Madrassa Teacher Murder: Kerala Court Acquits 3 RSS Workers; Says No Proof To Establish Motive, Hatred Or Animosity Against Muslim Community

The prosecution case was that the murder was a motive-specific offence committed by the accused who were RSS fanatics and workers to promote hatred and hostility towards the Muslim community.

The District and Sessions judge, Kasargod K K Balakrishnan stated that the prosecution failed to prove prior incidents that could show motive for the commission of the murder or RSS affiliation of the accused. It held thus:

“In the above points it is already found that none of the three incidents allegedly projected as reason for enmity of accused against Muslim community is not at all proved. Moreover, the prosecution side failed to establish any kind of connection of the accused with RSS. For the above claimed previous incidents no case was registered against the accused alleging any communal element, even then two alleged previous incidents were happened in the presence of many police officers. Nothing was produced to prove the allegation that A1 to 3 are fanatic workers and believers of RSS. Therefore, it is already found that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the motive alleged against the accused.”

Background Facts

The prosecution allegation was that communal tension began during the 2016 Kerala Legislative Assembly election when some Muslim youth attacked Ajesh. The allegation was that the accused persons were fanatic workers and believers of RSS due to their communal hatred and enmity towards the Muslim community in general, trespassed into the Muhayuddeen Mosque on midnight of 20^th March and committed the murder. It was alleged that the accused persons wanted to insult the Muslim community and defile their place of worship.

The specific allegation was that accused 1 trespassed into the room of Riyas with whom none of the accused had any previous acquaintance and stabbed him with a knife while accused 2 guarded outside the room of the mosque. The 3rd accused the 1st and 2nd accused by causing the disappearance of evidence, giving false information to screen them and providing them transportation on the motorcycle to commit the alleged offence.

The final report was filed by the police against the trio under Sections 449 (house trespass), 302 (murder), 153A (promoting enmity on the ground of religion), 295 (defiling place of worship), 201 (destruction of evidence) r/w 34 (common intention) IPC.

Court Findings

The Court stated that as per the final report, the sole reason for the commission of the murder by the accused who were fanatic workers and believers of RSS was their hatred and enmity towards the Muslim community. According to the prosecution, there were incidents after the 2016 Lok Sabha Elections that created hatred and animosity in the minds of the accused persons against the Muslim community.

The Court said that the prosecution failed to prove any previous incidents that created a reason for the enmity of the accused against the Muslim community. It stated that there were no eyewitnesses or evidence to prove that there were any prior incidents leading to communal tension or that the accused harboured animosity against the Muslim community.

“The outcome of the above analysis of evidence presented by the prosecution is that there was no incident connecting the allegation of hatredness of the accused against Muslim community. Three incidents specifically pointed out by the prosecution are no way connected to any communal element….. So no material is found to substantiate the motive alleged against the accused. Therefore the prosecution miserably failed to prove alleged motive in this case”, added the Court.

The court said that the investigating team did not examine the family members of the accused persons to prove their affiliation to the RSS. Thus, the Court stated that the Prosecution was unable to prove that the accused persons were RSS workers who harboured animosity against the Muslim community.

Analysing the testimony of witnesses, the Court stated that they were unreliable and inconsistent and could not prove the offence alleged against the accused.

Regarding the discovery of material objects, the Court stated that recovery alone was not sufficient to prove discovery evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It stated that the prosecution was unable to prove that the recovered objects linked the accused to the alleged offence.

The Court that the investigating officer failed to examine the mobile phones and SIM cards after the seizure. It stated that there was no attempt made by the investigating team to identify call data records or to send the electronic evidence for scientific examination. It stated that the investigating team committed a serious lapse in the investigation due to their failure to get the electronic evidence examined by an expert and this would portray that the investigation was improper.

“The failure of the investigating officers to investigate with respect to the contents and data of above said phone materials cast serious doubt in the manner in which the investigation was started, conducted and concluded. So the prosecution spoiled one of the best opportunity to know with whom the deceased was interacted and what was the transactions of him. To rule out all possibilities the analysis of these devises recovered from the crime spot was necessary . This failure of the investigation is never explained by the prosecution. The silence in this matter itself is sufficient to uproot the prosecution allegations. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the investigation is not up to the standard and one sided. So, the accused are entitled benefit of doubt” added the Court.

The court further stated that the recovered knife cannot be treated as the weapon that was used to inflict stab injuries upon the deceased leading to his murder. It also stated that there was no DNA evidence to prove that the 1^st accused committed the alleged offence. It added that failure to conduct DNA tests on the 1^st accused would also show that the investigation was insufficient and one-sided.

The Court further stated that the prosecution has not proved the common intention of the accused in committing the alleged offence. It also stated that the prosecution did not raise allegations of criminal conspiracy amongst the accused in the commission of the alleged murder.

The court stated that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of events leading to the murder of the deceased. It stated that the prosecution was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused out of their common intention to promote hostility and hatred against the Muslim community trespassed into the Mosque and committed the alleged murder.

The Court thus held, “Therefore the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was murdered by A1 to A3 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused are entitled benefit of doubt. Hence the offence u/ss 449, 302, 153A, 295, 201 r/w 34 of IPC charged against the accused have not been sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt and therefore they are not guilty for these offences.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction against the accused and ordered their acquittal.

Case title: Station House Officer v Ajesh @Appu & Others

Case number: Sessions Case No.301/2017