7 Persons Convicted In Madhu Lynching Case Move Kerala High Court Against Order Of Special Court

Seven of the fourteen persons convicted in the Madhu Lynching Case have approached the Kerala High Court for setting aside of the conviction and sentence of the Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mannarkkad.

The case pertains to the death of a mentally challenged tribal youth, Madhu, who was lynched in February 2018, on suspicion of theft of rice, spices from shops in the Mukkali area in Palakkad, Kerala.

The Special Court had sentenced 13 of the 14 convicted persons to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence under Section 304 Part II (Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) read with Section 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal Code. The 16th accused was only found guilty of the offence under Section 352 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

Separate appeals have been filed by 7th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th accused and the 2nd and 5th accused.

The order of the Special Court dated 4th April 2023, has been challenged on the ground that the conviction by the court below is based only on circumstantial evidence and against all settled propositions of law. The appellants contend that vital documents were not produced by the prosecution in the case. The appellants have also challenged the conviction on the ground that the witnesses never identified accused no. 4, 7, 14 and 15 in the box. They also contend that the police did not conduct a test identification parade.

It has also been argued by the appellants that since the victim died in police custody, the possibility of custodial death should have been properly explored by the special court. The appellants in their plea have also stated that there was inordinate delay in filing the FIR, the reason for which the court below failed to examine.

The Special Court Judge K.M. Retheesh Kumar while convicting 14 of the 16 persons accused in the lynching case had observed:

“This court is bound to respect the life of Madhu just like the life of any other citizen in this country. Our constitution guarantees equal right to life for each and every citizen in India irrespective of their social status. Hence, the court cannot award a flee bite sentence in this case for the reason that the person who died in the incident is not a big shot.”

State's Appeal 

Meanwhile, the State Government has also appealed against the decision of the Special Court, being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused under all the grave offences charged and alleged imposition of inadequate sentence. The appeal filed through the Additional Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan avers that the maximum period of imprisonment liable to be undergone as per the sentence imposed by the Special Court was only 7 years in this sensational case. 

It has been alleged by the State that social interests had been "fully ignored" by the trial court while appreciating the evidence involved in the case and imposing the sentences. It has been averred that the trial court only made a casual assessment that Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) and (va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act were not attracted against the accused persons but 304 part II alone was established. The State has claimed this finding to be against the evidence led by prosecution witnesses and the digital and scientific and medical evidences proved beyond doubt before the trial court.

It has been alleged that the trial court imposed lesser sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment to be the maximum extent with concurrency, without taking much care in this regard, which was insufficient and inadequate considering the gravity of the offence. 

The State has averred that the factual matrix reveals that the accused persons were aware that their cruel acts on the deceased tribal youth would be dangerous and fatal, and would cause threat to his life as well, thereby attracting the third limb of Section 299 and the explanation under Section 300 of IPC, making it punishable for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 

The State has argued that since this is a case involving a mentally ill tribal youth who had been severely manhandled and tortured in an inhuman manner, any "fleabite sentence would render a very wrong signal to the society". It has been averred that the trial court failed to consider the rights of the deceased tribal youth who was victimized for taking some food items from the shops of the accused persons secretly to meet his hunger, and that the sentences imposed were not commensurate with the gravity of the offence of homicide committed by them.

It has thus been prayed that the Special Court ought to have imposed sufficient and adequate punishment on the accused persons considering the gravity of the offence. 

Case Title: Marakkar V State of Kerala, Sidhique V State of Kerala