Supreme Court upholds conviction of man for murder of anti-liquor activist

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a liquor vendor for murdering an anti-liquor activist in December 1999 [Joy Devaraj v. State of Kerala]..A division bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Pankaj Mithal held that the prosecution has proven its case against the convict, one Joy Devaraj (convict/appellant), beyond reasonable doubt.The Bench said that Devaraj and other co-accused had reached the place of occurrence with the premeditated intention to cause hurt to the victim, which could be seen from the fact that they formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with the common intention to attack the victim and thereby put an end to the movement triggered by him to stop trade in illicit liquor. The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal filed by Devaraj against the Kerala High Court's 2011 judgment affirming his conviction.The Court cancelled the bail granted to the appellant back in February 2015 and directed him to surrender before the concerned court within three weeks."In conclusion, we agree with the High Court’s affirmance of the conviction and find that the impugned judgment warrants no interference. The criminal appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed. The order dated 13th February, 2015 granting bail to the appellant stands vacated. We direct the appellant to surrender before the concerned court immediately but not later than 3 (three) weeks from date to serve out the rest of his sentence," the Court ordered..The victim, one Bobby, was a part of an anti-liquor movement aimed at persuading people to give up on alcohol. One day, one of the members of the movement had an altercation with one of the co-accused persons who was allegedly an illicit liquor vendor.The victim had supported the member of his movement in the altercation which possibly led to the fatal attack on the victim later in the evening.The appellant, armed with dagger, alongwith fourteen other co-accused approached the victim, who tried to flee but in vain. The appellant stabbed the victim with the dagger while the other accused persons hit the victim with hockey sticks. The victim later succumbed to the injuries.The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Considering their role, the other fourteen co-accused were granted lesser punishment.In 2007, the appellant preferred an appeal against conviction before the Kerala High Court, which came to be dismissed in 2011.Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the apex court..Before the top court, the appellant argued that there were inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses regarding the weapon used in the crime, as one has said the weapon was axe and other claimed it to be a dagger.He has also tried to showcase the substantial variations in the testimony of the other witnesses..The Court noted that an attack by an unlawful assembly of fifteen people with weapons can lead to a chaotic situation and therefore, it could not be expected that each witness would possess stellar memories with an accurate recollection of the events."We presume, it must have been a very chaotic situation leading to certain discrepancies having arisen in the statements of the witnesses. We cannot expect all the witnesses, when under attack by the accused persons seeking to terrorize those protesting against liquor trade, to possess stellar memories with an accurate recollection of the events," the Court observed..The Court also noted that it was upon the appellant to demonstrate that the incongruities and consistency in the statements of the several eye witnesses shook the roots of their credibility. "In the present case, there is evidence to the effect that the appellant was part of an unlawful assembly which gathered at the place of occurrence. The victim had in mind bringing a thriving trade in liquor to be brought to a grinding halt. There was, thus, definite motive for the accused persons including the appellant to throttle the voice of the victim. In such a scenario, the appellant was required to point out serious loopholes in the prosecution story for discrediting the witnesses. Unfortunately, our faith in the credibility and reliability of the witnesses is unshaken. Although, there are a few inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses but the same are minor and not substantial, as argued, so as to erode the credibility of such witnesses," the Court said.Medical evidence also proved that the victim had died due to injuries sustained due to attack with dagger."The appellant’s submission that only one of the eight injuries sustained by the victim is grievous and the rest are simple and hence there is no intention to cause death, cannot be accepted after examining the facts of the case. In Stalin v. State , this Court held that death caused by a single stab wound can also be considered murder if the requirements of section 300, IPC are fulfilled," the apex court said.Hence, the Court was of the view that the prosecution has proven its case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt.Therefore, it dismissed the appeal..Advocates Renjith B Marar, Lakshmi N Kaimal, Rajkumar Pavothil, Arun Poomulli, Keshavraj Nair and Avinash Krishnakumar appeared for the appellant.Advocates CK Sasi, Meena K Poulose and Anupriya appeared for the respondent..[Read Judgment]