Convictions In 2003 Muthanga Land Struggle Case Require 'Thorough Scrutiny': Kerala High Court Observes Orally

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (August 6) orally expressed concern over the manner in which the Sessions Court recorded its finding while convicting four persons in the 2003 Muthanga land struggle case, observing that the judgment would require "thorough scrutiny".

Justice A. Badharudeen made the observations while hearing appeals filed by the four convicts against the judgment of Principal Sessions Court, Kalpetta.

Appellants contended that the conviction is legally unsustainable because it rests on a finding of criminal conspiracy that the trial court itself held to be only 'prima facie'.

Expressing concern over the wording employed by the Sessions Court, the High Court orally observed:

"The judgment needs to be scrutinised because in the judgment, the Judge had found on the evidence that it is prima facie... that is a wrong finding... that should not have been found so... it should have been a conclusive finding... this judgment should be subjected to thorough scrutiny."

Accordingly, the High Court directed the Sessions Judge to forward a copy of the charges framed against the accused for its perusal.

"Since it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are convicted with aid of Section 120B of IPC, that too thorough on finding that Section 120 B of IPC prima facie attracted, the learned Session Judge is directed to send a copy of framing of charge for the perusal of this Court," it ordered.

The appeals have been posted to next Wednesday for further consideration.

The 2003 Muthanga land struggle arose out of a violent confrontation between the police and Adivasi protesters during an eviction drive at the Muthanga Wildlife Sanctuary in Wayanad.

The 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 include social activist M. Geethanandan, along with Binu, Ramesan and Anilkumar. They were among the 57 persons prosecuted in connection with the violence.

By its judgment dated July 31, 2026, the Sessions Court had 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.

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

Case No: Crl.A 1057/ 2026

Counsel for Appellants: Madhusoodanan K.S, M.M. Vinod Kumar, P.K. Rakesh Kumar, K.S. Mizver