Renjith Johnson Murder: Kerala High Court Confirms Life Term Of 5, Acquits 2; Says TIP Not Needed If Witness Sufficiently Saw Accused

The division bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian delivered the judgment.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased Renjith Johnson was a friend of the first accused Manoj. Enmity arose when Manoj's former wife eloped with Johnson, started residing with him and refused to return and join Manoj with their children.

The prosecution alleged that Manoj conspired with two other accused (no.2 and 8) to murder Johnson. It was stated that the accused no. 2,3 and 5 went to Johnson's house under the pretext of purchasing pet birds and offered liquor to him and managed to bring the deceased to the car parked in front of his house.

Later Johnson was taken in the car to Polachira, where he was injured due to the attack from the accused and later succumbed to his injuries. The accused is then alleged to have taken the body to Tamil Nadu, with the intention to bury the dead body. The body was buried along with the pickaxe, and spades which were used to dig the pit and nylon ropes which were used to tie the body.

The case involved no direct eyewitnesses to the murder, placing the prosecution's burden on the strength of circumstantial evidence. 

Last seen theory, failure to hold TIP will not make evidence inadmissible

On of the issues pertained to whether the last seen evidence–primarily the testimony of the Johnson's mother, could be relied upon in the absence of a Test Identification Parade.

It said:

"testimony of PW3 (mother) is also relevant for implicating accused nos.2, 3 and 5 who she deposes to have seen going out of her house along with her deceased son on the afternoon of 15.08.2018. She also identified the said accused in court at the time of trial. Although an attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused to cast doubts on her ability to identify the accused in court by pointing out that there was no prior Test Identification Parade [TI parade] conducted, we are of the view that the holding of a TI parade is not obligatory in all cases and a failure to hold a TI parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court".

The Bench observed that Test Identification Parade is not indispensable when the witness has ample opportunity to observe the accused. Referring to her evidence the court said that the evidence suggests that she got sufficient opportunity to see the accused from her house. 

“This is not a case where a person has seen some individuals for a fleeting moment. Here, all of them visited her house, she saw them from her house, and thereafter identified those persons as the individuals who came to her house, before the court. Therefore, a prior TI parade is not at all required in the facts of the present case to believe PW3's(mother) testimony identifying accused nos.2, 3 and 5 made for the first time before the court,” the Court noted.

The Court noted that when the witness has sufficient opportunity to see the accused and the court is satisfied about the credibility of such identification, the absence of a TI parade would not render the evidence unreliable.

Relying on Dharmender Singh @ Vijay Singh v State [2013 KHC 4620], the court stated:

“As per the “Last Seen Theory” traceable to the Evidence Act, the absence of any satisfactory explanation by the named accused, when the circumstance of last seen is proved through valid evidence, would be a clear pointer to the culpability of the accused”.

Presence of two accused not established

The High Court examined the CDR data and concluded that the involvement of accused no.s 1 to 5 could be proved with the connecting circumstances which included the frequency of calls between them, and the time of those calls coinciding with the date and time of the offences.

The Court observed that the presence of the 6th and 7th accused were not established on record.

“Resultantly, as regards accused nos.6 and 7, we do not find sufficient evidence against them to implicate them in the charge of abduction and murder of the deceased Renjith Johnson and the subsequent destruction of evidence or in the conspiracy hatched by the other accused in that regard.” the Court held.

The Court, therefore allowed the appeals preferred by accused nos. 6 and 7 by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the trial court and confirmed the conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on accused nos.1 to 5 as charged, by modifying the sentence imposed on them under Section 302 IPC to imprisonment for life.

The Court further added that the trial court's imposition of a rider that the accused should undergo a minimum sentence of 25 years without remission was beyond its powers. It said:

“The trial court had, while imposing the life sentence on the said accused, added a rider that they should undergo a minimum sentence of 25 years without remission. This, in our opinion, was uncalled for and at any rate beyond the powers of the trial court to impose. It is therefore that we have modified the sentence imposed on accused nos.1 to 5 under Section 302 IPC to one of life imprisonment with fine"

It  disposed of the appeals.

Case Title: Manoj@ Pambu Manoj v State of Kerala and connected cases

Case No: Crl. A 721/ 2019 and connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 782

Counsel for Appellants: Ajeesh S Brite, Tinti Mol P R, C Rajendran, Lakshmi N Kaimal, Arun poomulli, Biju Vignewsar, Meera M, Surabhi Santhosh, B N Hashkar, B K Gopalakrishnan, S Rajeev, V Vinay, M S Aneeram Sarath K P, Prerith Philip Joseph, Anilkumar C R, K S Kiran Krishnan, Priya Shanavas, R N Sandeep

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment