{"id":171376,"date":"1974-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974"},"modified":"2015-02-17T01:21:37","modified_gmt":"2015-02-16T19:51:37","slug":"sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974","title":{"rendered":"Sethu Madhavan Nair & Ors vs The State Of Kerala on 9 August, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sethu Madhavan Nair & Ors vs The State Of Kerala on 9 August, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1857, \t\t 1975 SCR (1) 673<\/div>\n
Author: H R Khanna<\/div>\n
Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSETHU MADHAVAN NAIR & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF KERALA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/08\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR 1857\t\t  1975 SCR  (1) 673\n 1975 SCC  (3) 150\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1976 SC 832\t (6)\n R\t    1977 SC 785\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\nCode of Criminal Procedure S. 417 -Appeal under Practice and\nProcedure  Scope  of  power of High Court  to  review  trial\nCourt's Judgment.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellants were tried for the offence of murder but were\nacquitted  on  the  ground that there was  no  reliable\t and\nconvincing  evidence against them.  The High Court  reversed\nthe judgment of acquittal and convicted and sentenced them.\nOn  the\t question  whether the High Court was  in  error  in\nreversing  the\tfinding of acquittal  recorded\tby  Sessions\nJudge.\nAllowing the appeal.\nHeld  :\t The  High  Court was  in  error  in  reversing\t the\njudgement  of  the  court.  The\t Sessions  Judge  had  given\nconvincing   and    cogent  reasons  in\t  support   of\t his\nconclusions.   The  view taken by him can, by no  means,  be\ndescribed as unreasonable.  Even if the High Court felt that\non  the\t material  on  record  a  different  view  was\talso\npossible,  that fact did not justify interference  with\t the\njudgment of acquittal.\tIf two conclusions can be reached on\nthe  basis of the evidence on record the High  Court  should\nnot interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by\t the\ntrial court. [679-D]\nIn  an\tappeal under s. 417 Cr.\t P.C. against  an  order  of\nacquittal, the High Court has full power to review at  large\nthe evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and\nto reach the conclusion that upon the evidence the order  of\nacquittal  should  be  reversed.  No  limitation  should  be\nplaced\tupon that power unless it be found expressly  stated\nin  the Code, but in exercising the power conferred  by\t the\nCode  and before reaching its conclusion upon fact the\tHigh\nCourt  should give proper weight and consideration  to\tsuch\nmatters\t as  (1)  the  view of the trial  judge\t as  to\t the\ncredibility  of\t the  witnesses;  (2)  the  presumption\t  of\ninnocence in favour of the accused, a presumption  certainly\nnot  weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at\t his\ntrial;\t(3) the right of the accused to the benefit  of\t any\nreal  and  reasonable  doubt; and (4)  the  slowness  of  an\nappellate  court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived  at\nby  a judge who had the advantage of seeing  the  witnesses.\nThe  High  Court should also take into account\tthe  reasons\ngiven by the court below port of its order of acquittal\t and\nmust  express  its reasons in the judgment which led  it  to\nhold that the acquittal was not justified.  Further, if\t two\nconclusions  can be based upon the evidence on\trecord,\t the\nHigh  Court  should  not disturb the  finding  of  acquittal\nrecorded by the trial court.  It would follow as a corollary\nfrom  that,  that if the view taken by the  trial  court  in\nacquitting the accused was not unreasonable the occasion for\nthe reversal of that view would not arise. [678.  H 679C]:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 16. of
\n1971.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 15th December, 1970
\nof the Kerala High Court in Crl.  A.No. 256 of 1970.
\nK. R. Kunhirama and A. S. Nambiar, for the appellants.
\nK. T. Harindernath and A. G. Puddssery, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKHANNA, J. Sethu Madhavan Nair and 12 others were tried in,
\nthe court of the learned Sessions Judge Palghat for offences
\nunder  sections\t 148  and 302 or in  the  alternative  under
\nsection 302 read with
\n674<\/span>
\nsection 149 Indian penal Code and were acquitted.  On appeal
\nby  .the State, the Kerala High Court reversed the  judgment
\nof  acquittal and convicted the accused tinder\tsection\t 302
\nread  with section 149 Indian Penal Code and sentenced\teach
\nof  them to undergo imprisonment for life.  The\t 13  accused
\nthereafter  filed the present appeal against ..the  judgment
\nof the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
Ananthakrishnan deceased was a landowner of village  Thanni-
\nsseri.\t He was also Secretary of the Karshaka Samajani,  an
\norganization of landowners.  The accused are workers of\t the
\nlocal  Marxist\t,Communist Party.  About one or\t two  months
\nbefore the present occurrence, an agitation had been started
\nby  Karshaka Thozhilali Union, which was affiliated  to\t the
\nMarxist\t Communist  Party,  for\t the  enhancement  of  wages
\npayable\t to  agricultural labourers.  As a  result  of\tthat
\nagitation,  the\t landowners found difficulty  in  conducting
\ntheir  agricultural operations.\t The relations\tbetween\t the
\nlandowners  and\t the Marxist  Communist\t Party\tconsequently
\nbecame\tstrained.  On March 12, 1969, it is stated, four  of
\nthe accused along with some others obstructed the workers of
\nAnanthakrishnan\t   deceased   when   those   workers\twere
\ntransporting  manure in a cart to his field.   The  deceased
\nfiled  a complaint under sections 148 and 341  Indian  Penal
\n,Code before the District Magistrate against those  persons.
\nAs  there was strike and picketing by the  Marxist  workers,
\nAnanthakrishnan\t deceased  and his brother  Velunni  (PW  1)
\naddressed an application to the District Collector on  April
\n11, 1969 requesting that police protection might be given to
\nwilling\t workers  and  others whom they\t might\temploy\tfrom
\nneighbouring  areas for agricultural work.  A writ  petition
\nwas  also  filed  in  the High Court  by  the  deceased\t for
\ndirecting  the authorities to provide protection to him\t and
\nhis workmen in carrying on agricultural work. on.  April 18,
\n1969  Sub  Inspector  Damodara Menon (PW  12)  went  to\t the
\nvillage\t of  the  parties to settle a  dispute\tbetween\t the
\ndeceased  and  the members of the Marxist  Communist  Party.
\nThe  Sub Inspector on that occasion recovered an  unlicensed
\nrevolver  which Ananthakrishnan deceased had thrown  into  a
\nfield.\t  A  case  was\tthereupon  registered  against\t the
\ndeceased.\n<\/p>\n
Ananthakrishnan\t  deceased,   according\t  further   to\t the
\nprosecution  ,case, sold 50 Palmyrah trees for Rs. 3,000  to
\nPW  Krishnan of village Parli.\tKrishnan deputed  his  agent
\nChokkunny Ezhuthassan (PW 6) to cut and remove those  trees.
\nOn.   April  18, 1969 Chokkunny Ezhuthassan  accompanied  by
\nsome wood cutters went to cut and remove the aforesaid trees
\nbut  they  were prevented from doing so by the\tHarijans  as
\naccording to those Harijans a bund had been declared on that
\nday in connection with the agitation started by the Karshaka
\nThozhilali Union.  Chokkunny was also told to come after two
\ndays for cutting the trees.\n<\/p>\n
On  the morning of April 20, 1969, Ananthakrishnan  deceased
\naccompanied  by\t his elder brother Velunni PW  went  to\t the
\nhouse of Joy (PW 5) as a function had been arranged at\tthat
\nhouse  in  connection  with the sending of  Joy’s  wife\t for
\ndelivery.   After the tea party was  ,over,  Ananthakrishnan
\nleft Joy’s house at about 10 a.m. saying that
\n675<\/span>
\nhe  wanted to see whether the person to whom Palmyrah  trees
\nhad  been  sold\t had  come  to\tcut  those  trees.   Velunni
\ncontinued  to  stay  in\t Joy’s\thouse.\t Shortly  thereafter
\nKrishnan   (PW\t 2)  came  near\t Joy’s\thouse\tasking\t for
\nAnanthakrishnan.    Velunni  and  Krishnan  then   proceeded
\ntowards\t the  Palm House to which Ananthakrishnan  had\tgone
\nearlier.   At  a distance of about 200 yards from  the\tPalm
\nHouse  near  the eastern gale.\tVelunni and Krishnan  saw  a
\nlarge  number  of persons holding sticks.  On  seeing  those
\npersons,  Velunni and Krishnan went to the western  side  of
\nthe Palm House, On arrival there, Velunni and Krishnan,\t saw
\nthe  13\t accused,  who were all\t armed\twith  bamboo  sticks
\nresembling police lathis, beating Ananthakrishnan with their
\nsticks.\t Sethu Madhavan Nair accused at that time was saying
\nto  the\t deceased, “How many persons would you kill  with  a
\nrevolver  ? Would you not withdraw the case when. asked\t ?”.
\nVelunni\t and  Krishnan\tsaw  the  Occurrence  while   hiding
\nthemselves  behind  a fence at a distance of about  35\tfeet
\ntowards\t the  west of the place of  occurrence.\t  After\t the
\nbeating\t had  continued\t for six  or  seven  minutes,  Sethu
\nMadhavan  Nair\taccused\t cried\ta  halt\t saying\t that  Anan-
\nthakrishnan  was  dead.\t The accused then left\tthat  place.
\nAfter the departure of the accused, Velunni and Krishnan PWs
\nwent to the spot where Annanthakrishnan was lying and  found
\nthat  he  was  dead.   Volunni and  Krishnan  then  went  to
\nMenankolambu:  at a distance of four or five  furlongs\tfrom
\nthe  place  of\toccurrence.  Krishnan  stayed  there,  while
\nVelunni went from that place to Koduvayur.  Hiring a taxi in
\nKoduvayur,  Velunni  went  to police  station  Kasaba  at  a
\ndistance  of 8 kilometres from the place of occurrence,\t and
\nlodged there report P-1 at 2 p.m.
\nAfter  the registration of the case.   Inspector  Karunakarn
\n(PW 13) went to the place of occurrence and reached there at
\n3  30 p. m. The Inspector prepared the inquest report.\t The
\ndead  body was thereafter sent to Palghat where post  mortem
\nexamination. was performed by Dr. V. S. Chandran at 9-20  a.
\nm. on April 21,.1969. The accused were arrested on April  24
\nand 25, 1969 and were thereafter sent up for trial.
\nThe  accused  in their statements under section 342  of\t the
\nCode   of   Criminal  Procedure\t  denied   the\t prosecution
\nallegations  against them regarding their  participation  in
\nthe  present  occurrence.   No\tevidence  was  produced\t  in
\ndefence.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Sessions Judge, as mentioned earlier,  acquitted
\nthe  accused on. the ground that there was no  reliable\t and
\ncovincing  evidence against them.  On appeal the High  Court
\ndisagreed   with  the-\tSessions  Judge\t and  came  to\t the
\nconclusion  that the 13 accused were guilty of\tthe  offence
\nunder section 302 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code.
\nIn  appeal before us Mr. K R. Kunhirama Menon on  behalf  of
\nthe  appellants\t has assailed the evidence  adduced  by\t the
\nprosecution  and  H  has  contended that it  is\t of  a\tmost
\nunsatisfactory character for founding thereon the conviction
\nof the accused. it has been further urged by Mr. Menon\tthat
\nthe High Court was in error in. reversing the finding
\n676<\/span>
\nof  acquittal  recorded by the Sessions Judge.\t As  against
\nthat,.\t Mr.  K.  T. Harindra Nath  has\t canvassed  for\t the
\ncorrectness of the judgment of the High Court.
\nIt  cannot be disputed that a large number of injuries\twere
\ncaused to Ananthakrishnan  decreased on April 20, 1969\tnear
\nthe Palni House as a result of which he died.  Dr.  Chandran
\nwho  performed\tpost  mortem  examination  on  the  body  of
\nAnanthakrishnan\t  found\t five  incised\twounds\t besides   8
\ncontusions,  two lacerated wounds and one abrasion over\t the
\ndifferent  parts  of  the body of the  deceased.   The\tfive
\nincised wounds were as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1.  An  incised wound 3 cm x 5 cm  x  .25  cm
\n\t      oblique over the right parietal region.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2. An incised gapping wound 2 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm
\n\t      over  the\t parieto  occipital  suture  on\t the
\n\t      right.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.  An  incised wound 4 cm x  1\/2\t cm  anterio
\n\t      posterior\t over  the posterior part  over\t the
\n\t      right parietal region.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4. An incised wound 1 cm x 1\/2 cm x 5 cm\tjust
\n\t      in  front\t of  the  pinna\t of  the  right\t ear
\n\t      directed downwards and forwards.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5. An incised gapping wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm
\n\t      oblique over the right malar eminence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  dissection the doctor found that there was a  transverse
\nfracture  of the right zygomatic bone, a depressed  stellate
\nfracture  of  the  ala\tof-the right  temporal\tbone  and  a
\ndepressed  fracture  of\t the posterior\tpart  of  the  right
\nparietal  bone.\t  There\t was also a fracture  of  the  right
\nhumerus.   The\tinjuries,  according  to  the  doctor,\twere
\nsufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
\nThe  case  of  the  prosecution\t is  that  the\tinjuries  to
\nAnanthakrishnan deceased were caused by the 13 accused.\t  In
\norder to substantiate the above allegation, the\t prosecution
\nhas  examined  Velunni\t(PW 1) and Krishnan (PW\t 2)  as\t eye
\nwitnesses  of  the occurrence and they\thave  supported\t the
\nprosecution case as given above.  It is upon the evidence of
\nthese  two eye witnesses that the High Court has  based\t the
\nconviction of the accused.  After having been taken  through
\nthe evidence of these two witnesses, we find the same to  be
\nfar  from convincing.  We are further of the view  that\t the
\nlearned Sessions Judge gave cogent grounds for rejecting the
\ntestimony  of  these  witnesses.  The  High  Court,  in\t the
\ncircumstances,\tshould not have reversed the  well  reasoned
\njudgment of the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
According to the two eye witnesses, each one of the  accused
\nat  the time of the occurrence was armed with bamboo  sticks
\nresembling  police lathis and they caused injuries.  to\t the
\ndeceased with those sticks.  Dr. Chandran who performed post
\nmortem\texamination  on\t the  dead  body  of  the  deceased,
\nhowever”  found five incised wounds on the body.  It  is  in
\nthe testimony of the doctor that it were these five  incised
\nwounds\twhich proved fatal and resulted in the death of\t the
\ndeceased.\n<\/p>\n
677<\/span><\/p>\n
Although  Dr. Chandran has added that those  incised  wounds
\ncould  have  been caused with sticks, he  admits  in  cross-
\nexamination  that  all\tthe five were  clean  pucca  incised
\nwounds.\t  Dr. Chandran expressed his disagreement  with\t the
\nview that an injury caused on the bony part of the body with
\nblunt  type  weapon could not cause a  clean  pucca  incised
\nwound.\tThe learned Sessions Judge who was of the view\tthat
\nthe five incised wounds had been caused by sharpened  weapon
\nrejected this part of the statement of the doctor and relied
\nupon  the  following  observations on  page  225  of  Modi’s
\n“Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Seventeenth Edition:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Occasionally,  on wounds produced by a  blunt
\n\t      weapon  or by a fall the skin splits  and\t may
\n\t      look  like  incised wounds when  inflicted  on
\n\t      tense  structures covering the bones, such  as
\n\t      the   scalp,  eyebrow,  illiac  crest,   shin,
\n\t      perineum\tetc.,  or by a fall on the  knee  or
\n\t      elbow when the limb is flexed.  But the  edges
\n\t      of such wounds will be found irregular with  a
\n\t      certain amount of bruising, and small  strands
\n\t      of  tissue may be seen at the bottom  bridging
\n\t      across  the margins, if examined with  a\thand
\n\t      lens.  In the case of wounds of the scalp\t the
\n\t      hairbulbs\t will be found crushed, if they\t are
\n\t      inflicted\t with  a blunt weapon, but  will  be
\n\t      found cut, if produced by a cutting weapon.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the High of the above observation, we find no  infirmity
\nin  the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the\tfive
\nclean pucca incised injuries which were found on the body of
\nthe deceased had been caused by sharpedged weapon and not by
\nsticks.\t  Dr.  Chandran\t admits\t that  in  case\t the   above
\nmentioned injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon,\t the
\nsame  must  have been a heavy weapon like a chopper  as\t the
\ninjuries  had  resulted in the fracture\t of  the  underlying
\nbones.\n<\/p>\n
As  regards  the identity of the culprits,  Velunni  PW\t has
\nstated\tthat he identified the culprits by looking at  their
\nfaces  during  the  course of the  occurrence.\t Before\t the
\ncommitting  magistrate, however, the version of\t Velunni  PW
\nwas  that he identified the culprits by looking at the\tback
\nof  each one of them.  Velunni also added in  his  statement
\nbefore the committing magistrate that he could only see\t the
\nback  of  each\tone  of\t the accused  at  the  time  of\t the
\noccurrence.   So  for  as Krishnan (P W2)  is  concerned  he
\ndeposed\t that he had known only two of the accused for\tfive
\nor six years before the present occurrence but did not\tknow
\nthe  remaining 11 accused.  Krishnan added that he had\tseen
\nthose 11 accused once before the present occurrence when  he
\ncalled\tat the office of the Communist Party.  Krishnan\t was
\nthen  confronted with his statement made before the  police.
\nAccording  to  that statement, Krishan had  no\tacquaintance
\nwith  the persons who caused injuries to the  deceased.\t  No
\nidentification\tparade was also held in which  Krishnan\t was
\nasked to identify any of the accused.  The learned  Sessions
\nJudge  in view of the above came to the conclusion that\t the
\nevidence  regarding  the identity of the  culprits  was\t not
\nsatisfactory.\tWe  find nothing unreasonable in  the  above
\nview.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned Sessions Judge also expressed the opinion\tthat
\nthe  assault on the deceased took place not at 1 1  a.m.  as
\nstated by Velunni
\n11–M185 Sup.  CI\/75
\n678<\/span>
\nand Krisnan PWs but before 9-30 or in any case before 10  a.
\nm. Reliance in this context was placed upon the evidence  of
\nChokkuny (PW 6).  Chokkunny had been deputed by Krishnan  to
\ntake  labourers\t and get cut Palmyrah trees which  had\tbeen
\npurchased  by Krishnan from Ananthakrishnan.  Chokkunny\t has
\ndeposed that at about 10 a.m. on that day he was told by the
\nwood cutters that Ananthakrishnan had been beaten to  death.
\nChokkunny was also confronted with his statement made before
\nthe police.  The learned Sessions Judge concluded from\tthat
\nstatement  that Chokkunny had learnt about the death of\t the
\ndeceased from others at about 9.30 a.m. The High Court\ttook
\nthe view that the above mentioned time did not relate to the
\nmoment\twhen Chokkunny received information of the death  of
\nthe  deceased  but to the time when the\t deceased  had\tgone
\nalone towards the place of occurrence.\tThe police statement
\nof Chokkunny in this respect is not very clear.\t Be that  as
\nit may, the fact remians that Chokkunny in his deposition in
\ncourt  has  deposed that it was at about 10  a.m.  that\t the
\nlearnt\tof  ,the  death of  Ananthakrishnan  deceased.\t The
\nlearned Sessions Judge made a pointed reference to this part
\nof the statement of Chokkunny.\tThe High Court in the course
\nof  its judgment, however, did not deal with this aspect  of
\nthe matter.  The learned Sessions Judge also sought  support
\nfor  the  conclusion  that the occurrence  had\ttaken  place
\nbefore\t9-30 or 10 a.m. from the evidence of  Dr.  Chandran.
\nAccording to the doctor, the time which elapsed between the,
\ndeath of the deceased and the post mortem examination was 24
\nto 36 hours.  The post mortem examination was performed at 9
\n20  a.m. on April 21, 1969.  In coming to that opinion,\t the
\ndoctor\treferred  to the fact that he noticed  blisters\t and
\npeeling\t all over the back off the trunk.  The\tdoctor\talso
\nnoticed signs of decomposition.\t In view of the testimony of
\nChokkunny  and Dr. Chandran PWs, we are of the opinion\tthat
\nthe  learned  Sessions\tJudge  had  reasonable\tground\t for
\narriving at the conclusion that the assault on the  deceased
\ntook  place not at 11 a.m but earlier than 10 a.m. and\tthat
\nVelunni\t and  Krishnan did not witness the  occurrence\twhen
\nthey  arrived  near  the Palm House at about  1\t 1  a.m.  In
\ndeclining  to  place  much reliance  upon  the\tevidence  of
\nVelunni\t PW, the trial judge also referred to the fact\tthat
\nthe aforesaid witness had enmity with a large number of\t the
\naccused.   Another  circumstance  which\t also  affected\t the
\nveracity  of the statement of Velunny PW was that though  he
\ndisclosed  in  court  that only the 13\taccused\t had  caused
\ninjuries  to the deceased, the version given by him  in\t the
\nfirst  information  report was that the\t injuries  had\tbeen
\ncaused by others besides the 13 accused.\n<\/p>\n
in  an\tappeal\tunder section 417 of the  Code\tof  Criminal
\nProcedure against an order of acquittal, the High Court\t has
\nfull  power  to review at large the evidence  on  which\t the
\norder  of acquittal was founded and to reach the  conclusion
\nthat  upon  the evidence the order of  acquittal  should  be
\nreversed.   No limitation should be placed upon\t that  power
\nunless\tit  be found expressly stated in the  Code,  but  in
\nexercising  the\t power\tconferred by  the  Code\t and  before
\nreaching its conclusion upon fact the High Court should give
\nproper\tweight and consideration to such matters as (1)\t the
\nview of the trial judge as to the credibility of
\n679<\/span>
\nthe  witness; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour  of
\nthe  accused,  a presumption certainly not weakened  by\t the
\nfact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the  right
\nof  the\t accused to the benefit of any real  and  reasonable
\ndoubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court disturbing
\na  finding  of\tfact  arrived at by  a\tjudge  who  had\t the
\nadvantage  of seeing the witnesses.  The High  Court  should
\nalso take into account the reasons given by the court  below
\nin  support of its order of acquittal and must\texpress\t its
\nreasons\t in  the  judgment which lead it to  hold  that\t the
\nacquittal is not justified.  Further, if two conclusions can
\nbe based upon the evidence on record, the High Court  should
\nnot  disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the  trial
\ncourt.\tIt would follow as a corollary from that that if the
\nview  taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused  is
\nnot unreasonable, the occasion for the reversal of that view
\nwould not arise.\n<\/p>\n
Keeping\t in mind the principles enunciated above, we are  of
\nthe opinion that there was no sufficient ground for the High
\nCourt to reverse the judgment of the trial court whereby  it
\nacquitted the 13 accused.  Learned Sessions Judge had  given
\nconvincing and cogent reasons in support of the\t conclusions
\nat which he arrived.  The view taken by him can by no  means
\nbe  described as unreasonable.\tEven if the High Court\tfelt
\nthat  on the material on record, a different view  was\talso
\npossible  that\tfact,  in  our\topinion,  did  not   justify
\ninterference  with  the\t judgment  of  acquittal.   If\t two
\nconclusions  can be reached on the basis of the evidence  on
\nrecord,\t the High Court, as already mentioned above,  should
\nnot interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by\t the
\ntrial court.\n<\/p>\n
We  are, therefore, of the view that the learned  Judges  of
\nthe  High Court were in error in reversing the\tjudgment  of
\nthe  trial court whereby it had acquitted the  accused.\t  We
\naccordingly accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of the
\nHigh  Court and restore that of the trial court whereby\t the
\naccused had been acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\n<\/p>\n
680<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sethu Madhavan Nair & Ors vs The State Of Kerala on 9 August, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1857, 1975 SCR (1) 673 Author: H R Khanna Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj PETITIONER: SETHU MADHAVAN NAIR & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF KERALA DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/08\/1974 BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-171376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSethu Madhavan Nair & Ors vs The State Of Kerala on 9 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sethu Madhavan Nair & Ors vs The State Of Kerala on 9 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1974-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-16T19:51:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sethu Madhavan Nair & Ors vs The State Of Kerala on 9 August, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-16T19:51:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974\"},\"wordCount\":3074,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974\",\"name\":\"Sethu Madhavan Nair & Ors vs The State Of Kerala on 9 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-16T19:51:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sethu Madhavan Nair & Ors vs The State Of Kerala on 9 August, 1974\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sethu Madhavan Nair & Ors vs The State Of Kerala on 9 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sethu Madhavan Nair & Ors vs The State Of Kerala on 9 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-16T19:51:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sethu Madhavan Nair & Ors vs The State Of Kerala on 9 August, 1974","datePublished":"1974-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-16T19:51:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974"},"wordCount":3074,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974","name":"Sethu Madhavan Nair & Ors vs The State Of Kerala on 9 August, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-16T19:51:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sethu-madhavan-nair-ors-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-9-august-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sethu Madhavan Nair & Ors vs The State Of Kerala on 9 August, 1974"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171376","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=171376"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171376\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}