Keralam’s Sukumara Kurup case: Can a fugitive be presumed dead? What does the law say?
Here’s why the law treats the presumption of death and trial in absentia as two separate questions in the case of a long-absconding fugitive
Sukumara Kurup, a notorious fugitive from Keralam, has resurfaced after a Malayalam news channel showcased an image purportedly of him in hiding in Brunei. The 1984 murder of N.J. Chacko in Mavelikara, which Kurup allegedly committed to obtain a life insurance payout, remains unsolved. Despite numerous attempts to locate him, Kurup has remained at large since his disappearance.
Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala dismissed the viral photo as mere rumors, instructing the Crime Branch to verify its authenticity. Kurup's alleged involvement in the 1984 murder is detailed in the case file, which was charge sheeted against others in the conspiracy without him. His wife, sister, and driver were also implicated in the case, but only Kurup remains at large.
According to Sections 110 and 111 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the burden of proof lies with the person asserting someone's death if they have not been seen for seven years by those who would naturally have known of their life. However, in the case of a fugitive like Kurup, the circumstances of their disappearance may complicate the presumption of death.
The case has garnered significant public attention and has been the subject of film adaptations. Interpol has already issued a Red Corner Notice in Kurup's name, but conclusive evidence is required to establish his death before the case can be closed.
Written by urgent.news from The Hindu's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
