The **Kerala High Court has acquitted a man who spent nearly 14 years in prison on a murder conviction, ruling that serious procedural lapses during his trial denied him the fundamental right to a fair hearing under the Constitution.
A division bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan and K. V. Jayakumar delivered the judgment on January 12, 2026, setting aside the life sentence and ordering the release of Babu C. G., a daily-wage labourer from Pampady in Kottayam district. The bench emphasised that the trial, conducted in the Sessions Court, was marred by cumulative irregularities that fundamentally vitiated the justice process.
According to the court, Babu was forced to defend himself without competent legal representation for substantial portions of the trial after his lawyer withdrew. On several occasions, he had to conduct cross-examinations of key prosecution witnesses on his own, despite having no legal training. Additionally, numerous witnesses were examined in his absence, violating the statutory requirement that evidence be recorded with the accused present.
Disturbingly, records revealed that the Sessions Judge conducted chief examinations of prosecution witnesses in the absence of the public prosecutor, effectively assuming the role of prosecutor — a move the High Court deemed illegal and unfair. The bench noted that while a judge may ask questions to clarify evidence under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, taking on prosecutorial functions undermines impartiality and the accused’s right to a fair hearing.
The case stemmed from an altercation during Onam celebrations in September 2011, in which the accused was alleged to have stabbed the victim during a dispute between two groups playing cards. The Sessions Court convicted him in October 2019, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a ₹50,000 fine.
The High Court also criticised the piecemeal nature of the trial, which saw the matter adjourned over a hundred times after charges were framed — a delay it described as unjustified and prejudicial given the accused remained in continuous judicial custody throughout.
Considering these cumulative violations of due process, the bench held that ordering a fresh trial would not be just or fair after such prolonged incarceration, and directed that any fine paid be refunded to the convict.
News as reported
