Kerala HC sentences 12 to life in Madhu lynching case, acquits first accused

The Kerala High Court sentenced 12 accused to life imprisonment for the 2018 Attappadi Madhu lynching case, while acquitting one and modifying the sentence of another.

The Kerala High Court on Monday sentenced 12 accused to life imprisonment in the 2018 Attappadi Madhu lynching case, while acquitting the first accused and modifying the sentence of the 16th accused.

In its order, the court described the case as a mob assault in which a tribal man was ''hunted down, publicly humiliated'' before being killed.

The Division Bench of the High Court, comprising justices A Raja Vijayaraghavan and K V Jayakumar said the accused ''are found guilty of the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the IPC r/w section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, r/w Section 149 of the IPC.''.

Madhu, a 27-year-old tribal youth from Chindakki Ooru in Attappadi, Palakkad district, was lynched by a mob in February 2018 after being accused of stealing rice and grocery items from a shop. Images of the assault, including photographs of him being held and humiliated by members of the mob, had triggered widespread outrage across Kerala.

Of the 16 accused, the Mannarkkad Special Court had in April 2023 convicted 14 persons, sentencing 13 of them to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and other offences. The High Court was hearing appeals filed by the accused, the state, and the victim's family.

Pronouncing the verdict on the state's appeal, the Division Bench enhanced the punishment of 12 accused to life imprisonment and increased the sentence of the 16th accused from three months to one year.

Advocate Radhakrishnan, appearing for the victim's family, said the court has awarded ''three life imprisonments to 12 accused persons'' and that they would run concurrently. He said an appeal would be filed in the Supreme Court after consulting stakeholders.

The court also set aside the conviction of the first accused, Hussain, after finding the evidence against him unreliable. It upheld the acquittal of the fourth and 11th accused.

The bench noted that Madhu ''was publicly beaten, stripped, paraded in a semi-naked condition, humiliated on social media, and subjected to sustained violence before succumbing to his injuries.''.

It further observed that the accused had ''hunted, paraded and was displayed as a trophy of community vengeance,'' describing the incident as one where ''the power of the organised over the defenceless'' was evident.

The court added that Madhu ''stole food because he was hungry,'' and said his life had been reduced ''by illness, poverty, and social abandonment to its most fragile condition.''.

Twelve accused were sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 2 lakh each. The court also imposed additional fines ranging from Rs 50,000 to Rs 2 lakh under various provisions, with default imprisonment terms.

The bench directed that ''all sentences shall run concurrently'' and ordered Rs 30 lakh compensation to be paid to the victim's family.

It also applied stricter provisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, including Sections 325 and 325A, while revisiting sentencing.

The court said this was ''the first mob lynching case to come before the courts of Kerala'' and strongly criticised the collapse of eyewitness testimony, noting that many witnesses ''collectively chose to look the other way.''.

On sentencing principles, it observed that ''it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment.''.

The judgment said the law was also meant to send a message to society, stating that it was addressed ''to every person who was present at Mukkali junction that afternoon and looked away.''.

''As stated by the learned sessions Judge, this is the first mob lynching case to come before the courts of Kerala. It is also the first case in this State in which a tribal man was hunted down, publicly humiliated, assaulted by a group of persons who believed they were entitled to enforce their own version of community justice upon a man,'' the judgment said.

''They did not feel that Madhu was worthy of ordinary human dignity,'' it said.

The court said this would also be one of those cases wherein the full scope of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, including the enhanced provisions introduced through sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) by the 2015 Amendment Act, has been applied.

''And most importantly, it is also a case in which the prosecution was doomed to fail not because the truth was unavailable, but because a large section of the community that witnessed the incident collectively chose to look the other way,'' the court said.

Advocate Radhakrishnan also criticised the acquittal of the first accused, saying it sent ''a wrong message,'' while maintaining that the prosecution had succeeded in presenting strong evidence.

However, prosecution counsel Jeevesh defended the verdict, saying the acquittal was due to hostile witnesses and weak identification evidence against the prime accused. He added that electronic evidence played a decisive role.

''In the case of the first accused, the electronic evidence was weak, and all the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. Hence, the prime accused was acquitted,'' he said.

He added that the prosecution would advise the government to consider an appeal, asserting that it had presented the case ''completely and strongly before the court.''