Parayil Sasi Murder Case: Supreme Court Restores Trial Court’s Judgment

In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has restored the trial court’s judgment in the Parayil Sasi murder case. The High Court’s decision was set aside, allowing justice to prevail in the case. The appeals have been allowed, and any pending applications have been disposed of, bringing an end to a long legal battle. This ruling marks a crucial milestone in the pursuit of truth and fairness in the judicial process.


  • Appeals against the judgment dated 23.05.2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala.
  • The High Court set aside the acquittal of the appellants recorded by the trial court.
  • The matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration.
  • 14 accused persons and 10-20 others formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like country-made bombs.
  • The High Court permitted both the prosecution and the defense to lead fresh evidence.
  • The death of Parayil Sasi is not denied in the case.
  • The trial court had initially acquitted the accused.
  • The witness, Kollam Kunnummal Achuthan, identified 14 accused persons who went away immediately after the incident.
  • He admits to being an accused in the case of destroying the house of Kunhikannan by fire and bomb.
  • The witness acknowledges that there are co-accused, Suresh Babu (PW-3) and Smijith, who are supposed to be the eye-witnesses in the case related to the destruction of houses.
  • The witness claims that Kooli Saseendran (Accused 1) threw a bomb while shouting ‘kill the son of a dog’.
  • He did not report the matter to the nearby police picket post, although the police arrived and questioned them after the incident.
  • The witness was cross-examined at length and admits to being an accused in multiple murder cases.
  • The prosecution’s case relies heavily on the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 regarding the incident.
  • The motive behind the attack was cited as political animosity, with the victim being targeted for his RSS affiliation.
  • After the FIR was recorded, the witness provided a statement to the police regarding the events.
  • Multiple bombs were mentioned to have been thrown by the accused during the incident.

Also Read: The State v. Harinder Singh: Landmark Judgment Upholding Conviction


  • Contradictions and deficiencies in the prosecution case were highlighted.
  • Witnesses accused of arson and throwing bombs were not fair or reliable.
  • Important witness Rajeevan was not examined, which was a crucial oversight.
  • Police officials from the police post were not examined, despite being potential key witnesses.
  • Lack of proof of daily diary report and delay in filing FIR raised doubts about the police investigation process.
  • Contradictions in the statements and actions of witnesses PW-1 and PW-3 were noted, leading to unreliability.
  • Trial court’s decision to acquit the accused was deemed justified due to the inconsistencies and lack of credibility in the testimonies.
  • The High Court’s casual dismissal of the trial court’s judgment was criticized for not considering the evidentiary flaws.
  • Remand in a criminal case should not be ordered routinely.
  • Remand was not justified in the facts of the case discussed.
  • High Court did not find substantial evidence to convict the accused.
  • Judgment was set aside and matter remitted to trial court.
  • Remand should only occur in cases of mis-trial or rare technical issues.

Also Read: Judgment on Jharkhand Public Service Commission’s Civil Appeal


  • The appeals have been allowed.
  • The judgment of the High Court has been set aside.
  • The judgment of the trial court has been restored.
  • Any pending applications have been disposed of.
  • Bail bonds, if any, have been discharged.

Also Read: Interpretation of Pre-deposit Requirement under SARFAESI Act


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001874-001875 / 2010

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *