The Kerala High Court on February 19, 2026 refused to suspend the life sentence imposed on two men convicted in the 1995 political murder of Sakeer, holding that there was prima facie sufficient evidence supporting their conviction and that re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the stage of considering suspension of sentence.
- Case Title: Rafi & Anr. v. State of Kerala
- Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
- Bench: Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar & Justice Jobin Sebastian
- Date of Judgment: 19 February 2026
- Case Number: Crl.M.A. No. 1 of 2025 in Crl.A. No. 1079 of 2025
- Arising From: S.C. No. 1104/2008, Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram
Suspension of Sentence Denied in Sakeer Murder Case
The Division Bench dismissed an application filed under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking suspension of sentence by the 8th and 10th accused, who had been convicted under Sections 294(b) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the murder of Sakeer.
The High Court made it clear that at the stage of considering suspension of sentence, the appellate court cannot reassess or re-analyse the evidence that had already been appreciated by the trial court.
Background of the Political Murder
According to the prosecution case recorded in the impugned judgment, Sakeer was an active member of the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), the youth wing of CPI(M). The accused were workers of a rival political party, the People’s Democratic Party.
On January 16, 1995, Sakeer was elected Chairman of the Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram.
After celebrating his victory, he returned home around 11:00 p.m. Later, at approximately 12:45 a.m., a group of accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly armed with weapons and trespassed into his residence.
The prosecution alleged that the accused initially attempted to murder CW2, the father of the deceased, causing grievous injuries to him. They then broke open the door of the room where Sakeer was sleeping.
Accused Nos. 1 to 3 inflicted cut injuries on him. Though Sakeer attempted to escape and even entered the compound of PW19, he was chased and hacked to death.
The accused were charged with offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 450, 307 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
Arguments by the Appellants
Senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the trial court had erred in appreciating the evidence and had returned a finding of guilt on what was described as
“feeble evidence and insufficient circumstances.”
It was argued that the conviction rested substantially on the testimony of PW2, the father of the deceased, who was described as an “interested witness.”
According to the defence, reliance on such testimony without independent corroboration rendered the conviction unsafe.
The appellants sought suspension of execution of the sentence and stay of the fine imposed by the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram, pending disposal of their criminal appeal.
Prosecution’s Opposition
Opposing the plea, the Public Prosecutor argued that the case was founded on direct ocular evidence.
It was submitted that PW2 was not merely an interested witness but also an injured eyewitness, and his testimony by itself was sufficient to sustain a conviction.
The prosecution further highlighted that apart from PW2, independent witnesses, including PW19, in whose compound the fatal attack took place, had supported the prosecution’s case.
The gravity of the offence, involving a politically motivated murder, was also emphasized.
Court’s Observations on Evidence
After examining the materials on record and the impugned judgment, the High Court observed that there was prima facie sufficient evidence supporting the charges against the applicants.
The Bench noted that the testimony of PW2, the injured father of the deceased, formed the primary basis of conviction and at this stage there was no reason to disbelieve his evidence.
The Court further observed that the 1st applicant (arrayed as the 8th accused) had caught hold of the dhoti worn by the deceased while he was attempting to escape.
The 2nd applicant (10th accused) was found to have been a member of the unlawful assembly and was holding a lethal weapon at the relevant time.
The trial court had concluded that both applicants were members of the unlawful assembly and that the murder was committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly.
The High Court reaffirmed the legal principle that when an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly, each member is vicariously liable for the acts done by others in furtherance of that object.
Consequently,
“the independent overt acts of the accused are of limited significance.”
Scope of Appellate Court in Suspension of Sentence
The High Court emphasized that the legal position on suspension of sentence is well settled. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Preet Pal Singh v. State of U.P. [(2020) 8 SCC 645], the Bench reproduced the relevant observation:
“In considering an application for suspension of sentence, the appellate court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the order of conviction prima facie erroneous. Where there is evidence that has been considered by the trial court, it is not open to a court considering an application under Section 389 to reassess and/or re-analyse the same evidence and take a different view, to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail.”
The Bench clarified that re-analysis or re-appreciation of evidence must be reserved for final hearing of the appeal and cannot be undertaken at the interim stage of suspension of sentence.
Presumption of Innocence No Longer Available
The Court further observed that once the trial court has returned a conviction, the presumption of innocence is no longer available to the accused in the same manner as during trial.
A “bare perusal of the impugned judgment,” the Court held, did not reveal any prima facie infirmity warranting interference. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, and considering the seriousness of the offence, the Court declined to suspend the sentence.
Final Order
Holding that no grounds were made out for suspension of sentence, the Division Bench dismissed the petition.
“In the result, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed,”
the Court concluded.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
