Mannarkkad ∙ Why was Section 302 of the IPC, which charges murder, not included against the accused even though they were victims of brutal mob lynching? The reason for this is that the prosecution could not prove the charges of murder. In the Madhu murder case, the court charged the accused under Section 304 Part 2-149 of the IPC. This section specifies that manslaughter is unintentional.
The defense argued that Madhu could have been killed inside the forest by pushing her over a cliff or something else. If they wanted to kill him, why did the accused bring Madhu to Mukali Junction and gather people? Why were the scenes of being brought from the forest and beaten? Why did the accused call the police and hand over Madhu? The court accepted these arguments of the defendant.
The ‘last scene’ theory rejected by the court
Mannarkkad: From the beginning, the defense lawyers tried to prove that Madhu was killed in police custody. The ‘last scene theory’ used by the police, including in the Kottayam Kevin honor killing case, was raised against the police in the court.
The Indian Evidence Act includes the ‘last scene theory’, which states that those who were with the deceased when they last saw them alive can be held responsible for the death in a murder case where there are no eyewitnesses. In the context of the Supreme Court judgment in this regard, the police have used the ‘last scene theory’ in many cases. the
Madhu was taken into a police jeep with beating injuries, and Madhu ended up with the police; Therefore, the defense lawyers argued that it was death in custody. The doctors found Madhu’s cause of death to be head injury. Death occurs after 2 to 3 hours in cases of head injuries.
The post-mortem report also said that the injury may have occurred 2-3 hours before Madhu’s death. As the prosecution was able to prove that Madhu was in the custody of the accused at that time, the ‘last scene theory’ could not be established.
English Summary: Madhu Murder Case verdict