Kerala judge faces fresh BNS charge in Cheranelloor Mercedes accident case
Synopsis
Kerala Police have escalated the Cheranelloor Mercedes-Benz case by adding an evidence-tampering charge against a judge whose teenage son killed a scooterist. With the Crime Branch now leading the probe, the court ordering in-camera proceedings, and the victim's family seeking the prosecutor's removal, this case has become a flashpoint for judicial accountability in Kerala.
Key Takeaways
Kerala Police added Section 238 BNS (causing disappearance of evidence) against a judge in the Cheranelloor Mercedes-Benz accident case .
The judge's 17-year-old son allegedly drove the car that killed scooterist Jayabalakrishnan, 55 , on Container Road, Kochi .
The investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch on the orders of Kochi City Police Commissioner R.
The Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court ordered all further proceedings to be held in camera .
The victim's family has sought the removal of the public prosecutor, alleging lapses in prosecution.
High-profile visitors to the victim's home have included Chief Minister V.D.
Satheesan , former CM Pinarayi Vijayan , and Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala .
Kerala Police have added a fresh charge under Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) against a judge in the Cheranelloor Mercedes-Benz accident case, in which the judge's 17-year-old son allegedly drove a car that struck and killed scooterist Jayabalakrishnan, 55, on Container Road in Kochi. Section 238 pertains to causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence — a charge that underscores mounting concerns over the integrity of the probe.
The New Charge and Why It Was Added
The evidence-tampering provision was invoked following allegations by the victim's family that attempts were made to destroy or conceal evidence in the aftermath of the collision. Jayabalakrishnan, who ran a roadside eatery, died after the Mercedes-Benz vehicle driven by the judge's teenage son rammed his scooter on Container Road. The family has been vocal about its demand for a fair and uncompromised investigation.
Case Transferred to Crime Branch
The investigation has been transferred to the Crime Branch on the directions of Kochi City Police Commissioner R. Nishanthini. The move signals heightened scrutiny of the original probe and comes against a backdrop of friction between the prosecution and the victim's family. The Crime Branch is now leading the inquiry.
Court Orders In-Camera Proceedings
The Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court has directed that all further proceedings in the case be held in camera, citing the sensitive nature of the matter and the need to safeguard the evidentiary record. The court's order adds a layer of confidentiality to hearings that have already attracted significant public attention.
Prosecution and Family at Odds
Tensions between the prosecution and the victim's family have emerged as a parallel pressure point in the case. The family has sought the removal of the public prosecutor, alleging lapses in handling the case. The prosecution, in turn, has accused the family of not cooperating with proceedings and of sharing misleading information with the media. The court advised the family that any formal complaint against the public prosecutor must be routed through the proper legal procedure.
Political Attention and Public Pressure
The case has drawn an unusual degree of political attention. Among those who visited the victim's home were Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan, former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, and Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala, alongside several other public figures. The high-profile visits reflect the public resonance of a case that pits questions of judicial accountability against the family's pursuit of justice. With the Crime Branch now at the helm, how the evidence-tampering charge develops will be closely watched.
Point of View
Which carries institutional weight far beyond the original offence. The transfer to the Crime Branch and the in-camera order together suggest that the court and senior police brass are concerned about both evidentiary integrity and courtroom conduct. What is striking is the open rift between the prosecution and the victim's family: when those nominally on the same side are trading accusations, it almost always signals that something has gone wrong procedurally. The political procession to the victim's home, while symbolically important, does not substitute for a clean, accountable prosecution — and that remains the unresolved question at the heart of this case.
NationPress
2 Nov 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Cheranelloor Mercedes-Benz accident case?
It is a case in which a 17-year-old son of a Kerala judge drove a Mercedes-Benz car that struck and killed scooterist Jayabalakrishnan, 55 , on Container Road in Kochi. The case has attracted widespread attention due to the judge's identity and subsequent allegations of evidence tampering.
What is Section 238 BNS and why has it been added?
Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence. It was added after the victim's family alleged that attempts were made to destroy evidence following the accident, prompting police to escalate the charges against the judge.
Why was the case transferred to the Crime Branch?
The investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch on the directions of Kochi City Police Commissioner R. Nishanthini, reflecting concerns about the adequacy and integrity of the original probe. The Crime Branch is now leading all aspects of the investigation.
Why has the court ordered in-camera proceedings?
The Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court ordered in-camera proceedings citing the sensitive nature of the case and the need to protect both the proceedings and the evidence. This means future hearings will be closed to the general public and media.
What is the dispute between the prosecution and the victim's family?
The victim's family has sought the removal of the public prosecutor, alleging lapses in the handling of the case. The prosecution has countered by accusing the family of not cooperating with proceedings and of providing misleading information to the media. The court has directed the family to raise any complaint about the prosecutor through proper legal channels.
