A little over five years after the mob lynching of tribesman Madhu, on Wednesday, April 4, a special court in Palakkad convicted 14 persons. The image of an impoverished 30-year-old, with his hands tied, looking helplessly at the men around him, shook the conscience of citizens of a state that calls itself progressive. Madhu, who had mental health issues and preferred to live inside the forest, was lynched in the name of stealing rice and grocery by a group of men. This was a great blow to the socially and culturally enlightened image of Kerala.
The Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Mannarkkad of Palakkad district pronounced the quantum of punishment on Wednesday. The court sentenced 13 accused to seven years of rigorous imprisonment in the lynching case while one person was sentenced for three months. It also exonerated two persons. The judgement ruled out custodial violence in the case and stated that the death was due to multiple blunt injuries, especially one to the victim’s head, that eventually led to his death.
Here are key details from the nearly 500-pages-long judgement:
The court observed that the defence was in total denial. By canvassing the principle of last seen theory, invariably all the accused persons contended that as Madhu died while he was in police custody, the latter is responsible for his death, it said.
The main contention of the defence (accused) is that it was the police personnel, including the then Additional Sub-Inspector of Police in Agali Police Station, Prasad Varkky (Prosecution Witness 83). who brutally manhandled Madhu causing him injuries, which led to his death. “PW83 was subjected to piercing cross examination with regard to manual registration of FIR, delay in giving medical aid to Madhu in other private hospitals available in between Mukkali and Agali etc. Even suggestions were put to PW83 stating that Madhu was taken to Agali police station and subjected to torture in the police station as well as in the police Jeep. All these suggestions were denied by PW83,” the judgement read.
However, during the course of cross examination, Prasad Varkky had deposed that he was unaware of the cause of Madhu’s death during the registration of FIR. He had also said that the case was registered based on notes taken down by him at Mukkali, where he noted the name and address of seven persons as stated by the person who gathered there. “PW83 vehemently denied every suggestion put to him that it is police, who have tortured Madhu and Madhu died due to police torture,” the judgment read.
The accused had unanimously contended that Madhu was manhandled by the police officials, when he was taken into custody from Mukkali and that he died due to the injuries caused by the police not only in the jeep but also at the police station. They also argued that the Investigating Officer, the doctor who treated Madhu, the Sub-Collector who conducted inquest, etc were influenced by the police to hide police torture. This was done to save the police and lay the entire blame on the accused persons, who are totally innocent in this case, they argued.
The court went into detailed analysis on this defence by the accused. “Simply because Madhu died while he was in the custody of police persons, it cannot be concluded that the death of Madhu was due to police torture,” the court said and examined the statement of the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination. It said that of the 44 injuries caused on the body of Madhu, at least three injuries caused two or three hours before he died was the cause of brain edema (swelling of the brain). This had ultimately led to his death. “It has come out in evidence that during this time, Madhu was in the custody of these accused persons,” the court said.
The court, based on the doctor’s statement, observed that the “pattern of injuries” revealed that it was not a case of police torture. After examination of several facts, the court ruled out custodial torture.
During the course of examination, Dr NA Balaram (PW 86), police surgeon who conducted the autopsy on Madhu’s body, had narrated the potential cause of each injury. The judgement listed the injuries and the potential causes as stated by him.
The court, while ruling out custodial violence, took three primary injuries in Madhu’s head into consideration. According to the doctor, these three injuries might have been caused by “a blunt object or [by] striking [him] on a blunt surface forcibly”. These injuries include ‘uncal grooving’ (also called brain herniation, meaning that the brain muscle moves inside the skull due to some pressure). Dr Balaram, during examination, had said that it might take more than two or three hours for this to happen.
The brain edema increases gradually and at a particular peak time it will cause brain damage and lead to the situation as stated in injury No.3 ie, uncal grooving. Despite the injuries, it would have been possible for Madhu to function like a normal person, up until “the stage when the edema attains such a saturated level it will result in death,” the court observed.
Dr Balaram had stated that one of the injuries might have been caused by “a long rod like weapon just like a wooden stick” and another “by stamping with the foot.” There were also injuries caused by small thorny plants that were found by the doctor at the crime spot.
“The doctor deposed that the nature and distribution of injuries suggest an inference that these injuries were caused by other persons, meaning two or more persons. In fact, the result of the postmortem examination has given an entirely different dimension to the investigation in this case,” the court said.
The court went into the three main stages of the crime: motive, preparation and execution. It found that the motive of the attack and the unlawful assembly of the accused were only to apprehend Madhu, believing that he was the person behind thefts happening in the area. The court observed that their objective was to “not to put an end to the life of Madhu but to apprehend him and cause some injury /grievous hurt on his body… to teach him a lesson”.
The court did not find evidence on charges against three of the accused – Abdul Kareem (A11), Biju (A16) and Aneesh (A4) – of having joined the unlawful assembly with an intent to cause grievous injury. The court acquitted Aneesh and Abdul Kareem not finding them guilty of any offence. Biju was found guilty and convicted for an offence punishable under Section 352 of the IPC.
The court asserted that all the electronic records produced before court by the prosecution, including the CCTV footage and mobile phones were in original form, and that there was no material to show that any of the electronic evidence was tampered. The court thereby held that all electronic evidence produced by the prosecution was acceptable.
The court acknowledged the role of the media in the case and said, “had the media not given importance to this news, this case would not have ended like this.” The highlight given by the media made the authorities take dynamic measures in handling this case, the court said, acknowledging the role of the media which was “instrumental in rendering justice to Madhu.”
Stating that it was unfair to encourage the practice of prime witnesses turning hostile to the prosecution case so as to subvert the judicial system, the judge said that proceedings under Section 40 (provisions related to offences affecting the administration of justice) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is to be initiated against 10 prosecution witnesses (PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7, PW9, PW20, PW26 and PW63) for having committed offence punishable under section 193 (punishment for false evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“This is the first mob lynching case in Gods Own Country. Let it be the last such case,” the court said and added that the assumption of moral policing by the accused, as proven by the evidence, can never be encouraged in a civilised society. “Unless instances of such moral policing is deprecated by awarding adequate sentences, this practice will be repeated by like minded persons. Therefore, it should be a lesson for all those who are thinking of assuming the role of moral police,” the court observed before awarding the sentence.
While sentencing, the court noted that Shamsudheen (A3) gave a plantain and Hareesh (A14) offered a cup of juice to Madhu, as he was brought to Mukkali. “These acts… reveal that even now there exists remnants of humanitarian consideration in the mind of the accused and hence the court finds that chances of reforming the accused into a socially committed citizen cannot be ruled out.”
The imprisonment awarded individually for offences under multiple sections shall run concurrently, and the court said that the accused will be entitled to get set off for pre-trial detention undergone by them.