Attappady Madhu lynching case: Kerala HC to pronounce verdict on convicts’ appeals today

The Kerala High Court will pronounce its verdict on Monday on the appeals filed by convicts in the Attappady Madhu mob lynching case, seeking to overturn their sentences.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar had last week directed the convicts to appear before the court on Monday, the day fixed for delivering the judgment. The bench had reserved its verdict on appeals filed by the convicted persons, along with a victim appeal submitted by Madhu’s mother, Malli.

Madhu, a tribal youth from Attappady in Palakkad, was lynched to death in February 2018 after being accused of stealing rice from a grocery shop. According to the prosecution, he suffered severe injuries, including head trauma, broken ribs and internal bleeding, and collapsed while being taken to the hospital.

The High Court had also directed four other accused in the case to be present before it. They include one accused currently out on bail, two who were acquitted by the trial court and another who has already completed the sentence imposed on him.

The appeals challenge the verdict of the Special Court under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Mannarkkad, which convicted 14 of the 16 accused while acquitting two others.

The accused were charged under various sections (143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 294(b), 342, 352, 364, 367, 368, and 302 r/w 149) of the Indian Penal Code, including unlawful assembly, wrongful confinement, kidnapping and culpable homicide, along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (3(1) (d), (r) (s) and 3(2) (v)). The trial court had found the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Thirteen of the convicted persons were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The first accused was ordered to pay a fine of ₹1.05 lakh, while the remaining 12 were directed to pay ₹1.18 lakh each. The 16th accused, Muneer, was convicted only under Section 352 of the IPC and sentenced to three months’ simple imprisonment along with a fine of ₹500.

When the matter reached the High Court, sentence suspension was granted to only one convict. Rejecting similar pleas from the others, the court had observed that the incident had “left a blot on the social conscience and the cultural fabric of society.”