TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction_____________________________________________________3
Facts of the Case_________________________________________________3
Issues___________________________________________________________4
Arguments Advanced_____________________________________________4
Appellant’s Arguments______________________________________________________4
Respondent’s Arguments_____________________________________________________4
Judgement______________________________________________________4
Related provisions________________________________________________5
Indian Penal Code ,1860 (Now replaced by Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita w.e.f. July 1 2024)___5
Explosive Act, 1884 –_______________________________________________________6
Critical Analysis__________________________________________________6
Impact of the Judgement___________________________________________6
Conclusion______________________________________________________6
Introduction
NAME OF THE CASE- Jafarudheen & Ors. v. State of Kerala |
CITATION- IA NO. 6532 of 2021 (APPLICATION FOR BAIL) in CRIMINAL APPEAL
NOs.430 — 431 Of 2015 |
DATE OF THE CASE- 23 July 2021 |
APPELANT- Jafarudheen & Ors. |
RESPONDENT- State of Kerala |
BENCH/JUDGES- Hon'ble Chief Justice N. V. Ramana, Hon'ble Justice Surya Kant &
Hon'ble Justice A. S. Bopanna
STATUTES- Indian Penal Code, 1860 Explosive Act, 1884 |
IMPORTANT SECTION/ARTICLE- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 143, 148, 427,
460, 302 read with section 149 Explosive Act, 1884 — Sections 3 and 5
Facts of the Case
The present case arises when fight started between the two political party members. Both the
dead and the guilty are members of two distinct political parties, one of which is linked with
the CPI (M) and the other with the NDF. There was a fight between CPI (M) and NDF
associated political members, with the dead and P.W.8 as CPI(M) members and A-3 and A-
10 as NDF associates. The dead allegedly assaulted A-3 during the argument. In order to
exact revenge, the suspects, numbering 16, gathered at the family home of A-5 on the same
day and devised a plot to assassinate the deceased. Following the aforementioned decision,
A-1 to A-13 arrived at the deceased’s residence the next day with three material items,
namely I an auto-rickshaw, (ii) a motorcycle, and (iii) a jeep, all armed with deadly weapons
such as swords, knives, and a chopper. While four of them waited outside, the others stormed
in and attacked the deceased without mercy. They also detonated country bombs twice
throughout the procedure. P.W.1 was present during the incident and was the narrator of the
FIR that was filed against six named defendants and other individuals for offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 452, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act. The next day, the filed complaint was delivered
to the jurisdictional Magistrate. A charge sheet was filed against 16 people when the inquiry
was completed. The prosecution called a total of 66 witnesses. While acquitting the suspects,
the Sessions Judge in Kollam found them guilty. Both the prosecution and the de facto
complainant, as well as the convicted accused, filed appeals and amendments. The conviction
and imprisonment were upheld by the Kerala High Court. 1 The State’s appealing against
conviction judgement in favour of A-14 to A-16 was rejected, although it was granted by
reversing the conviction order of A-10 to A-13. The guilty suspects have issued these
challenges as the court fight against A-14 through A-16 has come to an end. 2 Later, the
hearing for bail application was done.3

1
Jafarudheen & Ors. v. State of Kerala, INDIAN CONSTITUTION (Apr. 22, 2022)
2
Jafarudheen & Ors. v. State of Kerala, No. 1707 of 2015, Supreme Court of India (Apr. 22, 2022
3
Jafarudheen & Ors. v. State of Kerala, INDIAN KANOON
Issues
Whether the bail should be granted to A-10 and A-13 on not?

Arguments Advanced
Appellant’s Arguments
 A-2, A-4, A-5, A-8, and A-9’s learned attorneys argued that the FIR filed was an
afterthought, produced afterwards and so ante-dated, and that there is no appropriate
explanation for referring the jeep with the registration plate.
 It was also argued that there is delayed in the part of Magistrate and this delayed has
not been thoroughly investigated. Because the witnesses are either interested or
chance, the courts should have dismissed their testimony. They include members of
the deceased’s relatives as well as representatives of a political party.
 Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel for A-10 to A-13, has contended that the High
Court made a jurisdictional mistake by overturning the Trial Court’s well-founded
decision and substituting its own views for those of the Trial Court.
 He additionally argued that when witnesses are unable to identify the defendant, the
testimonies given become very suspect. He cited the case of Mohan @ Srinivas @
Seena @Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka, 2021 4, in which it was decided that when
the Trial Court has issued an order of acquittal after thorough examination and
assessment of the evidence, the High Court’s power under the code must be exercised
with caution.

Respondent’s Arguments
 On behalf of state, it was submitted that – In the absence of any evident illegality, the
concurrent decisions of the courts, it is argued, do not deserve any interference.
 It was also said that both lower courts evaluated all evidence, including eyewitnesses,
material things, and recoveries, as well as scientific data.
 It was later contended that it had stated its reasoning for overturning the Trial Court’s
acquittal ruling. The evidence value of the recoveries was not even considered by the
Trial Court. In such a circumstance, there is no need for intervention, especially
because the arguments stated have been documented.
 On the matter of the car number being mentioned in the FIR, it is argued that it has
not been shown to the Court and, in any case, the conviction was delivered based on
the documents on record.

Judgement

 The court ruled that there is insufficient evidence to draw the inference that the delay
was purposeful and intentional enough to warrant suspicion. We find no fault with the
Trial Court’s reasoning, which is predicated on the other information in the file as
well as the eyewitness depositions, hence we are inclined to dismiss the
aforementioned claim. Therefore, it is equally appropriate to reject the
aforementioned position.
 We are able to make this comparison since the arguments put out to bolster the
testimony of these witnesses raise questions, raise suspicions, and are either
4
Mohan @ Srinivas @ Seena @ Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka, (2021) (India)
 insufficient to support a contentious outcome or likely to mislead. We thus concur
with the Trial Court’s decision.
 Furthermore, A-12 is not likely to be able to hide the bloodstains on her garment for
longer than ten days. One may apply the same logic to A-10. It was said that A-13 had
taken the bloodstained clothing out of the clinic. There is no proof on that point other
than connecting the aforementioned outfit to the suspect’s; also, it is unclear how the
aforementioned dress got to the hospital.
 The High Court has reversed the appellants’ convictions in Criminal Appeal No. 430-
431 of 2015, with case numbers A-10 to A-13. As a result, the High Court’s decision
is overturned and the Trial Court’s acquittal is reinstated in the appeals filed by
Accused Nos. A-10 to A-13, Criminal Appeal No. 430-431 of 2015. If any, the bail
bonds for A-10 through A-13 have been released. Applications that are still pending
will be deleted.
 Based on the claims in their bail application, the fact that the applicants are said to
have signed, the fact that they have been detained for more than six years, and the fact
that it is a matter of reversal, we are ready to grant them bail while we await the
resolution of the criminal appeal.
 Considering the circumstances of the incident, the court orders the relevant Trial
Court to impose the aforementioned restriction on the appellants, requiring them to
stay a reasonable distance away from the scene of the incident. In addition, the Trial
Court would have the power to impose any further requirements that it deemed
necessary and proper.

Related provisions
Indian Penal Code ,1860 (Now replaced by Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita w.e.f. July 1 2024)
 Section 143[189(3) BNS] – Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to six months, or with fine, or with both. 5
 Section 148 (191 BNS)– Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly
weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause
death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.6
 Section 149 (190 BNS) – If an offence is committed by any member of an
unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such
as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution
of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a
member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.7
 Section 302 (103 BNS) – Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death
or 1 [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.8
 Section 427 (324 BNS) – Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or
damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or
with fine, or with both.9

5
The Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, § 143
6
The Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, § 148
7
The Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, § 149
8
The Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, § 302
9
The Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, § 427
  Section 460 (331 BNS) – If, at the time of the committing of lurking house-
trespass by night or house-breaking by night, any person guilty of such offence
shall voluntarily cause or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to any person,
every person jointly concerned in committing such lurkking house-trespass by
night or house-breaking by night, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life],
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.10

Explosive Act, 1884 –

 Section 5 – Power to make rules as to licensing of the manufacture, possession,
use, sale, transport, import and export of explosives.11

Critical Analysis

While the judgment is commendable for its adherence to procedural justice and protection of
the accused's rights, some critiques could be considered:

 Length of Judicial Process: Like many cases in the Indian judicial system,
Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala reflects the slow pace of legal proceedings, which can
impact both the victim’s and accused’s lives significantly. This delay often
undermines the principle of timely justice.
 Reliance on Circumstantial Evidence: The case raises broader questions about the
Indian legal system's dependence on circumstantial evidence. Critics argue that in the
absence of direct evidence, courts should exercise even greater caution, possibly
setting higher standards or additional safeguards when relying on circumstantial
evidence alone.

Impact of the Judgement

The judgment in *Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala* reinforces the high standard of proof
required for criminal convictions, especially when based on circumstantial evidence. It
upholds the principle that guilt must be proven "beyond reasonable doubt," thereby
emphasizing procedural justice and protecting the rights of the accused. This ruling sets a
strong precedent, reminding courts to carefully evaluate circumstantial evidence and ensure
fair trials. The decision strengthens safeguards against wrongful convictions in the absence of
direct evidence and signals a commitment to upholding individual rights, influencing how
future cases relying on circumstantial evidence are adjudicated in India.

Conclusion
The *Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala* case underscores the judiciary's commitment to
protecting the rights of the accused while maintaining stringent standards for criminal
convictions. The court’s emphasis on "proof beyond reasonable doubt," especially when
dealing with circumstantial evidence, reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies
entirely with the prosecution. This case serves as a critical reminder for courts to avoid
assumptions of guilt and ensure fair, unbiased trials. The judgment contributes significantly to
criminal jurisprudence in India, promoting justice that is both procedural and substantive, and
safeguarding against wrongful convictions due to insufficient evidence.
10
The Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, § 460
11
The Explosive Act, No. 4 of 1884, § 5