The Kerala High Court has cleared four out of the nine BJP activists who had been previously found guilty of murdering a CPI(M) worker in a case linked to political rivalry. This incident occurred while all of them were serving sentences in the Central Prison at Kannur for a different case.

The bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice P.G. Ajith Kumar noted that the primary purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate inmates rather than allowing them to engage in factionalism or political activities. They referenced Mahatma Gandhi's perspective, stating, "Criminal behavior often results from mental health issues, and correctional facilities should provide an atmosphere similar to a hospital for treatment and care."

The court emphasized that prisons should not become hubs for factionalism and raised concerns about the practice of segregating prisoners into different blocks based on their political affiliations, questioning the prison authorities for this approach.

The Court invoked the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act of 2010, which was established to ensure the secure confinement, rehabilitation, and welfare of prisoners. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the importance of Section 13 of the Act, which mandates that prison authorities treat all inmates fairly and maintain discipline within the prison. As a result, the Court directed the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services in Kerala to ensure that the state's prisons adhere to these stated objectives.

The incident occurred in 2004, and there were nine appellants who were found guilty of various charges. They were convicted under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 302 (punishment for murder), Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means), Section 143 (punishment for formation of an unlawful assembly), and Section 149 (pertaining to the unlawful assembly) after a trial involving thirty individuals. It's important to note that two of the accused, namely accused 1 and 7, passed away during the appeal process.

During the appeal, the Court determined that the attack was a consequence of the political rivalry among the inmates. It noted that witness statements were inconsistent and that the prosecution did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused individuals.

Furthermore, the Court conducted an examination to determine if the accused individuals could be convicted under the charge of unlawful assembly for their involvement in a factional dispute among inmates. In doing so, the Court referred to decisions by the Apex Court in cases such as Kanbi Nanji Virji and others v. State of Gujarat (1970) and Puran v. State of Rajasthan (1979). It cited these cases to emphasize that in the context of a spontaneous mutual altercation between two groups, the provisions of unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be used to impose punishment on all individuals involved in the altercation.

Once the court has determined that the injuries suffered by individuals occurred during a voluntary altercation, only those individuals proven to have caused the injuries can be held responsible for the harm inflicted. The court specified that only accused individuals 1 and 7 (with accused 7 now deceased) would be held accountable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, the court stated that this duo had caused injuries to the deceased's head, making them liable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, their appeals have become void due to their demise.

The court determined that accused number 5 had struck the deceased with a bat on the leg, which was not the cause of death. Therefore, accused number 5 would be held accountable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally, accused numbers 2, 7, and 9 were also found to be liable under the same provision.

Nevertheless, the court went on to acquit accused individuals 3, 4, 6, and 8 of all charges and directed their immediate release.

Before concluding the case, the unspecified Court also made significant remarks concerning the nature of investigations and the conduct of officials at the Central Prison in Kannur. The Court emphasized that even individuals who are suspects or accused in a legal matter have the entitlement to a fair and just investigation and trial as guaranteed by Article 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution. The Court further highlighted that if an investigation is found to be tainted, carried out with malintent, or inappropriate, it has the authority to invalidate the investigation and order a fresh or completely new one to ensure justice is upheld.