Kerala High Court Madhu Lynching Case Marakkar v. State of Kerala & Connected Cases

Case Title:    
Marakkar v. State of Kerala & Connected Cases

Case Number:    
Crl. Appeal No. 598/2023 & Connected Cases

Date of Order:    
May 25, 2026

Bench:    
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar (Division Bench)
Appellant(s) Marakkar (A2) and 12 other convicted accused; State of Kerala; Malli (mother of the deceased Madhu)
Respondent(s) State of Kerala; Convicted Accused
Trial Court Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mannarkkad (April 2023 Judgment)

SUBJECT

This case concerns the brutal mob lynching of Madhu, a 27-year-old mentally challenged Adivasi tribal youth from Chindakki hamlet, Attappady, Palakkad district, on February 22, 2018. Madhu was accused by a mob of stealing rice and grocery items from a local shop. He was captured, tied up, brutally assaulted, paraded, and ultimately handed over to police, after which he succumbed to his injuries. The incident sparked nationwide outrage, particularly as the accused themselves recorded and circulated videos of the assault on social media.

The primary legal subject before the Kerala High Court in these appeals was the admissibility, reliability, and sufficiency of electronic evidence — specifically CCTV footage, video recordings on mobile phones, GPS location data, and Call Data Records (CDRs) — to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The case also raised questions regarding the requirement of notification under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for forensic examiners, and the proper mode of proof of electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Information Technology Act, 2000

• •Section 79A — Empowers the Central Government to notify any department, body or agency as an 'Examiner of Electronic Evidence' for providing expert opinion on electronic records.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023)

• Section 45A (corresponding to Section 39(2) BSA) — Provides that when a court forms an opinion on electronic or digital evidence, the opinion of a notified Examiner of Electronic Evidence is a relevant fact.
• Section 65B — Governs admissibility of electronic records as secondary evidence through a certificate. Requires certification that the electronic record was produced by a computer that was regularly used, that the device was operating properly, and that the information in the record was fed into the computer in the ordinary course of activities.
• Section 22A — Oral admissions about contents of electronic records are not relevant unless the genuineness of the electronic record itself is in question.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023)

• Section 293 (corresponding to Section 329 BNSS) — Governs admissibility of reports issued by Government Scientific Experts, including Directors and Deputy Directors of Central and State Forensic Science Laboratories, as admissible evidence in criminal proceedings without requiring further proof.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

• Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) — Provide for enhanced punishment, including mandatory life imprisonment, when offences under the Indian Penal Code are committed against members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

• Section 304 Part II — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Sections 326, 367, 323, 324, 342, 143 — Voluntarily causing grievous hurt, kidnapping, causing hurt, wrongful confinement, and unlawful assembly.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

• Section 57 — Contains special provisions regarding circumstances under which an electronic or digital record may be treated as primary evidence.

OVERVIEW

On February 22, 2018, Madhu (27), a mentally challenged tribal youth from Chindakki hamlet, Attappady, Palakkad, was accused of stealing rice and grocery items from a local shop. A mob of local residents tracked him down in the forest, tied him up, severely assaulted him, and paraded him through the area before handing him over to police. He died shortly thereafter. The entire incident was recorded by members of the mob on their mobile phones, and the videos were circulated on social media, causing nationwide outrage.

Sixteen accused were charge-sheeted. The Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mannarkkad, in April 2023, convicted 14 of the 16 accused and sentenced 13 key accused to seven years' rigorous imprisonment each under various provisions of the IPC and the SC/ST Act. Accused nos. 4 (Aneesh) and 11 (Abdul Kareem) were acquitted by the trial court.
Multiple appeals were filed before the Kerala High Court: (i) appeals by the convicted accused challenging their conviction; (ii) an appeal by the State of Kerala and the victim's mother, Malli, challenging the acquittal of accused nos. 4 and 11, and also seeking enhancement of sentence to life imprisonment under the SC/ST Act.

The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, by its judgment dated May 25, 2026, acquitted the first accused Hussain (Mecheril Hussain), finding that the electronic evidence against him was insufficient to sustain conviction. It upheld the conviction of 12 other accused and, accepting the State's appeal for sentence enhancement, sentenced all 12 convicted persons to life imprisonment — three concurrent life terms — under Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, along with a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs each, of which Rs. 30 lakhs was directed to be paid to the victim's mother.

A notable feature of the case was that human witnesses — forest officials, shopkeepers, local traders, and residents — largely turned hostile or pleaded ignorance when confronted with CCTV and mobile video footage in open court. The prosecution case was therefore built substantially on electronic evidence: three CCTV cameras, six seized mobile phones, a GPS chip in a Xiaomi Mi A1 mobile phone, call detail records stored on servers in Pune, and forensic reports by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram.

ISSUES RAISED

The following legal questions fell for consideration before the Kerala High Court:

• Whether the forensic reports of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, on electronic evidence were admissible, given that the laboratory had not been notified as an 'Examiner of Electronic Evidence' under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 at the relevant time.
• Whether electronic records (CCTV footage, mobile phone videos) could be relied upon to establish the identity of the accused without supporting oral testimony identifying them in the footage.
• Whether a court could draw its own conclusions from viewing video evidence, without each person visible in the footage stepping into the witness box to narrate what is depicted.
• Whether Call Data Records (CDRs) required a Nodal Officer to explicitly depose, entry by entry, as to which individual made which call, or whether the CDRs could be read on their own once properly proved and certified.
• Whether the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial court was adequate, or whether life imprisonment was mandatorily required under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the offences proved.
• Whether the first accused (Hussain) could be convicted solely on the basis of electronic evidence identifying him at the scene, absent corroboration by oral testimony.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

(A) Arguments by Convicted Accused (Appellants)

• The forensic analysis of the seized electronic devices was conducted by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, which had not been notified as an 'Examiner of Electronic Evidence' under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act. Therefore, the expert reports and forensic findings based on electronic evidence were inadmissible in law.
• The video footages retrieved from CCTV cameras and mobile phones could not establish the identity of the accused, as none of the prosecution witnesses had identified them in the footage with precision, or testified about their specific presence or involvement in the incident.
• The CDRs could not be used to draw adverse inferences against the accused unless Nodal Officers explicitly testified in court about each call record and identified the specific individuals who made calls.
• The accused sought leniency in sentencing, citing their dependent families — minor children, wives, and aged parents — and the fact that some were already on parole.

(B) Arguments by First Accused Hussain (A1)

• Hussain argued that he was not part of the group that initially entered the forest and brought Madhu to Mukkali. He was not present when the primary assault took place.
• The electronic evidence did not conclusively establish his presence at the critical moment of assault. There was an absence of digital evidence directly linking him to the act that allegedly caused Madhu's death.

(C) Arguments by State of Kerala and Victim's Mother Malli (Appellants Seeking Enhancement)

• The acquittal of accused nos. 4 (Aneesh) and 11 (Abdul Kareem) by the trial court was erroneous and should be reversed.
• The seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded by the trial court was wholly inadequate for the grave nature of the offences. Under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, life imprisonment was the mandatory minimum for the offences proved (Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va)).
• The prosecution contended that the assault on Madhu was a cruel and inhuman act committed against an Adivasi man, and the accused deserved the maximum punishment prescribed under law.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

(A) State of Kerala (Respondent in Accused Appeals)

• The electronic evidence was fully admissible. Neither Section 79A of the IT Act nor Section 45A of the Evidence Act creates an absolute bar on the admissibility of expert opinion on electronic records from a laboratory not notified under Section 79A. The legislature had not prescribed any such exclusionary consequence.
• Section 293 of the CrPC independently enables reports by Government Scientific Experts from State Forensic Science Laboratories to be admitted in evidence in criminal proceedings, without being conditional on a Section 79A notification.
• Identity of the accused was established through a four-layer framework: (i) post-arrest photographs compared by a forensic expert against footage; (ii) forensic expert's report matching faces in video to accused; (iii) testimony of a local resident who personally knew the accused and identified them in CCTV footage and in court; and (iv) the trial court's own visual assessment comparing footage with accused present in court.
• CDRs, once proved and certified under Section 65B, speak for themselves. There is no legal requirement for Nodal Officers to narrate each entry. Section 22A of the Evidence Act explicitly provides that oral admissions about contents of electronic records are irrelevant unless the genuineness of the record is in question.

(B) Respondents in State/Mother's Enhancement Appeal

• Accused sought leniency in sentencing on account of personal circumstances and family dependencies.
• Some argued that the offences did not meet the threshold for mandatory life imprisonment under the SC/ST Act.

JUDGMENT ANALYSIS

1. Admissibility of Forensic Reports — Section 79A Issue
The Court held that Section 79A of the IT Act merely creates an additional statutory mechanism for obtaining expert opinion on electronic evidence. It does not, by itself, create an exclusionary rule that bars the admissibility of any expert opinion or forensic report from a laboratory that has not been notified under Section 79A. No specific exclusionary consequence is contemplated either in the IT Act or the Evidence Act. In the absence of a specific statutory prohibition, the Court cannot read into Section 79A a consequence that the legislature has not provided.

The Court further held that Section 293 CrPC independently and adequately governs the admissibility of reports from Government Scientific Experts, including those of the State Forensic Science Laboratories. This provision does not make such admissibility conditional on a Section 79A notification. Once a court is satisfied that the evidence is relevant and produced by a competent scientific expert, it cannot be excluded merely on the ground that the laboratory was not separately notified under Section 79A.

This view is consistent with the earlier Kerala High Court decisions in Anu Shanthi v. State of Kerala (2024 SCC OnLine Ker 2352) and Shadanandhan v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine Ker 14058), and broadly in line with the Allahabad High Court's view in Shyam Sunder Prasad v. CBI (2022 LiveLaw (AB) 280). It also aligns with the Supreme Court's recent observation in Pune Bar Association v. Union of India (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 551), where the Court held that beyond notified Examiners of Electronic Evidence, a court may also rely on the opinion of any person with special skill and expertise in computer science and cyber forensics, if satisfied by unimpeachable material.

2. Identification of Accused Through Video Footage
The defence contended that the prosecution had not established the identity of the accused through video footage because no witness had identified them with precision. The Court rejected this, finding that identity had been established through four independent, mutually reinforcing layers:

• •Post-arrest photographs of each accused, along with a certificate under Section 65B, were proved through the photographer. These served as the reference standard.
• A forensic expert at the State Forensic Science Laboratory extracted relevant video footage from all seized devices and compared faces visible therein with the reference photographs, identifying the accused in each file with timestamps.
• A local resident who had known the accused for several years prior to the incident identified them in the CCTV footage and in person before the court. This was not the identification of a stranger but the recognition of known persons, grounded in familiarity and personal knowledge.
• The trial court undertook its own visual assessment by viewing the footage and comparing it with the accused present in court — a direct judicial observation, not an act of expert analysis, which confirmed consistency with the other evidence.
  The Court found that these four layers formed a coherent, mutually reinforcing framework pointing to a single conclusion: the individuals in the footage were the accused before the court. The conclusion did not rest on any single piece of evidence but arose from the convergence of multiple independent sources.

3. Video Evidence — No Need for Narration in Court
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kailas v. State of Maharashtra (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 914), the Court held that once the requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act are fulfilled, a video — being an electronic record — becomes admissible as a document and may be viewed by the court to draw appropriate inferences. There is no legal requirement that the contents of a video become admissible only if reduced to a transcript, or that each person visible in the footage must step into the witness box and narrate what the video depicts.

4. Proof of Call Data Records
The defence argued that CDRs could not be relied upon unless Nodal Officers testified explicitly about each call entry. The Court rejected this, holding that Section 22A of the Evidence Act makes clear that the contents of electronic records do not require oral proof — the document speaks for itself. Oral narration of contents is unnecessary unless the authenticity of the electronic record itself is challenged.

The Court held that the role of the Nodal Officer is to establish the authenticity of the CDR document — not to narrate what it has already recorded. There is no requirement that a Nodal Officer read out voluminous call entries before the court. Once the CDR is proved as genuine and bears the Section 65B certificate, its contents stand independently.
This view aligns with the Supreme Court's earlier position in Gajraj v. State ((2011) 10 SCC 675), where CDRs were held to be scientific evidence of a conclusive nature that could override serious discrepancies in oral evidence.

5. Acquittal of First Accused (Hussain)
The Court acquitted Hussain (A1) after finding that the electronic evidence against him was insufficient. The prosecution's primary allegation was that Hussain had stamped on Madhu's chest, causing his head to strike a wall, contributing to the death. However, the Court found an absence of digital evidence directly and conclusively linking Hussain to this specific act. Since the case against him primarily depended on electronic evidence, and that evidence was found unreliable for identifying him at the critical moment, his conviction was set aside.

6. Sentence Enhancement
The Court accepted the State's appeal for sentence enhancement. It held that under the mandatory language of Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, life imprisonment was the prescribed minimum for the offences proved. The trial court's sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment was therefore legally untenable.

Accused nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 were sentenced to three concurrent terms of life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs each. If fines are realised, Rs. 30 lakhs is to be paid to the victim's mother Malli, and any balance to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The Court declined to interfere with the acquittals of accused nos. 4 (Aneesh) and 11 (Abdul Kareem).

CONCLUSION

The Kerala High Court's judgment in the Attappady Madhu lynching case is a landmark ruling on the law of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings in India. It decisively affirms the following key propositions:

• Expert reports on electronic evidence from Government Forensic Science Laboratories are admissible under Section 293 CrPC even if the laboratory has not been notified under Section 79A of the IT Act. The absence of such notification does not vitiate the admissibility of the evidence.
• Identity of accused persons can be established from video footage through a combination of forensic comparison, testimony of familiar witnesses, and judicial observation — without requiring each person in the footage to testify in court.
• Electronic records — including video footage and CDRs — are self-sufficient documents. Their contents do not need to be narrated orally before the court, provided they are properly proved under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
• Electronic evidence, when authentic, coherent, and mutually corroborating, can independently sustain criminal conviction even in the absence of dependable oral testimony — as expressly recognised by the Court in this judgment.

The case also carries a profound sociological message. It demonstrates the failure of the community's collective conscience — witnesses who were present turned hostile or feigned ignorance. The truth survived only because electronic devices preserved it. As the Court itself noted, without electronic evidence, several convicted accused would almost certainly have escaped criminal liability.
At a time when the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 have integrated technology more deeply into the criminal justice process, this judgment offers an authoritative and practical exposition of the principles governing electronic evidence. It is essential reading for legal practitioners, judicial officers, forensic experts, and law students alike.