KOCHI: In a significant judgment underscoring the high standard of proof required in capital cases, the Kerala High Court has acquitted Abdul Ali, a migrant worker from Assam, setting aside the death sentence awarded to him for the alleged rape and murder of a 60-year-old woman in 2017.
A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice S. Manu allowed the criminal appeal filed by Ali, delivering a scathing critique of the prosecution's case, which it found to be "unworthy of belief." The court ruled that the prosecution had "miserably failed" to prove its case, which was built entirely on a weak and flawed chain of circumstantial evidence.
The Case Background
The tragic case dates back to June 2017, when a 60-year-old woman was found brutally murdered at her home in Malappuram district. Abdul Ali, a young migrant worker who was employed at a nearby construction site, was arrested by the police. He was subsequently charged with house-trespass, rape (Sec 376 IPC), and murder (Sec 302 IPC).
In December 2019, the Manjeri Sessions Court found Ali guilty on all counts. Relying solely on circumstantial evidence, the trial court concluded that the "brutal" nature of the crime warranted the most extreme punishment. Invoking the "rarest of rare" doctrine, the sessions judge sentenced Abdul Ali to death by hanging.
High Court Dismantles a "Flawed" Prosecution Case
On appeal, the High Court meticulously re-examined every piece of evidence, only to find that the prosecution's case was riddled with "glaring inconsistencies" and investigative lapses. The bench found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not just weak, but fundamentally broken.
1. DNA Evidence Directly Contradicted Guilt: The most decisive flaw in the prosecution's case was the scientific evidence. The High Court bench noted that the DNA profile generated from semen samples collected from the victim's body did not match the DNA profile of the accused, Abdul Ali.
This single, objective piece of evidence directly exculpated the accused. The High Court expressed its astonishment that the trial court had "miserably failed" to appreciate this critical fact, calling its oversight "unbelievable."
2. 'Last Seen' Theory Discredited: The prosecution had heavily relied on the "last seen" theory, presenting a witness who claimed to have seen Ali near the victim's house around the time of the incident. The High Court, however, found this witness's testimony to be "unworthy of belief" and full of contradictions, noting that their statements were unreliable.
3. Recovery of Weapon Deemed "Suspicious": The High Court also discredited the recovery of the alleged murder weapon, a chopper. The court observed that the independent witness who was purportedly present during the recovery appeared to be a "stock witness" for the police, having been used as a witness in other unrelated criminal cases. This practice, the court noted, made the entire recovery "suspicious" and legally untenable.
4. A "Flawed and Perfunctory" Investigation: The Division Bench reserved its strongest criticism for the quality of the police investigation, labeling it "perfunctory and flawed." The judgment highlighted the complete failure of the investigative team to build a coherent case.
The court emphasized a cardinal principle of criminal law: when a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be so complete and conclusive that it points only to the guilt of the accused and to no one else.
In this case, the bench held that the prosecution's case was "not believable" and that the circumstances presented failed to "conclusively point to the guilt of the accused."
Finding that the prosecution had failed to meet the fundamental burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court acquitted Abdul Ali of all charges and ordered his immediate release from prison.
Click on the link to read full judgement: