Between Mukkali and Agali, several private hospitals were available and there is no reason why Madhu was not admitted in those hospitals for treatment.

k. DW1, the Senior Nursing Officer of Agali CHC, produced the OP register (Ext.D12) and the injection register (Ext.D13) for the relevant period. In Ext.D13, the time of admission of Madhu had been changed from 4:25 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. This was a clear attempt to manipulate the police records to create a shorter window between police custody and death, thereby making it appear there was less time for police to have inflicted injuries.

l. No external injuries were noted by the police at the time of custody but when the postmortem was conducted by a team of doctors 44 injuries were found on various parts of the body which include fractured ribs, head contusions causing brain edema, tramline contusions, and internal haematomas.

m. Dr. Lima Francis (PW56), the duty doctor at Agali CHC, was influenced by senior police officials to record a clinical note that portrayed a different picture of the injuries on Madhu's body. The certificate prepared by her was also manipulated.

n. The learned Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in conducting its own visual identification of the accused without any scientific methodology. In the case on hand, the prosecution examined PW38, a photographer, who took photos of the accused persons after their arrest in a neutral background and those photographs were marked as 'S' series photographs. Thereafter, PW95, the scientific expert, compared the photographs with video footage of the accused and identified the accused in Ext.P92 report. The court also relied on the evidence of PW2, PW27 and PW97 to pin the accused as the persons in the video footage. This manner of analysis cannot be relied upon to identify the accused in a case of this nature.

Arguments advanced by the Sri. T. Shajith, the learned counsel appearing for accused No. 1 :

a. According to the learned counsel, PW83, the Officer who recorded the FIS, has falsely included the name of Accused No.1 with a view to persuade him to become a witness for the prosecution at the trial stage. According to the learned counsel, except A1 and A11, none of the persons named in the FI Statement have been arrayed as accused in the final report. This would reveal that the implication of A1 and the other accused are merely an afterthought to give a clean chit to the police officers in whose custody Madhu had sustained injuries.

b. According to the learned counsel, Accused No. 1 had come to Mukkali as he was informed that his granddaughter had eloped with a boy. He had come along with his son (Riyas- DW8/PW45), younger brother (Abdu Rahiman- DW6), and son-in-law (Nasar- DW5) to his daughter's house at Mukkali to sort out this matter. In order to substantiate his contention, he examined DW5, DW6, DW7 (K.V. Salam- Secretary of the Jama Ath), and DW8 as witnesses. Their version is unchallenged and there was no reason for the learned Sessions Judge to conclude that it was as informed by the rest of the accused that the 1st accused had come to Mukkali to wreck his vengeance.

c. It has come out in evidence that hundreds of persons had gathered at Mukkali, and not all of them have been arrayed as accused in the case. The presence of the accused at the scene has also been explained by examining credible witnesses. In that view of the matter, the mere presence of A1 in and around Mukkali is no reason to conclude that the 1st accused had also shared the common object of the rest of the accused. Reliance was placed on the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Subal Ghorai and Ors. v. Govt. of West Bengal and Ors.¹² , Muthu Naicker and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu¹³ , Baladin and Ors. v. State of U.P.¹⁴ to substantiate his contention.

d. It was brought out during the cross-examination of PW2 that the Aandiyallachaal area and the area near the treasure box were rocky, and that while walking through a rocky area, one might naturally lift one's leg. Going by the evidence of PW2, all that he had seen was the 1st accused lifting his leg and nothing more. According to the learned counsel, Accused No.1 lifted his leg to navigate rocks, and not for stamping Madhu.

e. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that PW8 and PW19 are planted witnesses and they had no occasion to witness the stamping of the deceased by the 1st accused. The learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to the CCTV footage and timeline relied on by the prosecution to show that PW8 (Suresh) was not within the capturing area of the camera at 3.36.10–13 seconds and that he had moved towards Keeripaara road at 3.35.05 p.m. and returned only at 3.52.05 p.m. It was also emphatically submitted that PW19 was near Joly's shop (50–100 metres away) and had left in an autorickshaw before 3.36 p.m.

f. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has seriously erred in relying on the CCTV footage and in concluding that the disturbance in the crowd, A7's reaction, the rushing of bystanders were enough to prove the alleged act of stamping. No such finding was warranted even if the footage is meticulously evaluated, contended the learned counsel.

g. The learned Sessions Judge, after disbelieving the evidence of PWs 8 and 19, who were cited to prove the incident, went on to watch the CCTV footage and based on the same came to the conclusion that the act of A7 raising his hands and the disturbance among the people who were standing around Madhu revealed that A1 had stamped Madhu. According to the learned counsel, the observation by the learned Trial Judge is his personal observation and no opportunity was given to the 1st accused to challenge the res gestae evidence. It is also pointed out that if the same was an incriminating circumstance, an opportunity ought to have been granted to the 1st accused to explain the same, the same was not done. Relying on the observations in Pritam Singh and Another v. State of Punjab¹⁵ , it is argued that the observations and findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge after viewing the CCTV footage without granting an opportunity to the defence to explain the same is illegal.

h. It is submitted that even if it is held that the 1st accused had stamped on the deceased without admitting the same, his action would only attract offence under Section 323 of the IPC. Reliance is placed on Thomas v. State of Kerala¹⁶ to substantiate his contention.

It was argued by the learned counsel that the 1st accused never went to the forest, had no connection with the plans of the other accused, and was merely a casual observer at Mukkali who came for a family purpose.

Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for Accused Nos.2 and 5, advanced the following submissions:

a. There was no oral evidence and no CCTV footage showing Accused No.2 or Accused No.5 individually committing any specific violent act against Madhu. The eyewitnesses who might have deposed to such acts had all turned hostile. In those circumstances, Section 149 of the IPC cannot be invoked to convict them for injuries they were not individually proved to have inflicted.

b. The learned counsel contended that PW10 and PW11, both serving as forest watchers, are the primary witnesses relied upon by the prosecution to establish the presence of the 2nd accused in the forest. However, it was pointed out that PW11, during the initial stage of his examination, did not support the case of the prosecution. Subsequently, he appeared before the office of the Public Prosecutor, participated in witness protection proceedings conducted at the District Judge level, and was thereafter recalled. In the second stage of his examination, he reneged from his earlier stance and supported the prosecution. A similar pattern, according to the learned counsel, is evident in the testimony of PW10. In his examination-in-chief at the first stage, PW10 stated that he had seen "some persons" walking through the forest at a distance of approximately 10 - 70 metres, and that he identified one among them as the 2nd accused (Marakkar). However, during cross-examination at that stage, the defence elicited statements suggesting that the witness was observing from a distance ranging between 500 metres and 1 kilometre—a range from which, it was argued, identification would be humanly impossible. When recalled for further examination, PW10 once again supported the prosecution and reaffirmed that he had seen and identified Accused No.2. In light of these inconsistencies across different stages of their testimony, the learned counsel submitted that both witnesses have given materially conflicting versions, thereby rendering their evidence unreliable for the purpose of identification. It was therefore argued that their testimony cannot be safely relied upon for sustaining a conviction. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh¹⁷ and Malkhansingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh¹⁸ , wherein it has been held that identification evidence must be approached with caution, particularly in circumstances where there exists a possibility of the witness being influenced.

c. According to the learned counsel, accused Nos. 2 and 5 were not present in the forest at the relevant time. It was submitted that the trial court nevertheless proceeded to rely upon CCTV footage to accept the prosecution's version regarding the role allegedly played by the said accused. The learned counsel contended that the method and manner in which the CCTV footage was relied upon is contrary to the prescribed procedure, and, on that ground alone, no reliance ought to have been placed on such material. It was further urged that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted in the present case. Instead, the witnesses are stated to have identified the accused after being shown photographs and video footage by the police. According to the learned counsel, such identification is inherently tainted and lacks evidentiary value, as it carries a serious risk of suggestion and influence, thereby rendering the identification unsafe to be relied upon.

d. The mobile phone bearing SIM No. 9961268715, from which the three calls to Accused No.9 (Najeeb) were made at 12.17 p.m., 12.21 p.m., and 12.22 p.m. by the 2nd accused, was never seized by the Investigating Officer. Accused No.2 was not holding his mobile phone at the time of his arrest on 24.02.2018. According to the learned counsel, the CDR (Ext.P42 series) cannot be attributed to Accused No.2. Any person could have been using the said SIM on that day.

e. There is no evidence that either Accused No.2 or Accused No.5 carried any weapons to the forest. Section 148 of the IPC requires proof that the person was armed. The inference that each accused was armed is not supported by the evidence.

f. The learned counsel submitted that the word parading is not defined anywhere, and if that be the case, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in finding the accused guilty for the offences under Section 3(1)(d) of the IPC.

g. Insofar as Ext.P80 (FI statement) is concerned, the names of either Accused No.2 or Accused No.5 do not find a place therein. It was much later, to conceal the police atrocity that the names of the appellants were included and they were framed in the case.

h. Data from the phone of Accused No. 5 [MO27(a)], including GPS coordinates and photographs, were extensively used by the prosecution to prove the incident which took place in the forest. The FSL report shows that MO27(a) was received at the State Forensic Science Laboratory along with other items only on 27.03.2018, about 32 days after the incident. The seizure mahazar (Ext.P63) of the phone reveals that the phone was seized from the custody of the 5th accused. The chain of custody has not been proved, and there is every chance that the data, or GPS location data could have been accessed or tampered with during this period.

The private laptop of PW72 was used during the trial to view the footage. This is an erroneous procedure.

j. The learned counsel submitted that Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 was wrongly applied by the learned Sessions Judge to the disadvantage of the accused. It was urged that Section 106 is an exception intended for truly exceptional situations where the prosecution cannot, without disproportionate difficulty, prove facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused. Extending it beyond that would undermine the foundational principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt.

Sri. Anil Mohammed, the learned counsel appearing for the accused Nos. 3, 6, and 8 to 10, has advanced the following submissions:

a. The learned counsel submitted that the electronic evidence was analysed by PW95, an expert from the forensic science Lab who is not a notified examiner of electronic evidence as defined under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act. It is submitted that only the evidence of an examiner under Section 79A of the Act can be considered as relevant and accepted as admissible.

b. It is urged that if the prosecution version that Madhu had sustained 44 injuries, including a rib fracture, is believed as such, he could not have behaved normally in the CCTV footage, which is profusely relied on by the prosecution. He submitted that the deceased can be seen sitting, appearing alert, and reacting to stimuli. According to the learned counsel, nothing more was required to conclude that the injuries were inflicted by police and not by the accused.

c. It is further urged that the recovery of MO24 (wooden stick) on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of Accused No.3 as per Ext.P52 recovery mahazar ought to have been rejected on multiple grounds. The recovery was not proven in accordance with law and the alleged recovery of an ordinary stick was from an open place accessible to all. No evidence was adduced to establish the presence of Madhu's blood, tissue, or DNA on MO 24. However, without carrying out such an exercise, the prosecution has linked the rib injury found on the body of Madhu to an infliction of injury by Accused No. 3 using MO24.

d. The learned counsel submitted that Accused No. 3 called PW91, Sub Inspector of Police (Subin) once before reaching Mukkali, informing him of the apprehension of Madhu and once after reaching Mukkali about the fact that Madhu had reached Mukkali. This, according to the learned counsel, would reveal that A3 did not nurse any intent to harm Madhu. The conduct of Accused No.3 negates the knowledge element required for Section 304 Part II of the IPC and this aspect of the matter was not considered by the learned Sessions Judge.

e. Insofar as Accused No.6 is concerned, the only overt acts attributed to him is the alleged fisting of Madhu on his dorsum area. However, the prosecution has not placed on record any video or photograph specifically showing Accused No. 6 individually committing an act of violence. In order to hold that the 6th accused liable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC, it needs to be established that Accused No. 6 knew, as a member of the assembly, that the collective acts were likely to cause death. That threshold has not been crossed.

f. The prosecution has attempted to establish the presence of Accused No. 6 through CCTV (from Ponniyammal Gurukulam in Q3 file from 12:41:15 pm onwards) and the inference drawn from the Q7 video. It is submitted that the name of the 6th accused does not appear in any CCTV identification report of PW95, and no weapon or mobile phone was seized from him. In other words, the prosecution at the most has established only his presence and not his membership of the unlawful assembly.

g. The learned counsel submitted that the contention of the defence that the electronic evidence had been tampered with was not properly considered by the Sessions Court. It is also submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish that the mobile phones seized from the individual accused in fact belonged to them. It is submitted that though Accused No. 8 was arrested on 24.02.2018, his mobile phone MO27(c) was seized only on 05.03.2018, as is evident from the property list (Ext.P108). The authorship of the photos and media in the phone cannot, therefore, be placed on Accused No. 8.

h. The learned counsel submitted that the specific identified acts of Accused No.8 are that he had taken photographs and video of Madhu (Q5 file content from his phone), and that he was present in the forest and at Mukkali. It is submitted that the prosecution has not let in any evidence to establish that Accused No.8 had caused any injury by physically assaulting Madhu. A person whose own device records the incident but who is not himself seen in any video or photograph personally assaulting the victim occupies a qualitatively different position from those who physically struck Madhu.

Insofar as Accused No. 9 is concerned, the allegation is that Accused No.9 provided his Marshal Jeep (KL-11-H-8559) for the group's journey to Vandikkadavu. According to the learned counsel, providing a vehicle for a journey does not establish that Accused No.9 shared the common object of causing grievous hurt to Madhu.

j. The finding against Accused No.10 is that his autorickshaw with Registration No. KL-50-D-2908 was used to transport the core group. It was also found that it was Accused No.10 who had placed the sack containing rice and stolen items on Madhu's shoulders, as is visible from Q7 video file. The prosecution further alleges that Accused No. 10 fisted Madhu on the dorsum at the forest stage and Vandikkadavu. According to the learned counsel, the mere fact that A10's autorickshaw was used by the group does not establish that he was a member of the unlawful assembly.

k. The accused were convicted under Section 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w. Section 149 of the IPC for parading Madhu semi-nakedly through the public road. The caste of each accused to establish that they were not members of SC/ST community was not individually proven for any of them through independent evidence.

l. The accused were convicted under Section 367 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC after entering upon a finding that they had abducted Madhu for the purpose of causing grievous hurt. According to the learned counsel, even if the prosecution case is admitted as such the common object of the assembly was to apprehend Madhu and to hand him over to the police. In that view of the matter, the necessary ingredient of Section 367 of the IPC that Madhu was abducted for the purpose of causing grievous hurt will be caused.

Sri. P.Vijayabhanu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A8, A9 and A16 advanced the following submissions:

a. No evidence was let in by the prosecution to establish that the 8th accused had assaulted Madhu. One of the main allegations is that the mobile phone of A8, which was marked as MO27(c), contained 7 photographs and videos of Madhu along with the accused and that the said videograph contained the footage of Accused No.6 striking a blow with his knee on Madhu's back. According to the learned counsel, the integrity of MO27(c) has not been verified and the same could not have been relied upon.

b. It is further submitted that Accused No.8 was arrested on 24.02.2018 but his mobile phone was seized only on 05.03.2018 as is evident from Ext.P108 property list. The contents of the phone cannot, therefore, be used to implicate Accused No.8 in the crime.

c. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted Accused No.8 of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act on the ground that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving that Accused No. 8 had posted on social media certain videographs showing the capture of Madhu and assault. After having acquitted the accused for the said offence, there was no justification in imposing the maximum sentence awarded to the other accused to A8.

d. Insofar as Accused No.9 is concerned, it was argued by the learned counsel that the mere fact that he had provided the Marshal Jeep bearing Reg. No. KL-11-H 8559 to the other accused will not establish that Accused No.9 shared the common object of the unlawful assembly. The finding of the court that Accused No. 9 was the organizer of the group was not based on legal evidence.

e. The Court failed to note that none of the videos, Q7 file in particular, produced by the prosecution before the court showed the presence of Accused No.9. Instead of holding that Accused No.9 was not present, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that Accused No.9 was capturing the videographs. This, according to the learned counsel, is an erroneous finding.

f. The learned counsel further contended that the mere production of certain call records from the mobile service provider would not mean that certain calls have been made or calls received in the mobile phone of Accused No. 9.

g. The prosecution has not placed before the court any oral evidence or video evidence to establish the fact that Accused No.9 had assaulted Madhu either in the forest or at Mukkali. If that be the case, there was no justification in imposing the maximum sentence on Accused No.9 as in the case of the accused against whom there was evidence to establish the commission of overt acts.

h. Insofar as Accused No. 16 is concerned, who is none other than the son of Accused No. 9, the court concluded that the said accused did not join the unlawful assembly and found him guilty only of the offences punishable under section 352 of the IPC. Different standards were applied for Accused No. 9.

The learned counsel submitted that the trial court had erred in coming to the conclusion that it was Accused No. 16 who had delivered a kick on the backside of Madhu. According to the learned counsel, the trial court has assumed the role of a witness and has identified Accused No. 16 as the person pictured in photograph S8, from the 'S' series photographs taken by PW38.

j. The learned Sessions Judge has laid much emphasis on the motive of Accused No. 16 that he, being the son of PW39 and being a witness in the theft case involving Madhu, had every reason to assault him. It is submitted that motive has to be specifically proved and cannot be inferred from family relationships.

k. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in coming to a conclusion that A16 did a thrust from behind causing annoyance to Madhu, and thereby holding that the offence under Section 352 of the IPC was made out. The said finding is erroneous.

Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned Counsel appearing for A7 & A12, advanced the following submissions:

a. The learned counsel contends that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in relying on the contents of MO27 mobile phone to attribute a role to the 7th accused.

b. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge applied the principle of res gestae and went on to hold that rising of Accused No. 7 from the place he was sitting and pointing his fingers at 3.36.10 Seconds as discernible from Q2 CCTV footage could be considered as a contemporaneous act corroborating the stamping of Accused No.1 at that moment. According to the learned counsel, the reliance placed by the court on the body language of Accused No. 7 as corroborative of the stamping of Accused No. 1 is a judicial inference from a three-second CCTV image and not a direct proof of any act by Accused No. 7.

c. The prime allegation against the 7th accused is that he had held Madhu's left hand while they were coming down from the forest, for which purpose profuse reliance was placed on Q7 video extracted from the phone of Accused No. 9. According to the learned counsel, even a very careful perusal of the video footage will not reveal this fact. All that can be seen from the footage is that of several persons surrounding Madhu during the march.

d. Insofar as Accused No. 12 is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that there is no legal evidence adduced by the prosecution to show his involvement in the crime. The evidence let in does not reveal that any mobile phone or weapon was seized from or at the instance of Accused No. 12. No witness spoke about his involvement, and even the video footage does not show that Accused No. 12 had committed any acts of violence. His conviction rests entirely on Section 149 of the IPC as a member of the unlawful assembly whose group committed the proved offences.

Sri. S.K. Adityan, the learned counsel, advanced the following submissions on behalf of the 13th accused:

a. As far as the conviction of Accused No. 13 is concerned, the Court proceeded to believe the prosecution version that Accused No. 13 arrived at Mukkali in his motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-05-AJ-498. However, no evidence was let in to establish that the 13th accused had driven the bike. With the above evidence, the Court could not have come to the conclusion that the 13th accused was a member of the unlawful assembly and he had committed any overt act in prosecution of the common object.

b. In order to establish that the motor vehicle bearing No. KL-05-AJ-498 was possessed by the 13th accused, the prosecution examined PW44, an auto consultant, whose evidence was thoroughly insufficient to prove the said fact. Furthermore, the RC particulars of the vehicle revealed that the registration stood in the name of Sri. Alfin Mathew, who was not cited as a witness or examined. Relying on the law laid down in Faisal U.K. v State of Kerala¹⁹ , it was urged that the failure of the investigating officer to examine material witnesses will create serious doubt on the fairness and credibility of investigation.

c. It is further submitted that the only other evidence linking the 13th accused with the assembly was the evidence let in by PW27, who stated before court that the 13th accused were among the persons who had brought Madhu down from the forest. Furthermore, no specific act of violence is individually attributed to Accused No. 13.

Sri. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for A14 and A15 has advanced the following submissions :

a. The learned counsel submitted that Accused Nos. 14 and 15 did not enter the Aandiyallachaal reserved forest and even according to the prosecution they had no part in assaulting Madhu after his apprehension inside the forest. According to the learned counsel, if Accused Nos. 14 and 15 was not part of the unlawful assembly at the inception, they cannot be treated as a member of the unlawful assembly

b. It is further submitted that the only evidence against Accused Nos. 14 and 15 is a photograph from A8's phone (Q5 file), which shows Accused Nos. 14 and 15 and the Marshal Jeep of Accused No. 9 at Vandikkadavu. It is submitted that from the forensic report it is evident that the said photograph is a WhatsApp forward and not an original photograph captured using the camera of the 8th accused.

c. Mobile phone of the Accused No. 14 (MO25/Q9) was produced before the police by the relative of the 14th accused and was seized on 08.03.2018 under Ext.P58 seizure mahazar. Accused No.14 was arrested on 24.02.2018. According to the learned counsel, the question of what happened to the phone's contents during those 12 days was never satisfactorily established and proved. According to the learned counsel, the contents of Q9 cannot be relied upon without first establishing the integrity of the device between 22.02.2018 and 08.03.2018.

d. The medical evidence establishes that the fatal injuries (causing brain edema) were inflicted between 1.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m., that too while inside the forest. If the injuries that caused Madhu's death were inflicted before Accused Nos. 14 and 15 even joined the assembly, their liability under Section 304 Part II of the IPC becomes suspect. They can only be attributed constructive liability only if there is evidence to establish that when Accused Nos. 14 and 15 joined at Vandikkadavu, they knew or could reasonably have foreseen that the assembly's acts up to that point had likely caused or would cause death.

e. Insofar as Accused No.15 is concerned, the specific allegation is that Accused No. 15 held the zip tied around Madhu's arms during the march, and he fisted Madhu on the shoulder. No evidence was let in by the prosecution to establish both these aspects.

We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and have meticulously perused the entire record. Having regard to the nature of the appeals before us—namely, appeals against conviction, appeals against acquittal, as well as challenges to the adequacy of the sentence imposed—we are called upon to undertake a comprehensive reappreciation of the evidence on record. Furthermore, a contention was advanced before us by the learned counsel appearing for both sides that the oral evidence has not been properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge. In that backdrop, and before proceeding to deal with the specific contentions urged, we deem it appropriate, as a matter of judicial discipline, to first examine in detail the evidence adduced by the prosecution. This foundational exercise is necessary to assess the correctness of the findings recorded by the Trial Court, both in respect of conviction and acquittal, and to determine whether the conclusions reached are sustainable in law and on facts.

PW1 (CW1) is an attestor to Ext.P1 inquest report. He deposed that he was present at the Agali Community Health Centre at the time of conducting the inquest over the body of deceased Madhu. PW1 further stated that for several years prior to the incident, Madhu had been residing in the forest area.

PW2 (CW10) is a witness examined by the prosecution to testify what had transpired at Mukkali Junction after Madhu was brought there. He deposed that he had visited Mukkali on the relevant day. He stated that he saw Madhu at Mukkali, and according to him, about 150-200 persons were near him. He, however, stated that nothing eventful was seen by him. He identified all the accused standing in the dock after the court had asked them to remove the masks worn by them. It is clear from his evidence that the witness was aware of the identity of each of the accused as they were all residents of Mukkali and whereabouts. Though PW2 was cited to prove the overt act of the 1st accused stamping on Madhu while he was seated in front of the treasure box of Ponmala Sastha Temple situated near Sreerag Bakery at Mukkali Junction, PW2 refused to depose that he witnessed the act of stamping. When he was asked a leading question as to whether he had stated to the police that one individual had entered the crowd of people and lifted his leg for stamping Madhu, he stated that he had stated so. The court ought not have permitted the prosecution to put such a question as it is hit by Section 162 of the Code. When he was asked whether the person who lifted the leg was in court, he stated that the said person was present in court and went on to state that it was the 1st accused. He stated that he then went towards the waiting shed. He stated that after some time police came to the spot. Madhu got up and entered the Police Jeep. He did not see whether any person had helped him to enter the Jeep. To a pointed question as to whether the hands and legs of Madhu were tied, he answered in the negative. The prosecution played the CCTV Footage extracted to Ext.P92(a) pen drive of the incident at Mukkali on 22.2.2018 from 3.08 p.m. onwards in open court and the attention of the witness was invited to the same. PW2 identified all the accused persons visible in the CCTV footage, except Accused No.12 and stated that they could be seen in the video. He admitted that the video clipping was that of Mukkali and identified Sreerag Bakery situated in the junction. He was able to identify Madhu in the video. He then identified the accused who were found standing around Madhu. He specifically identified Accused No.15 (Biju), Accused No. 6 (Aboobacker), Accused No. 4 (Aneesh), Accused No. 5 (Radhakrishnan), Accused No.3 (Shamsudeen), Accused No.14 (Hareesh), Accused No.A11 (Abdul Kareen), Accused No.2 (Marakkar), Accused No. 9 (Najeeb) Accused No.7 (Sidhique), Accused No. 13 (Satheesh), Accused No. 16 (Muneer), Accused No.10 (Jaijumon), Accused No.1 (Hussain). When he refused to state that he had witnessed A1 stamping Madhu, the prosecution sought permission to put leading questions and the same was allowed by the Court and the confronted portions were marked as Exr. P2 series. He asserted that he had no occasion to witness Madhu being stamped by any person but added that he was able to notice some facial changes. In cross-examination, the witness asserted that he was present till Madhu was taken by the police and that he was also visible in the CCTV. The counsel for the 1st accused confronted him with his movements as captured by the CCTV cameras, and he admitted that it was him who was seen in the video. He stated that he was not aware as to why Accused No.1 lifted his leg. During cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing for Accused Nos. 2 and 5, the witness stated that he was questioned by the police two days after the incident. He further deposed that the police had not required him to identify any of the accused at that stage. He also stated that the distance between Mukkali and Agali could ordinarily be covered in about 25 minutes. In the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing for accused Nos. 3, 6, and 8, the witness stated that when the police arrived at the scene, the persons present approached them without any apparent fear. He further stated that several individuals seen in the visuals are not included in the array of accused. The witness also expressed his lack of knowledge as to whether the police had enquired among the assembled persons as to who had manhandled Madhu. During cross-examination by the counsel for Accused Nos. 4, 7, 14, and 15, the witness stated that he had spoken to Madhu and had asked him whether he wanted tea, juice, a cigarette, or parotta. According to the witness, Madhu responded by stating that a cigarette is "poison." The witness further stated that he did not notice any injuries on Madhu's body at the relevant time. He also deposed that Madhu appeared to be in a normal state of mind, had laughed during their interaction, and did not seem to be in any visible discomfort. The witness added that Madhu's behaviour was consistent with what he had observed of him since a young age. The witness further stated that he was acquainted with all the accused, which enabled him to identify them. However, when specifically asked whether Accused No. 13 was present when he reached Mukkali, the witness stated that a large number of persons were present and that he was not certain whether Accused No. 13 (Satheesh) was among them.

PW3 (CW11) is another witness who was examined to prove the incident at Mukkali Junction. PW3 deposed that he was aware of the incident which ultimately led to the death of Madhu. He stated that on 22.02.2018, at about 3.00 p.m., he reached Mukkali Junction. According to him, on arriving in front of Sreerag Bakery, he noticed a crowd of people gathered there. Out of curiosity, he entered the crowd and saw Madhu standing within it. After observing him briefly, he withdrew from the place. When questioned about the condition in which he found Madhu, the witness stated that Madhu's hands were tied and that he was standing at the time. However, when asked as to what material was used to tie his hands, the witness stated that he had not noticed the same. He further stated that he did not see anyone holding Madhu or otherwise restraining him. The witness maintained that he did not observe anything further and did not identify any of the accused persons present at the scene. In view of the above responses, which were inconsistent with his earlier statement, the witness was declared hostile and was thereafter cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor.

PW4 (CW12) is a Forest Watcher stationed at Pottikkal. Although PW4 admitted that he was present in the forest on the relevant date and time, he denied that he was aware of the incident or the acts committed by the accused. He stated that on 22/3/2018, he was on duty at Pottikkal and Panjan and Abhilash were with him. Through PW4, Ext.P5 series contradictions were marked.

PW5 (CW14) is an employee of Sreerag Bakery conducted by Hareesh (A14). He stated that he had worked at the bakery for nearly three years. He denied having furnished a statement to the police. However, he deposed that he was unaware of the installation of CCTV cameras at the bakery. Through PW5, Ext.P6 series contradictions were marked. When confronted with the CCTV footage in Court, PW5 denied that he was seen in the same.

PW6 (CW15) stated that she goes to the Forest Area at Pottikkal to prepare food for workers. She denied that the police had recorded her statement. Ext.P7 series contradictions were marked through her.

PW7 (CW16) is a Forest watcher. He denied that he had given any statement in connection with any incident to the police. Ext.P8 series contradictions were marked. When confronted with CCTV footage, PW7 refused to identify the accused. However, he admitted his signatures on Exts.P9 and P10 scene mahazars.

PW8 (CW13) is a loyal witness for the prosecution. In his evidence, he stated that he was aware of the incident that took place on 22/02/2018. He deposed that on that day, he, along with his cousin, went to Mannarkkad and returned to Mukkali in a jeep and reached there at about 02:30 p.m. They got down at Mukkali and noticed a group of people gathered near the treasure box in front of the bakery. Out of curiosity, he went closer and saw that his relative, Madhu, was seated in the middle, surrounded by persons questioning him. He further stated that when asked whether Madhu had any ailments, he replied that Madhu suffered from minor mental ailments. When questioned about Madhu's clothing, he stated that Madhu's shirt was torn and open, with the buttons undone. He enquired whether Madhu wanted water and also asked the assembled persons where Madhu had been brought from. He was told that Madhu, referred to as a thief, had been brought there. He reiterated that Madhu was seated in front of Sreerag Bakery, near the treasure box. After some time, he moved and stood behind the treasure box. He deposed that after some time, Accused No. 1 (Hussain), who was running a shop at Pakulath, arrived in a Xylo car, got down, pushed aside the persons present, and asked where the thief was. He approached Madhu, lifted his legs, and kicked him on the chest. On receiving the kick, due to the force, the back side of the head of Madhu struck the treasure box behind him. Thereafter, Madhu was taken to the waiting shed on the opposite side of the road. By that time, a police jeep had arrived, and some persons, who appeared to be some among the accused, placed Madhu into the jeep. The witness stated that he did not see Madhu thereafter. When asked whether he could identify the person who kicked Madhu, he pointed to Accused No.1. On being asked whether the accused present in the dock were among those present, he replied that some of them were. He identified Accused No.3 (Shamsudheen) and Accused No. 7 (Siddique) in court. He was then shown CCTV footage—File No. 2 in Camera No. 3—and he identified himself in the video at timestamp 03:22:15 p.m. dated 22/02/2018. He also identified the Xylo car and Accused No.1. Further footage at timestamp 03:36:10 p.m. from Camera No. 3 was shown, and he again identified Accused No.1. He stated that the footage showed Madhu being taken to the waiting shed. He further deposed that Madhu appeared very tired and was wearing torn clothes, and that a belt was tied to his hand. He identified MO1. He stated that he had given a statement to the police two days after the incident and had also given a statement before the Magistrate, both of which he affirmed. In cross-examination by counsel for accused Nos. 4, 7, 14, and 15, he stated that he was present at Mukkali between 02:30 p.m. and 03:00 p.m., and that approximately 10 to 100 people were present when he arrived. During cross-examination by the learned counsel for Accused No.1, PW8 stated that he had seen Accused No. 1 manhandling Madhu and that the same was visible in the CCTV footage. A pen drive containing CCTV footage was played in court. Footage from Camera No.1 at 03:00:02 p.m. dated 22/02/2018 was shown. When questioned regarding footage at 03:26:26 and 03:23:24, he admitted that he was the person seen proceeding towards Keeripara Road, accompanied by one Kunjan. He further stated that he returned to Sreeraj Bakery at about 03:28 p.m. and entered the bakery, identifying himself in the footage. He stated that at that time, many people were still gathered around the treasure box. Footage at 03:32:20 p.m. was played, and he identified himself exiting the bakery and walking away. At timestamp 03:35:01, he confirmed that he was seen walking towards Keeripara, where Usman ran a shop. He further admitted that he is the person seen in the footage at around 03:50–03:55 p.m., returning from Usman's shop carrying two bags, though he was unsure of the exact time. At timestamp 03:50:57 p.m., he confirmed that he was the person shown carrying the two bags, which contained items purchased from Usman's shop. He also confirmed that the same was visible in Camera No.3. When questioned whether the footage showed him standing behind the treasure box, he stated that he had nothing to say. When asked whether the footage showed Hussain pushing aside the crowd and going near Madhu, he stated that it was not visible in the video. Footage at 03:35:34 p.m. was played, and he was asked whether it showed Hussain stamping on the deceased. He stated that no such act was visible. Further footage at 03:36:10 p.m. was shown, and he confirmed that it did not depict Hussain stamping anyone. When asked whether he was present during the inquest, he answered in the affirmative. However, he admitted that he had not disclosed to the police the fact that Hussain had stamped on Madhu.

PW9 (CW17) was examined to prove the movement of Madhu along the road in front of his kiosk shop. PW9 initially denied witnessing the incident and claimed that he came to know about it only through the media. However, he admitted that his shop was located at Mukkali in a property belonging to Latheef, father of Accused No.9. PW9 further admitted familiarity with the business activities of Accused No.9 and acknowledged that after viewing CCTV footage, he recollected a group of persons passing through the road. However, he was not in a position to identify any of the accused. When confronted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, PW9 admitted that he came to know from the newspapers that Madhu was beaten at Mukkali but claimed ignorance regarding the assailants.

PW10 (CW18) is a Forest Watcher. He is also the Ooru Mooppan of Kuttickal. PW10 stated that several persons proceeded into the forest and later returned, but he claimed that he could not identify those who entered and came back. Out of the sixteen accused, PW10 identified only one person, namely Accused No.2 (Marakkar). Such identification was not made on the basis of any prior acquaintance volunteered by the witness; rather, in response to a suggestive question put by the learned Special Public Prosecutor as to whether he could identify any person from the group, PW10 answered that among those persons he knew only Accused No.2 (Marakkar). He initially stated that the group proceeding into the forest was at an approximate distance of 10 to 70 metres. However, he later stated that when the group returned from the forest he saw them from a distance of about 1 kilometre. He did not state that Madhu was among the persons who had come down from the forest. PW10 also admitted the existence of a shed at Vandikkadavu used for preparation of food for forest workers. At the instance of the prosecution PW10 was recalled. In his examination by the Public Prosecutor, he stated that on the date of incident he had occasion to witness a group of people crossing the river and going into the forest. He stated that they were residents of Mukkali. He stated that he was aware that Madhu lived inside the forest. He added that on 22.02.2018, he had witnessed the accused bringing down Madhu from the forest. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that after his earlier examination before court, he was removed from his service in the forest department.

PW11 (CW19) was working as a loading employee in the forest timber depot during the relevant period. He did not support the case of the prosecution when examined before the Court. As in the case of PW10, the said witness was recalled at the instance of the prosecution and again examined. Upon recall, he supported the prosecution case. PW11 stated that he had seen Madhu in the forest and that Accused No. 2 (Marakkar) had asked him about Madhu. PW11 identified Accused No.2 in Court. During the recalled examination, PW11 admitted that Madhu was his distant relative. PW11 explained that he turned hostile during the first examination because he was afraid of the accused persons. He stated that, at the time of his second examination, the accused were in jail and therefore he had no reason to fear them. It is relevant to note that, as several material witnesses turned hostile, the prosecution filed an application for cancellation of bail granted to some accused, contending that the accused had influenced or threatened witnesses in violation of bail conditions. Consequently, bail granted to most of the accused was cancelled and they were remanded. When PW11 was recalled, most accused were in jail. During cross-examination at the second stage, PW11 admitted that he had visited the office of the Special Public Prosecutor and discussed the case.

PW12 (CW20) was examined to prove that he witnessed Madhu being brought from the forest by the accused persons. PW12 did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that he had not witnessed the incident. Ext.P12 contradictions were marked through PW12.

PW13 (CW21) was examined to prove that he had seen Madhu in the forest along with the accused. Though he admitted that he is a distant relative of Madhu, he did not support the prosecution case.

PW14 (CW22) is another timber loader who had been working in the forest for several years. Though he stated that he knew Kalimooppan, he denied acquaintance with other witnesses examined in the case and did not support the prosecution version. Ext.P14 series contradictions were marked through PW14.

PW15 (CW 23) stated that he saw a group of persons passing through the road along with a person in shabby dress, and that on the next day he came to know that a person had died. Ext.P15 seizure mahazar was marked through him. As per Ext.P15, a vehicle bearing No. KL-32-B-5959 was seized. PW15 stated that among the group members he knew only Accused No. 8 (Ubaid), and claimed that he identified him from a distance of about 200 metres by seeing his backside. PW15, however, identified Accused No. 8 (Ubaid) in Court.

PW16 (CW2) was examined to prove that the accused brought Madhu to Mukkali through the Silent Valley–Mukkali road. PW16 did not support the prosecution and turned hostile.

PW17 (CW26) is engaged in crane service business. He deposed that, on the relevant day, there was no work for him in the plantation and therefore he spent some time in the forest with other workers. He stated that he saw plates, food items, beedi/cigarettes, a battery, and a mobile charger in the forest, and inferred that there were signs of human dwelling in that area. He stated that on the next day he came to know about Madhu's death.

PW18 (CW27) was examined to prove that the accused brought Madhu from the forest. He also turned hostile. Ext.P17 series contradictions were marked through him.

PW19 (CW28) is another loyal prosecution witness. He stated that on 22.02.2018, he saw a gathering at Mukkali Junction near the bakery, in front of the hundi installed there, and Madhu was sitting near it. He was wearing dirty clothes. According to PW19, persons in the gathering were questioning Madhu, and one person entered the gathering by pushing aside others and stamped on Madhu. PW19 identified that person as Accused No.1 from the dock. PW19 further stated that the 1st accused was shown to him at the Police Station. He described Madhu as being in a pathetic condition at that time. PW19 reiterated, even during cross-examination, that he witnessed the stamping. In his cross-examination by the counsel appearing for Accused No. 1, the witness stated that he had seen a person, not known to him, stamping on Madhu. He further stated that he had remained at Mukkali for about half an hour and had arrived there in an autorickshaw. According to him, after witnessing the incident, he left Mukkali in the same autorickshaw. He asserted that he was among the persons assembled around Madhu at the relevant time and that he had witnessed the stamping incident. When asked whether he was aware that the entire incident had been captured on CCTV, he answered in the negative. He was questioned as to whether he was familiar with Silent Valley Road, to which he replied in the affirmative. He stated that his autorickshaw had been parked on Silent Valley Road. When asked about the distance between Sreerag Bakery and the place where the autorickshaw was parked, he stated that it was approximately 30 metres and denied the suggestion that it was about 150 to 200 metres. He further stated that he had walked from the place where the autorickshaw was parked to the spot where the incident occurred and, after witnessing the incident, returned to his autorickshaw and left. The counsel then played CCTV footage for the timestamp 03:19:28 from Camera No. 3, and the attention of the witness was drawn to it. The witness identified his autorickshaw in the footage and admitted that it was being driven towards Silent Valley Road. He further stated that there were two persons inside the autorickshaw, one of whom got down and proceeded on foot towards Mukkali. Subsequently, footage at timestamp 03:24:38 was played, and the witness identified himself as the person seen therein. Further footage at timestamp 03:27:08 was played, and he admitted that it showed him walking towards Silent Valley Road. He was then asked whether he was seen in the footage after 03:07:08, and a specific suggestion was put to him that after that time he was at Silent Valley Road near the autorickshaw and not at Mukkali; he denied the same. He was further asked whether his autorickshaw had been parked in front of Jolly's shop on Silent Valley Road, which he admitted. He also admitted that, as seen in the footage at timestamp 03:39:42, the person who had walked to Mukkali had returned, and that he himself got into the autorickshaw and drove away. The defence specifically challenged his assertion that he was present at Mukkali at the time when the stamping took place. He stated that he had given his statement to the police about one month after the alleged incident. In re-examination, he was specifically asked where he was between 03:23:30 and 03:39:00. He responded that he was in the vicinity of the area where Madhu was seated. He was also asked about the approximate distance between the place where he had parked the autorickshaw and the place where Madhu was made to sit, to which he replied that it was about 30 metres.

PW20 (CW29) is a Forest Watcher. He stated that when he reached Mukkali, Madhu was sitting near the treasure box. He did not support the prosecution. When CCTV footage seized from Anavai Forest Station, Sreerag Bakery, and Mukkali was played in open court using electronic devices, PW20 denied the same. Ext.P18 series contradictions were marked through him.

PW21 (CW31) was examined by the prosecution to establish that the accused persons had brought Madhu to Mukkali after tying his hands. However, PW21 did not support the case of the prosecution. The contradictions in his earlier statements were marked as Ext.P19 series.

PW22 (CW32) was examined to prove the incidents that occurred at Mukkali and Vandikkadavu, including the act of bringing Madhu to those places. He did not support the prosecution case. He stated that he had only witnessed Madhu being taken in a police jeep and the presence of a mob at Mukkali Junction. He refused to support the prosecution regarding the events preceding that stage.

PW23 (CW33) was examined to prove the incident at Mukkali and the existence of a shed at Vandikkadavu. He did not support the prosecution case. Contradictions in his statements were marked as Ext.P21 series.

PW24 (CW34), a driver by profession, was examined to prove the incidents at Mukkali Junction and the Vandikkadavu shed. He turned adverse to the prosecution. Contradictions from his previous statements were marked as Ext.P22 series.

PW25 (CW35), who owns a jeep, also turned hostile.

PW26 (CW36) was examined to prove the incident at Mukkali. He turned adverse to the prosecution. He was confronted with his previous statements which were marked as Ext.P24 series.

PW27 (CW40) deposed that she was working as a Kudumbashree Coordinator at the relevant time. On 22.02.2018, she was on her way to the office. While proceeding towards Anavayil along with Subrahmaniam and Sindhusha through the Mukkali–Silent Valley Road, she saw a group of persons bringing Madhu, and they were spotted near to the Silent Valley Information Centre. She stated that at that point of time she was not aware that the exhausted person, dressed in shabby clothes, and carrying a sack on his shoulders was Madhu. The information center was about ½ a km away from Mukkali. They were bringing Madhu from the Mukkali Forest Check Post area to Mukkali Junction. A jeep was moving alongside the group. The driver of the vehicle in which she was travelling asked the Driver of the Jeep which was following Madhu as to what had happened. He stated that they were bringing a thief. She further deposed that she saw someone pouring water into Madhu's mouth. Later that evening, around 7.00–7.30 p.m., she learned that a person had died and subsequently identified the deceased as Madhu. She identified the CCTV visuals depicting Madhu being brought to Mukkali. Upon seeing the accused in the dock, she identified Accused Nos. 13, 14, and 16. She also admitted that she had shared information with media personnel at that time, and when confronted with photographs of her addressing the media, she acknowledged the same, stating that she had spoken to Asianet the day after the incident. The witness was subjected to cross-examination. She was asked whether she had given a news byte to Asianet Television which she answered in the affirmative. Much of the cross examination was directed against the identification of some of the accused in the dock for the first time. Despite being subjected to intense and searching cross-examination by all defence counsel, nothing material was elicited to discredit her testimony. She clarified that she had witnessed the gathering, including Madhu, only for a few minutes. She specifically stated that the group accompanying Madhu consisted of about 5 to 10 persons.

PW28 (CW43), a grocery shop owner at Kaklandi, deposed that theft had occurred in his shop in 2018, involving rice, coffee powder, beedis, etc., and that he had informed the police. Later, on hearing that a thief had been apprehended at Mukkali, he went there with another shop owner. He saw a crowd gathered near a treasure box and identified Madhu there. He also noticed the rice sack stolen from his shop and identified MO3. Police collected his details at the scene. He later learned of Madhu's death at Agali Police Station. His name finds place in Ext.P80 FIS. He identified MO3 and explained that police had initially detained him under suspicion but later exonerated him. In cross-examination, the witness was asked about the various hospitals that are functioning in between Mukkali and Thavalam. He denied the suggestion that theft did not happen and that he was stating falsehood to help the prosecution.

PW29 (CW44) was examined to prove theft in his tea shop at Kakkuppadi. He stated that bakery items, sugar, and tea powder were stolen, though he had not lodged a police complaint. His name also appears in Ext.P80 FIS, and he too was later exonerated.

PW30 (CW45), a hotel owner at Kalkkandi, deposed that theft had occurred in his shop on two occasions. He stated that the thief entered by removing roof tiles and took packed food items. On hearing that the thief had been apprehended, he went to Mukkali and saw a person seated there. He shared his details with the police. His name also appears in Ext.P80 FIS. He was initially detained but later released. He further stated that theft had occurred in neighbouring shops as well.

PW31 (CW46) was examined to prove theft in his shop and the alleged parading of Madhu. While admitting theft, he denied that Madhu was paraded in front of his shop. Cross-examination revealed that he is the father of Accused Nos. 9 and 16. He admitted theft of ₹10,000 and other items and that CCTV footage from his shop had been seized. His name appears in Ext.P80 FIS. He was later exonerated.

PW32 (CW48) is the videographer who recorded the inquest at CHC Hospital, Agali. He was examined to prove the video, CD, and 65B certificate (Ext.P26 series). He clarified that recording was done in sequential slots and denied any manipulation.

PW33 (CW49) was examined as an attesting witness to Ext.P27 scene mahazar dated 24.02.2018, prepared in connection with the second place of occurrence at Mukkali. During examination, the witness admitted his signature in Ext.P27.

PW34 (CW50) was also examined as an attestor to Ext.P27 scene mahazar. He too admitted his signature therein. His evidence corroborates the preparation and authenticity of the scene mahazar relating to the Mukkali place of occurrence.

PW35 (CW51) was examined as an attesting witness to Ext.P28 seizure mahazar, under which the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-11-H-8559 (Marshal Jeep) was seized. The witness admitted his signature in the seizure mahazar, and the document was accordingly marked through him.

PW36 (CW53) was examined as an attestor to Ext.P29 seizure mahazar relating to the seizure of vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-53-F-722. He admitted his signature in the mahazar. Accordingly, Ext.P29 was marked and proved.

PW37 is the elder brother of Accused No.14. He was examined as an attesting witness to the seizure mahazar prepared at the time of seizing the DVR from the shop of Accused No.14. However, he did not support the prosecution. During examination, he admitted that he had signed certain blank papers but denied his signature in the seizure mahazar when confronted. He further deposed that Accused No.14 was in the Police Station at the relevant time.

PW38 (CW56) is the photographer who took photographs of the accused persons, prepared printouts, copied them into CDs, and produced Ext.P30 series photographs, Ext.P30 CD, and the corresponding 65B certificate. He categorically deposed that all photographs were taken and processed by him. Despite intense cross-examination, nothing was brought out to discredit the genuineness of the photographs or the electronic evidence produced through him.

PW39 (CW57) was examined as an attestor to the seizure mahazar prepared while seizing the DVR from Ponniyammal Gurukulam at Mukkali. Though he admitted the presence of CCTV cameras in the Gurukulam, he denied the seizure having taken place in his presence.

PW40 (CW58) was examined as an attesting witness to Ext.P15 seizure mahazar, under which the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-32-B-5959 (Mahindra Xylo car) was seized. He admitted his signature in the mahazar. The seizure document was accordingly proved through him.

PW41 (CW60) was examined as an attestor to Ext.P32 seizure mahazar relating to the seizure of Motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL-5-AJ-498. He admitted his signature, and the mahazar was marked through him.

PW42 (CW61) is an autorickshaw driver who produced Autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-50-D-2908 before the police. He, however, did not support the prosecution. He however admitted that the autorickshaw belonged to Jaijumon (Accused No.10).

PW43 (CW63) is a close relative of Accused No.14. As per the prosecution, he had produced the mobile phone of Accused No.14 before the police on 08.03.2018. However, he did not support the prosecution. He admitted his close relationship with the accused and further stated that Accused No.14 was in police custody on the relevant date.

PW44 (CW65) is conducting MAM Auto Consultant at Nellipuzha, Mannarkkad. He deposed that he had purchased Bullet Motorcycle bearing No. KL-5-AJ-498 from one Albin and later sold it to Accused No.13 (Satheesh). He clarified that registration transfer had not been completed at that time, though requisite forms had been signed. He was examined to establish the transactional chain linking the vehicle to the accused.

PW45 (CW66) is the son of the 1st accused and the registered owner of Xylo car bearing Registration No. KL-53-F-722. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused and others travelled in this vehicle to Mukkali on the date of occurrence. PW45 admitted ownership of the vehicle and that he had taken a mobile connection in his name. Though he denied that his father used the phone, he admitted that on 22.02.2018 he, his father (A1), brother, and uncle had travelled to Mukkali to visit his sister. During cross-examination, it was elicited that they had come there to purchase bakery items.

PW46 (CW68) is another photographer who took photographs and videographs of the place of occurrence. The DVD and photographs produced by him were identified and marked as Ext.P33 series. He was later recalled and produced Ext.P33(k) along with the 65B certificate.

PW47 (CW69) was the Village Assistant of Kallamala Village Office. He prepared Ext.P34 scene plan of Mukkali Junction under the instructions of the Village Officer (PW48). He identified his signature and proved the scene plan during examination.

PW48 (CW70) was the Village Officer of Kallamala. He supervised preparation of Ext.P34 scene plan and countersigned it. He also issued Ext.P35 caste certificates of Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 16. Further, he prepared Ext.P36 scene plan of Vandikkadavu on 06.03.2020.

PW49 (CW71), the then Village Officer holding charge of Padavayal Village, prepared Ext.P37 scene plan of the place of occurrence at Aandiyallachaal and identified his signature therein.

PW50 (CW72) was the then Village Officer of Palakkayam Village Office. He prepared Ext.P38 caste certificate relating to Accused No.6.

PW51 (CW73) is the Tahsildar, Mannarkkad, who was holding the additional charge of Principal Tahsildar, Mannarkkad, during the relevant period. He is the officer who issued Ext. P39 Caste Certificate in respect of Madhu. According to his testimony, the said certificate was issued on the basis of reports submitted by the Village Officer of Padavayal Village, and he had also conducted a preliminary enquiry in that regard. However, on a perusal of Ext. P39, it is evident that the document is more in the nature of a report rather than a certificate issued in the prescribed statutory format contemplated under the provisions of the Kerala Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996.

PW52 (CW76) is the Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Limited. Through this witness, Ext. P40 series, Ext. P41 series, and Ext. P42 series — comprising Call Data Records (CDRs), Customer Application Forms (CAFs), and certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act — were formally proved and marked. He deposed that, during the relevant period, one Saheel Kombath and P. Rajkumar were functioning as Nodal Officers of Idea Cellular Limited. Both of them had subsequently left the Company, and their present whereabouts could not be traced. Since PW52 had worked in close professional association with them, he was well acquainted with their signatures. On that basis, the CDRs, CAFs, and allied documents issued and signed by the said officers — namely Ext. P41 series and Ext. P42 series — were identified and marked through this witness. PW52 further deposed that he is the present Nodal Officer of Idea Cellular Limited and, by virtue of his official position and prior association, he is familiar with the signatures and documentation practices of the former Nodal Officers who issued the records in question. The witness gave a detailed account of the manner in which the data was stored and retrieved. He stated that the data is extracted from the central server of Idea Cellular Limited located at Pune, and housed in a secured facility. According to him, access to the server is strictly regulated through a unique user ID and password system. He further clarified that official laptops alone are issued to Nodal Officers, and only through such secured devices can access to the server be obtained. The data cannot be accessed through any external laptop or desktop system. Additionally, the server is protected by a three-layer password security protocol. This layered security architecture, according to the witness, effectively rules out the possibility of unauthorized access or manipulation of data contained in Exts. P40 to P42 series. PW52 was cross-examined at length about the personnel involved in collecting customer data and the process of uploading such data to the server. PW52 also testified that, apart from physical verification of identity proof and application forms, an e-KYC verification process is mandatorily undertaken. If any discrepancy is detected in the identification particulars, the SIM card is not issued to the applicant. This procedural safeguard further reinforces the reliability of the customer records.

PW53 (CW81) is the Tribal Watcher attached to Mukkali Forest Station. He accompanied the Investigating Officer as well as the Scientific Officer when they visited the place of occurrence for the purpose of collecting samples and material objects and for preparing the scene mahazar. He has admitted his signature in Ext. P43 scene mahazar relating to Aandiyallachaal, the first place of occurrence. He also identified MO3 series to MO22, being the material objects collected by the Investigating Officer from the said place of occurrence, namely Aandiyallachaal, which, according to the prosecution, is the location where Madhu was apprehended by the accused persons. PW53 further identified the photographs shown to him, which contained images of Aandiyallachaal and other parts of the Attappadi Reserved Forest. He also identified the video footage produced before the Court when they were played using an LCD projector and laptop. The witness categorically stated that he was able to identify all the locations depicted in the photographs and video recordings as places situated in Aandiyallachaal within the Reserved Forest. During cross-examination, the attempt was to discredit the evidence of the witness and to create an impression that the locations shown in the photographs and mobile video recordings were not Aandiyallachaal but some other place. However, PW53 firmly deposed that, by virtue of his official duties, he regularly visits these forest areas and is thoroughly familiar with the terrain. He asserted, without any ambiguity, that the photographs and videos are indeed of Aandiyallachaal and that he has no doubt whatsoever in that regard. He also deposed that he personally knew Madhu.

PW54 (CW82) is the then Beat Forest Officer of Anavai Forest Station. He was present in the station office when the Investigating Officer and his team arrived to seize the CCTV footage from the said station. He is a signatory to Ext. P44 seizure mahazar, under which the DVR, adaptor, and connected equipment of Anavai Forest Station were seized. The witness identified MO23 and MO23(a) — the DVR and adaptor — which were seized by the Investigating Officer with the assistance of a Cyber Cell expert.

PW55 (CW84) is the then Forest Range Officer of Attappadi. He produced the relevant notification and plan relating to Aandiyallachaal Forest to establish that the said area is a notified Reserved Forest. These documents were marked as Ext. P45 series. Despite being subjected to extensive cross-examination by counsel for the accused, nothing material was elicited to discredit his testimony. He categorically deposed that the place known as Aandiyallachaal falls within his territorial jurisdiction.

PW56 (CW88) is the then Casualty Medical Officer of the Community Health Centre, Agali. On 22-02-2018, she examined the body of Madhu. She deposed that at about 4:15 p.m. on that day, a person was brought before her on a stretcher by the Police along with attenders. When she called out the name "Madhu," there was no response. She thereafter conducted a preliminary clinical examination and also took an ECG. On such examination, it was found that the person was already dead. PW56 admitted her signature and handwriting in Ext. P46 OP ticket. She specifically deposed that, in the OP ticket, she had initially written the time as 4:12 p.m., but upon noticing the casualty clock, she corrected the time to 4:15 p.m. The overwriting seen in Ext. P46 was thus made by her personally, and she took full responsibility for the correction. According to PW56, on examination, the patient was found brought dead, and the same was intimated to the Police. The death intimation letter issued in that regard was marked as Ext. P46(a), which also bears her signature. She clarified that the said intimation letter does not contain the hospital seal, as office hours were over at that time and the official seal could not be affixed. She further deposed that the examination took approximately 5–10 minutes and that the patient might have been brought to the hospital sometime between 4:05 p.m. and 4:10 p.m. PW56 also explained that, in emergency situations, medical examination is undertaken first, and only thereafter are patient details elicited. During cross-examination, the witness was asked the approximate distance from the hospital to the Agali Police Station. To that question, she stated that it would take about 5 minutes by vehicle. She further stated that at the time when the incident took place, entries used to be made in the case records manually, as computerisation was not complete. She stated that Prasad Varkky and certain other police officers had come to the hospital. She also stated that she is not aware as to who handles the OP register. The doctor stated that she was in the casualty when the patient was brought. She stated that about 3 or 4 police officers had brought Madhu to the hospital. She further stated that, normally, in such cases, she would ask the persons who brought the patient to the hospital about the alleged cause of injury. In the case on hand, since the victim was brought in that condition, there was no point in asking the said question. She was asked whether, after examining the body of Madhu, she considered it to be a medico-legal case, to which she answered in the negative. She stated that only after examining the patient for about 5 to 10 minutes did she realise that the patient was no more. Since the body was warm, she felt that the death had occurred only recently. She stated that she had examined Madhu about 5 to 10 minutes before 04:15 p.m. When she was asked as to how, in the OP register, the name of Madhu was struck off "Kala" was written in its place, she stated that she was not aware of the same and that those corrections were not made by her. When she was asked whether the OP ticket was prepared falsely for the purpose of the case, she answered in the negative. In cross-examination by the counsel appearing for accused Nos. 2 and 5, she was asked whether she had joined duty at about 02:00 p.m., to which she answered in the affirmative. She was also asked about the injection register maintained in the casualty, and she stated that the authority to maintain the injection register is with the nursing assistant. The Casualty Register dated 22.02.2018, obtained under the Right to Information Act, was confronted with the witness. Her attention was drawn to Serial No. 2614, and she was asked as to why the name of Madhu was struck off and "Kala" was written in its place. She stated that she was not aware. It was also put to her that in the entry corresponding to No. 2613, there were corrections. She stated that a perusal of the records would reveal that the time at which Madhu was brought to the hospital has been corrected as 4.15 p.m. from the original entry which is 4.25 p.m. She also admitted that there were corrections in the entries corresponding to Serial Nos. 2611, 2612, 2613, 2614. However, she denied that any corrections had been made in the entry corresponding to Serial No. 2614. She stated that the inquest was prepared by the Sub-Collector and that she had assisted him in preparing the same. She further stated that she had pointed out the injuries to the Sub-Collector. When she was asked whether there were 10 to 20 injuries, she stated that she does not remember. According to her, she assisted by providing the appropriate medical terminology. In re-examination, she was asked when she had joined service, to which she answered as 31.01.2018. When she was asked how many casualty duties she had performed till 22.02.2018, she stated that she had conducted about 2 or 3 such duties. She explained the reasons for the entries made in the injection register. According to her, whenever an emergency case is brought in, life-saving drugs have to be administered, and it was in those circumstances that entries were made in the register. A suggestion was put to her that Madhu was brought to CHC, Agali, only at 4:40 p.m. , the same was emphatically denied.

PW57 (CW86) is the then Joint Regional Transport Officer, Mannarkkad. He produced and proved the registration particulars of the vehicles involved in the case, which were marked as Ext. P47 series.

PW58 (CW87) is a doctor attached to the Government Mental Health Centre, Kozhikode. He deposed that on 19-11-2012, while he was working as Consultant Psychiatrist at the said institution, he had examined and treated Madhu. According to him, Madhu was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia — a serious mental illness requiring long-term, and possibly lifelong, treatment. Ext. P48 medical records were marked through the said witness. The doctor further opined that if medication is not taken regularly, there is every likelihood of worsening or recurrence of symptoms associated with the illness.

PW59 (CW89) is the then Superintendent of the Tribal Specialty Hospital, Kottathara. He deposed that Madhu had been admitted to the said hospital on 13-08-2008 and was discharged on 17-08-2008. He was examined by the witness on 26-08-2008. Madhu had been advised to continue treatment for psychosis. Ext. P49 series of medical records were marked through the said witness. The witness further deposed that, pursuant to a request made by the Police during the course of investigation, blood samples of the accused persons were collected at the hospital.

PW60 (CW85) was the then Forest Range Officer of Mukkali Forest Station. He deposed that forest watchers such as Anilkumar, Razak, and Kalimooppan were deployed under his supervision in the teak plantation area, and that another forester, namely Panjan, had also been deputed for duty there. He further stated that the plantation had, in fact, been handed over to a contractor for felling operations nearly one month prior to 22-02-2018. According to PW60, there was also a shed at Vandikkadavu where food was being prepared for the workers engaged in the plantation work. He deposed that at about 5:00 p.m. on 22-02-2018, he received information that a tribal person by name Madhu had been apprehended by a group of persons. Acting on the said information, he registered O.R. No. 1/2018. Subsequently, the accused in that forest offence case was formally arrested upon filing Ext. P50 application. This witness also identified the video footage and confirmed that the locations depicted therein formed part of the forest area within Aandiyallachaal Reserved Forest. He further identified some of the accused persons in the dock.

PW61 (CW91) was the then Nursing Assistant at the Tribal Specialty Hospital, Kottathara. He is an attesting witness to Ext. P51 mahazar, which was prepared at the time of seizure of blood samples collected from the accused persons involved in the case.