“If This Is Not Intolerance, Then What Is?” Kerala HC Refuses To Interfere With Conviction Of CPIM Workers Who Cut Off Both Legs Of Kannur RSS Leader Sadanandan Master In 1994

While deciding appeals in a political violence case from the Kannur District, the Kerala High Court has remarked that it has become the norm of the day of some to silence political opponents by either killing or maiming them severely for the rest of their life.

The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed by the victim, Sadanandan Master, an RSS leader challenging the acquittal of some of the accused and the inadequacy of the sentence given to the others who were convicted and a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the convicted persons belonging to CPI(M) [Communist Party of India (Marxist)], challenging their conviction and sentence.

Sadanandan Master, who was then a leader of the RSS, was attacked and both his legs chopped off in 1994 by CPI(M) workers due to political rivalry. The accused persons also hurled a country-made bomb during the attack. The Trial Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 8 while acquitting Accused Nos. 9 to 12. The convicts were sentenced to a maximum of seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, to be paid as compensation.

While enhancing compensation to be paid to the victim and refusing to interfere with the conviction, the High Court noted that the Trial Court had observed that the victim was a "charismatic and efficient leader was making his mark in the locality and his efforts helped in spreading and strengthening the roots of his party in the area" and that the "accused persons belonging to a rival political party just could not accept/digest it".

A Single Bench of Justice C.S. Sudha observed, “It seems to have become the norm of the day of some to silence political opponents by either killing or maiming them severely for the rest of their life. If this is not intolerance, then what is? This sort of activity by any person, let alone a political party can at no cost be encouraged and such offences will have to be dealt with an iron hand.”

The Bench added that the political parties must deal with or finish their political opponents in the electoral battlefield and not engage in bloodshed and remove the opponents from the face of the earth itself. The Court noted that the sentence of seven years is very light, but that for reasons best known to them, the State has not filed an appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C.

Advocate S. Rajeev appeared for the Victim while Senior Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu appeared for the Accused. Public Prosecutor Sheeba Thomas appeared for the State.

Brief Facts

As per the prosecution case, twelve CPI(M) workers and local leaders allegedly hatched a conspiracy to murder the Appellant-victim, an RSS leader. On January 25, 1994, at about 8:30 p.m., the Respondents-accused (eight in number), allegedly formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like iron rod, crowbar, chopper, etc., wrongfully restrained the victim and hacked him several times due to which both his legs were severed. It further alleged that the accused persons hurled a country made bomb at the place of occurrence to create a situation of terror in the area so that nobody would come to the rescue of the victim.

Hence, the accused persons were alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 342, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. As the Trial Court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused persons, they were asked to enter on their defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. On consideration of evidence and after hearing both sides, the Trial Court acquitted 4 accused persons and found the 8 accused persons guilty and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. The Sessions Court confirmed their conviction in an Appeal filed by them, and hence, they were before the High Court.

The victim approached the High Court directly by filing a Criminal Appeal challenging the acquittal of some of the accused and the inadequacy of the sentence awarded to the rest, without approaching the Appellate Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “There is no rigid or inflexible rule that the evidence of a related or interested witness shall be viewed with suspicion under all circumstances. While acting on the evidence of an interested witness, it is only that the court must act with discerning circumspection and utmost prudence.”

The Court noted that the weapons used for the attack were not recovered by the police but, recovery of weapon(s) used in the commission of an offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused.

“Fortunately for PW1 and unfortunately for the accused, the former survived the attack to tell the tale. There are no reasons to disbelieve the version of PW1 and PW2 and hence I find no infirmity or illegality in the findings of the trial court which has been rightly confirmed by the appellate court”, it added.

Furthermore, the Court remarked that the accused persons do not deserve any sort of leniency in the light of the overt acts committed by them as the incident did not happen in a fit of rage/anger or on a sudden provocation.

“The attack seems to have been premeditated and well planned. As noticed earlier and at the risk of repetition, it needs to be noted that not only had A1 to A8 hacked PW1 repeatedly leading to both his legs being severed, they also made sure that nobody approached PW1 to rescue/save him. This makes the offences all the more grave/severe. The attack seems to have been made only because PW1 switched loyalty and joined a rival party”, it also noted.

The Court noted that the victim, a charismatic and efficient leader was making his mark in the locality and his efforts helped in spreading and strengthening the roots of his party in the area and that the accused persons belonging to a rival political party just could not accept/digest it.

“This Court would certainly have considered the fervent pleas made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the accused considering the age of the accused persons. However, the facts and circumstances of the case deter me from doing so in the light of the brutal, dastardly and near fatal attack on PW1. If the sentence is in any way brought down, that would only send a wrong message to society at large and encourage the commission of such offences in the future also. PW1 was a young man aged 27 years at the time of the incident”, it observed.

Moreover, the Court took note of the fact that 31 years have elapsed and the victim is still awaiting justice and therefore, this is not a case in which any sort of interference is liable to be made especially in revision when no illegality, irregularity has been brought out from the materials on record.

“In the light of the gravity of the offence committed, the sentence of seven years appears to be very light. However, the State, for reasons best known to them, has not filed an appeal under Section 377 Cr.P.C. Since both the legs of PW1 have been amputated, it would only be just and proper that the compensation amount be increased appropriately”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the victim’s Revision Petition, dismissed the accused’s Appeal, directed the accused persons to pay Rs. 50,000/- each as enhanced compensation to the victim, and confirmed their sentence. The Court held that the victim's appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable as he did not challenge the judgment of the Trial Court before the Appellate Court.

Cause Title- Sadanandan v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:6743)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates S. Rajeev and K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan.

Respondents: Senior Advocate P. Vijaya Bhanu, Public Prosecutor Sheeba Thomas, Advocates Sruthy N. Bhat, P.M. Rafiq, Cibi Thomas, Lohithakshan Chathadi Kannoth, T.G. Rajendran, Mitha Sudhindran, Rahul Sunil, Ajeesh K. Sasi, Pooja Pankaj, and M. Revikrishnan.

Click here to read/download the Judgment