Verdict convicting M Geethanandan, others in Muthanga land agitation case needs scrutiny: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court on Thursday observed that the conviction of four persons in a case arising from the 2003 Muthanga land struggle will require thorough scrutiny.

Justice A Badharudeen made the observation after noting that the trial court's finding on the applicability of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC was only prima facie in nature, and not conclusive.

The Court was hearing appeals filed by activist M Geethanandan, and Rameshan, Binu and Anilkumar who were convicted by a sessions court over the violent confrontation between police and adivasi protesters at Muthanga in 2003.

"The judgment needs to be scrutinised because the sessions judge made only a prima facie finding on the evidence... It should have been a conclusive finding. This judgment must be scrutinised thoroughly," the Court said in its order.

The Muthanga land struggle stemmed from an eviction drive carried out by the Kerala Police at the Muthanga Wildlife Sanctuary in Wayanad in 2003.

The eviction drive led to a violent confrontation between the police and Adivasi protesters, which escalated into police firing. Five protesters and police constable KV Vinod died in the incident.

The four appellants were found guilty of attempting to murder Senior Civil Police Officer Abdul Salam, kidnapping Forest Range Officer PK Sasidharan, causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons, and offences against public order.

They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, along with payment of fines. However, they were acquitted of the charge relating to the death of constable Vinod.

The appellants moved the High Court contending that their conviction cannot be sustained as it rests on what the sessions court itself termed a "prima facie" finding of criminal conspiracy.

Their counsel submitted that the appellants were convicted with the aid of Section 120B IPC on such a finding, which was made only at the stage of framing of charge.

Taking note of this submission, the Court directed the sessions judge to send a copy of the order framing charges.

The appeals will be heard further on August 12.

[Read Live Coverage]