Madhu Lynching: Kerala High Court stays sentence and grants bail to prime accused but denies bail to 12 others

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday granted bail to Hussain, the prime accused in the 2018 case where a tribal man named Madhu was lynched by a mob. .A division bench consisting of Justices PB Suresh Kumar and PG Ajithkumar stayed the sentence imposed on Hussain earlier this year by a special court and granted him bail.The bench deemed it fit to stay his sentence as it found that he hadn't been involved in the initial harassment of Madhu. "In the case of the 1st accused (Hussain), there is a difference. The very allegation against him is that he joined the other assailants after the deceased was already captured him in custody and kept under confinement. Based on a solitary act that he stamped the deceased and as a consequence his head hit against a wall resulting in head injury, and that turned out to be a major cause of the death, he was found guilty. When there is no allegation that he was a party to the assembly that perpetrated harassment and ridiculing of the deceased, a different criteria is liable to be taken in his case," the Court noted.However, the bench refused to stay the sentences or allow bail for the remaining twelve convicts..Madhu, a mentally challenged tribal youth, was tied up and brutally beaten to death in Palakkad's Attapady in February 2018. The accused along with others allegedly caught Madhu from a nearby forest and assaulted him after accusing him of stealing rice from a grocery shop.Sixteen persons stood trial for committing offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 342, 352, 364, 367, 368, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act).In April this year, Hussain and twelve others were convicted by a special court hearing SC/ST Act cases for committing several offenses including under Sections 304 (causing death by negligence) and 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the IPC.They were sentenced to undergo various periods of imprisonment under each offense, with the longest being seven years imprisonment under Sections 304 and 326.Since the sentences were to run concurrently, they would have had to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment in total as well as pay the fines as ordered by the trial court.One of the accused was found guilty under Section 352 (punishment for assault or criminal force) of the IPC alone and, therefore, sentenced to 3 months simple imprisonment.The remaining three accused persons were acquitted by the special court..Subsequently, all thirteen men who were convicted moved the High Court challenging their conviction and sentence. The State government also filed an appeal against the judgment of the special court, arguing that the thirteen convicts were guilty of more offences than what they were convicted for.It further challenged the finding of the special court with regard to the one convict who was found guilty of only a minor offence.The State also challenged the acquittal of three other accused..The division bench of the High Court stayed the sentence for only the prime accused and granted him bail. Considering the fact that it refused to suspend the sentences imposed on the other twelve accused, the Court acknowledged the need to hear and dispose of the appeals expeditiously.It, therefore, listed the case for hearing on January 15, 2024..Additional Special Public Prosecutor advocate PV Jeevesh appeared for the State. .[Read Order]