Kollam court convicts Sandeep in Dr. Vandana Das murder case

Kollam Additional Sessions Court on Tuesday (March 17, 2026) found G. Sandeep, the only accused in Dr. Vandana Das murder case, guilty and the quantum of sentence will be pronounced on Thursday (March 18).

Kollam Additional Sessions Judge P.N. Vinod found the accused guilty of crimes including culpable homicide, causing grievous injury, obstructing government officials from discharging their duties, and destruction of evidence. The court held him liable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 323, 341, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Hospital Protection Act. Prosecution had produced more than 70 witnesses including police officers, forensic experts, physicians, and colleagues during the trial. Additionally, 22 pieces of evidence (material objects) and 207 documents were presented before the court.

The brutal murder of Dr. Vandana Das on May 10, 2023, had sent shockwaves across Kerala, marking the first time a healthcare professional was killed while on duty at a government hospital. The incident occurred at 4.35 am at the Kottarakara Taluk Hospital, where the accused, Sandeep, a school teacher from Kudavattoor, stabbed the young house surgeon while in an intoxicated state. Following the attack, the accused was immediately remanded in judicial custody, and by May 12, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted to lead the probe.

SIT files chargesheet

As the investigation intensified, the accused’s mental health became a focal point, leading to multiple examinations by a medical board in May and June of 2023. On August 1, the SIT officially filed the chargesheet, and the Kottarakara Magistrate subsequently ordered the accused to be produced for committal proceedings. By September 19, 2023, the case was formally committed to the Kollam Sessions Court for trial.

The legal journey saw significant developments in early 2024 when Dr. Vandana’s parents requested the government to appoint advocate Pratap G. Padickal as the Special Public Prosecutor and the request was granted in April 2024. Despite the defence approaching the Supreme Court in July 2024 to challenge the framing of charges, the apex court eventually dismissed their petition in December. Throughout this period, the court systematically processed the lists of witnesses, evidence, and documents presented by the prosecution to ensure a fair and rigorous trial.

The trial phase, which began in earnest in early 2025, faced several procedural hurdles, including the death of the defense counsel and subsequent changes in the legal team representing the accused. However, the testimony of the first witness, Dr. Shibin, set the stage for a detailed examination of over 70 witnesses. By February 2026, the prosecution completed its witness examinations, followed by the court’s questioning of the accused. After the defence concluded its witness testimonies and final arguments were heard in early March, the court officially closed the proceedings on March 7, 2026, setting the stage for the highly anticipated final verdict today, March 17, 2026.

Primary defence

The primary defense raised by the accused’s counsel was that Sandeep, a teacher, suffered from mental illness and was therefore entitled to protection under Section 84 of the IPC (Inanity defense), claiming he was not guilty. To support this, the defense highlighted certain observations in the medical board report prepared by experts from the Psychiatry Department of Thiruvananthapuram Medical College.

However, Special Public Prosecutor Pratap G. Padickal, appearing for the prosecution, countered this by arguing that the accused did not suffer from the alleged mental illness. The prosecution emphasised the legal distinction between ‘medical insanity’ (as claimed by the accused) and ‘legal insanity’ (which is required for protection under the law).

A crucial point raised by the prosecution was that the accused, an educated and intelligent man, had attempted to feign mental instability. It was pointed out to the court that while in custody at the Thiruvananthapuram Central Jail, Sandeep had studied books on psychology and mental health from the jail library to deliberately mislead the psychiatrists during his evaluation.

Furthermore, the prosecution argued that the accused led a perfectly normal life until the day before the incident, being active as a teacher and on social media. During the cross-examination of defence witnesses Sreekumar and Heman (both teachers), the prosecution elicited responses that further proved the accused had no mental infirmity. Additionally, the prosecutor pointed out the testimony of a close relative of the accused, who stated in court that Sandeep was an individual with an aggressive temperament.