2003 Muthanga Land Struggle: Convicts Move Kerala High Court, Claim Trial Court Erred In Convicting Them On 'Prima Facie' Conspiracy Finding

Four persons convicted in the 2003 Muthanga incident—a violent clash between police and Adivasi protesters during an eviction drive at the Muthanga Wildlife Sanctuary in Wayanad—have approached the Kerala High Court in appeal.

They contend that the Sessions Court judgment is legally unsustainable because it rests on a finding of criminal conspiracy that the trial court itself held to be only prima facie.

The 2003 confrontation followed the occupation of forest land by Adivasi protesters under the banner of the Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha (AGMS). During the police eviction operation, violence broke out, leading to police firing. Eighteen rounds were fired, resulting in the immediate deaths of two protesters, with the overall death toll among the protesters later rising to five. Police constable K.V. Vinod was also killed during the incident.

The appellants in the present appeal include social activist M. Geethanandan, along with Binu, Ramesan and Anilkumar. They were among the 57 persons prosecuted in connection with the violence. The case was initially investigated by the Sulthan Bathery Police, later transferred to the Crime Branch and subsequently to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

By its judgment dated July 31, 2026, the Principal Sessions Court, Kalpetta, convicted the four appellants of offences including unlawful assembly, rioting, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt to public servants, criminal intimidation, kidnapping, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and attempt to murder.

The appellants were convicted, among other offences, for attempting to murder Senior Civil Police Officer Abdul Salam and for abducting Forest Range Officer P.K. Sasidharan. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of up to five years and directed to pay fines aggregating ₹36,000 each.

However, the trial court acquitted the appellants of the charges relating to the murder of constable K.V. Vinod. It held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a prior conspiracy to murder him. One of the accused, Ashokan, was found to have inflicted the fatal blow on Vinod during the rescue operation. However, the murder charge against him stood abated as he died during the pendency of the trial.

In the appeal, the appellants contend that despite acquitting them of the gravest offences, the trial court relied on Section 120B of the IPC (criminal conspiracy) to sustain convictions for several other offences. According to them, a prima facie finding of conspiracy may justify framing of charges but cannot form the basis of a conviction and sentence.

They further argue that once the trial court found the prosecution evidence insufficient to establish conspiracy in relation to the charges of murder, dacoity and kidnapping, the same reasoning ought to have been applied to the remaining offences as well.

The appellants have also questioned the very jurisdiction of the CBI to investigate the case. They contend that the prosecution failed to prove the mandatory consent of the State Government and the requisite approval under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act by producing the relevant Gazette notifications, thereby rendering the investigation without jurisdiction.

Another ground raised in the appeal is that the CBI conducted a de novo investigation despite being authorised only to carry out further investigation. According to the appellants, this resulted in the suppression of statements earlier recorded by the Crime Branch, thereby prejudicing their right to effectively cross-examine prosecution witnesses.

The appeal also points to alleged omissions and contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witness (PW30), Forest Range Officer P.K. Sasidharan. The appellants contend that neither his statement under Section 164 CrPC nor his statement before the police attributed to them the overt acts that were subsequently relied upon by the trial court to record the conviction. They also dispute the conviction under Section 364 IPC, arguing that PW30 himself admitted that no abduction was witnessed despite the presence of around 40 officials at the spot.

It is further contended that video cassettes of the incident were marked only as material objects and not exhibited in evidence, and that copies thereof were not supplied to the defence, thereby impairing the appellants' ability to effectively defend themselves.

The appeal also challenges the convictions under Sections 332 (Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty) , 333 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty) and 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) IPC, contending that the prosecution failed to establish that the public servants concerned were acting in the lawful discharge of their official duties at the relevant time.

Case Title: M. Geethanandan and Ors. v State of Kerala and Anr.