All nineteen accused, allegedly identified as banned outfit PFI operatives, were acquitted on December 30. The judgement was pronounced by the Alappuzha District and Sessions Court, thirteen years after the crime. The prosecution termed the verdict disappointing and stated that an appeal would be filed before the higher court.
According to the prosecution, ABVP leader Vishal was brutally attacked and killed on July 16, 2012, at around 10.45 am, in front of Chengannur Christian College. The attack was allegedly carried out by a killing squad of Campus Front, the student wing of the outlawed PFI. ABVP workers Vishnuprasad and Sreejith, who were accompanying Vishal, were also injured in the attack. The incident was known as the first Campus Front–linked murder in the state.
The investigation was initially handled by the local police and later transferred to the Crime Branch. The charge sheet filed before the court named twenty PFI workers, including a minor. The probe was conducted by three Deputy Superintendents of Police from the local police and the Crime Branch. During the trial, the prosecution examined fifty-five witnesses and produced 205 documents. Special Public Prosecutor Pratap G. Padikkal, along with five other lawyers, appeared for the prosecution.
After being stabbed, Vishal was first admitted to Chengannoor Government Hospital and later shifted to Kottayam Medical College, where he succumbed to his injuries the same night. While being taken to hospital, Vishal reportedly told his friend that he had been attacked by PFI workers.
Pandalam natives Nasim, Shefeeq, Ansar, Faizal, Al Taj, Safeer, Afsal, along with Venmoni native Shameer Rawther, were among those accused of attacking Vishal.
The case took a crucial turn when witnesses belonging to the Students Federation of India (SFI) and the Kerala Students Union (KSU) retracted their earlier statements and turned hostile, severely weakening the prosecution’s case. Observers noted that during the tenures of both the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) and the CPI(M)-led Left Democratic Front (LDF), which ruled the state successively, the case was slow-pedalled.
Notably, the FIR was registered five years after the murder. By then, several accused had reportedly left the country. There were also allegations of threats issued to witnesses. From the outset, ABVP leaders and Vishal’s parents expressed doubts over the conduct of the government pleader.
Subsequently, ABVP sought Central government intervention, following which a Special Public Prosecutor was appointed. Both the UDF government led by Oommen Chandy and the LDF government led by CM Pinarayi Vijayan had earlier declined to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor.
Both the prosecution and ABVP alleged deliberate weakening of the case, including a five-month delay in arresting the prime accused and the key witnesses from SFI and KSU turning hostile.
These witnesses reportedly told the court that they were unaware of Campus Front’s violent politics.
During cross-examination, the Special Public Prosecutor questioned an SFI witness on whether he was unaware of the murder of SFI leader Abhimanyu, who was killed by Campus Front operatives on July 2, 2018, at Maharaja’s College, Kochi.
The verdict has come as a severe blow to nationalist groups, who have expressed deep disappointment. However, they have pinned their hopes on the assurance given by the Special Public Prosecutor and ABVP leaders that an appeal will be pursued before the higher court.
BJP State General Secretary Shobha Surendran stated that her party would extend all support to ABVP in its continued legal battle in the Vishal case.
According to local observers, the verdict exposes what they describe as deep-rooted political nexuses between Communist forces and radical Islamist groups, allegedly united by their opposition to Hindu organisations and the Hindutva movement.
They argue that prolonged delays, witness intimidation, and procedural lapses form a carefully designed strategy aimed at electoral bargaining and shielding perpetrators from the reach of state machinery.
Observers further point to several past instances where convicted Communist cadres or radical Islamist operatives were accorded hero’s welcomes and extended legal protection, practices they claim largely remain hidden from public scrutiny.
