Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 937
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023)
KUNHIMUHAMMED@ KUNHEETHU …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KERALA …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment
and order dated 18.09.2018 whereby the appeal of
the appellant-accused no.1, against his conviction
under sections 302, 324 and 326/34 of Indian
1
Penal Code, 1860 has been dismissed. The
prosecution story in brief is:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2024.12.06
15:49:52 IST
Reason:
1
IPC
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 1 of 46
2.1. On 10.04.2006, the sympathizers of United
Democratic Front (UDF) and Left Democratic
Front (LDF) fought against each other in
connection with the dispute regarding the
drawing of their election symbol at a place near a
library in Kunnappalli, Pathaikkara Village. A
criminal case with non-bailable offences was
registered against the sympathisers of UDF in
connection with the above incident.
2.2. On 11.04.2006, The appellant along with the
other accused who are sympathisers of Indian
Union Muslim League on account of above enmity
and with the intention to commit murder of
deceased Subrahmannian and CW-1 Vasudevan
Ramachandra, waited at Mukkilaplavu Junction
for their arrival and at about 08:45 PM when the
deceased along with Vasudevan Ramachandra
reached at the above-mentioned place, the first
accused attempted to beat the deceased with a
tamarind stick, on his head. The deceased saved
himself from the said attack and snatched the
stick from the first accused and started
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 2 of 46
assaulting the first accused on his forehead and
back with the same stick. At this stage, the first
accused took out a knife from his hip region and
stabbed the deceased on the left side of chest,
back of the head and the left shoulder. On seeing
the above incident, CW-1 made an attempt to
obstruct the first accused from assaulting the
deceased, however, the first accused stabbed him
on the left side of the buttock of CW-1 with the
same knife. When CW-1 fell on the ground, the
second accused caused a fracture on the right
foot bone of CW-1 by beating him with another
tamarind stick. Thereafter, the third accused
assaulted CW-1 by beating on his right chest with
a wooden stick.
2.3. After the said incident, the injured and the
deceased were taken to the Maulana Hospital
where Additional Sub-Inspector CW-32 reached
and recorded the statement of CW-1 on the basis
of which the First Information Report was
registered as Crime No.260 of 2006 against the
three accused under sections 302/324 read with
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 3 of 46
section 34 IPC. The accused were thereafter
arrested. The Investigating Officer prepared the
inquest report, spot map, and recovered the knife
under the seizure memo on the basis of the
disclosure statement made by the first accused.
2.4. After completing the investigation, the charge
sheet was submitted under sections 302/307
read with section 34 IPC. The Magistrate took
cognizance and committed the case for trial to the
Sessions Court. The Trial Court framed the
charges under the aforesaid sections and read
them over to the accused who denied the same
and claimed trial.
3. The Prosecution examined 19 witnesses and filed
28 Exhibits and 18 material objects. The
statements of the accused under section 313 of
2
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded
wherein again they claimed that they were innocent
and had nothing to do with the said incident. They
claimed to have been falsely implicated on account
2
CrPC
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 4 of 46
of political rivalry at the instance of the leaders of
Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M).
4. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence led
by the parties held that the appellant was found
guilty of offences punishable under sections 302,
324 and 326/34 IPC and accordingly sentenced
him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1 Lakh
under section 302, IPC, six years rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/- under
section 326, IPC, and two years imprisonment
under section 324, IPC. Accused no.2 was found
guilty of offences punishable under section 326 and
under sections 324/34 IPC and he was sentenced
to six years imprisonment under section 326, IPC
with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and two years rigorous
imprisonment under section 324 IPC. The third
accused was also awarded the same sentence as
accused no.2. The sentences were to run
concurrently.
5. Three appeals were preferred before the High Court
by the three accused separately. The High Court by
the impugned order dismissed all the three appeals.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 5 of 46
The second accused and the third accused had
preferred a separate SLP registered as SLP(Crl.)
No.2822 of 2019. In the said SLP, leave was
granted, and it was partly allowed vide judgment
and order dated 29.07.2019. This Court extended
benefit of doubt to accused no.3 whereas accused
no.2’s conviction was upheld, however, his
sentence under section 326 for six years was
reduced to three years.
6. We have heard Shri Nikhil Goel, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri P.V.
Dinesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the
State of Kerala and perused the material on record.
The submissions of Shri Goel are limited to the
extent that this was not a case of premeditated pre
planned murder. There was no mens rea for
committing culpable homicide amounting to
murder. The intention was only of assaulting with
the stick but later on during the fight as the
deceased overpowered the appellant and started
assaulting him with the same stick after snatching
it from the appellant, the appellant pulled out the
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 6 of 46
knife from his back and stabbed the deceased and
also the injured to save him. He has drawn
attention to the evidence on record as also to the
judgment of the Trial Court wherein specific finding
was recorded to that extent by the Trial Court but
despite the same, the Trial Court proceeded to
record conviction under section 302 IPC and not
section 304 IPC.
7. He also submitted that the appellant is aged 67
years and is suffering from multiple ailments and
that having undergone almost twelve and half years
of actual sentence, this Court may consider
reducing the sentence by converting the conviction
to under section 304 IPC Part II.
8. On the other hand, Mr. P.V. Dinesh, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondent-State
submitted that the Trial Court and the High Court
have both dealt with this aspect of the matter and
have concurrently found that this was a case of
culpable homicide amounting to murder. The fact
that the appellant was carrying a knife and the
number of assaults made by him on the deceased
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 7 of 46
as also the injury would clearly show that the
intention was to commit murder.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties,
we find it imperative to look into the evidence,
witness testimonies, and injury reports to better
understand and analyse the incident to see whether
the culpable homicide in the present case amounts
to murder or not. A meticulous analysis of the
evidence on record is necessary to check whether
the appellant had the intention to kill the deceased
or if he can be given the benefit of reduction of
sentence on the grounds pleaded in the appeal. To
understand the evidence and their probative value
in establishing the offence, it is necessary to look at
the categorical findings of both the courts below.
FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT
10. The Trial Court found appellant guilty of offences
under Sections 302, 326, and 324, IPC. The Trial
Court’s findings were primarily based on the direct
testimony of PW1, an eyewitness who was also
injured in the incident, and corroborative evidence
from medical and forensic reports.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 8 of 46
11. The evidence of PW1 was crucial to the
prosecution’s case. The Trial Court carefully
analyzed his testimony and found it credible,
reliable, and consistent with the injuries sustained
by the deceased and PW1, as recorded in the
medical reports. Although the defense argued that
PW1 was an interested witness and highlighted
omissions and contradictions in his testimony, the
Trial Court concluded that these discrepancies
were minor and did not affect the core narrative.
The Trial Court also noted that PW1’s statements
were corroborated by PW2, who arrived at the scene
shortly after the incident and observed the accused
fleeing. PW2’s account was deemed trustworthy
and supported the prosecution's version.
12. The recovery of the murder weapon (a knife, marked
as MO1) at the instance of appellant was a
significant factor in the Trial Court’s findings. The
knife was recovered under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 based on information provided
by appellant during his custodial interrogation.
Forensic examination confirmed that the knife bore
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 9 of 46
human blood matching the deceased's blood group.
This finding provided compelling corroboration of
PW1’s testimony regarding the role of Accused No.
1 in the fatal assault. Additional physical evidence,
such as blood-stained sticks recovered from the
crime scene, further substantiated the
prosecution’s case.
13. Medical evidence also played a vital role. The
postmortem report of the deceased, prepared by
PW-6 (a police surgeon), confirmed that the cause
of death was multiple stab injuries inflicted with a
sharp-edged weapon like MO1. PW6 identified
specific fatal injuries to the heart and lungs, which
were consistent with the prosecution’s narrative of
the assault. Similarly, the wound certificate of PW1
corroborated his account of the injuries he
sustained during the attack. The Trial Court
observed that the injuries detailed in the medical
reports aligned with the testimonies of PW1 and
PW2, reinforcing the prosecution’s case.
14. The defense attempted to argue that the incident
occurred in the exercise of private defense, claiming
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 10 of 46
that the accused were attacked by CPI(M) workers,
including the deceased and PW1. However, the Trial
Court rejected this claim, finding it
unsubstantiated and improbable. The injuries on
appellant, documented in the wound certificate,
were deemed minor and inconsistent with the
defense’s narrative of a large-scale attack. The
Court concluded that the accused were the
aggressors and were not entitled to claim the right
of private defense.
15. Ultimately, the Trial Court held that the
prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt
that appellant intentionally caused the death of
Subrahmannian and grievously injured PW1. The
recovery of the murder weapon, corroborative
forensic and medical evidence, and the reliable
testimony of PW1 and PW2 were central to this
conclusion. Accordingly, appellant was convicted
under Sections 302, 326, and 324 IPC and
sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder
charge, along with additional terms for the other
offenses.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 11 of 46
FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT
16. The High Court of Kerala meticulously analyzed the
roles and culpability of each accused based on the
evidence presented during the trial. The findings
highlight the distinct involvement of each accused
in the crime, with a particular focus on the actions
of appellant. This comprehensive assessment
ensures that the degree of liability is proportionate
to their individual actions and intentions as
discerned from the evidence on record.
17. The High Court affirmed the findings of the Trial
Court that Accused No. 1 played a pivotal role in
the murder. The evidence of PW-1, an injured
eyewitness, was central to establishing the
sequence of events. PW-1 testified that appellant
first beat the deceased with a wooden stick, causing
injuries to his left shoulder. When the deceased
tried to flee, appellant – accused no. 1 drew the
knife and inflicted a stab wound to his back. As PW-
1 intervened to protect the deceased, appellant–
turned on him, stabbing him in the buttock. This
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 12 of 46
act of aggression was corroborated by medical
evidence, which indicated that PW-1 sustained
injuries consistent with the use of the weapon
recovered during the investigation. Despite PW-1's
injuries, appellant resumed his attack on the
deceased, stabbing him multiple times in the chest
and other vital areas.
18. The High Court emphasized the significance of the
post-mortem report, which revealed eight incised
wounds on the deceased, including fatal injuries to
the chest, heart, and lungs. PW-6, the police
surgeon, testified that these injuries were
consistent with the knife recovered and that the
fatal wounds were sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death. The chemical analysis
linking the knife to appellant was further
corroborated by the presence of human blood
matching the deceased’s blood group on the
weapon. The recovery of the knife, facilitated by a
disclosure statement from appellant, lent further
credence to the prosecution’s case.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 13 of 46
19. The High Court also addressed the appellant’s
argument that the testimony of PW-1 was
unreliable due to alleged embellishments regarding
the number of stab injuries. The Court rejected this
contention, noting that minor omissions in the First
Information Statement (FIS) could not undermine
the credibility of PW-1’s account, especially given
the traumatic circumstances under which the FIS
was recorded. The court reasoned that PW-1,
having sustained a stab injury himself, may not
have been able to provide exhaustive details at the
time but consistently identified appellant – accused
no. 1 as the primary assailant. The testimony of
PW-2, an independent eyewitness, corroborated
PW-1’s account, further strengthening the
prosecution’s case against appellant.
20. The High Court concluded that the actions of
appellant demonstrated clear intent to cause death.
The deliberate targeting of vital organs with a sharp
weapon indicated premeditation or, at the very
least, the formation of intent during the incident.
The court observed that while the altercation may
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 14 of 46
have initially involved the use of sticks, appellant’s
decision to escalate the violence by drawing and
using a knife was an intentional and unilateral act.
This conduct set him apart from the other accused,
whose actions were limited to assaulting the victims
with sticks.
21. In contrast, accused nos. 2 and 3 were found guilty
of lesser offenses under Section 326 IPC for causing
grievous hurt to PW-1. The evidence established
that they used sticks to beat PW-1, resulting in
non-fatal injuries, including a fracture to his leg.
The High Court concurred with the Trial Court’s
finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove
that Accused Nos. 2 and 3 shared a common
intention with appellant to commit murder. The
court noted that there was no evidence to suggest
that they were aware of the knife concealed by
appellant or his intent to use it. This lack of
knowledge precluded the application of Section 34,
IPC to hold them vicariously liable for the murder.
22. The High Court underscored the principle that
liability must be determined based on the specific
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 15 of 46
actions and intentions of each accused. While
accused nos. 2 and 3 were complicit in the assault,
their participation did not extend to the homicidal
attack perpetrated by accused no. 1. The court
further noted that the initial assault with sticks did
not indicate a pre-arranged plan to kill the
deceased. Had there been such an intention, the
attack would have begun with the use of the knife
rather than sticks.
23. The High court also dismissed the appellant’s plea
for leniency based on parity with the co-accused. It
emphasized that the role of appellant was
materially different and far more culpable than that
of accused Nos. 2 and 3. The fatal injuries inflicted
by appellant on the deceased were deliberate,
targeted, and intended to cause death, whereas the
actions of the co-accused were confined to non-fatal
assaults on PW-1. The principle of parity, therefore,
did not apply in this case.
24. The High Court upheld the conviction of appellant
under Section 302 IPC for the murder of
Subrahmannian. The court noted that the evidence
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 16 of 46
against him was overwhelming, including
eyewitness testimonies, medical reports, and
forensic findings. The sentences imposed on
Accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 326 IPC were
also affirmed, as they appropriately reflected their
limited roles in the incident.
FINDINGS ON THE GROUNDS FOR REDUCTION OF
SENTENCE
25. SCUFFLE AND LACK OF INTENT : The appellant's
counsel has argued that the incident arose out of a
scuffle between two rival factions, during which the
act of stabbing and killing the deceased was not
premeditated but rather occurred spontaneously in
the heat of the moment. According to the appellant,
there was no deliberate intent to commit murder,
and the unfortunate event resulted from a
confrontation that escalated during the altercation.
However, this submission has been closely
examined and dismissed by both the Trial Court
and the High Court, based on substantial evidence
presented during the proceedings.
A. Fatal Injuries:
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 17 of 46
25.1 The severity of the injuries inflicted on the
deceased has been central to the Courts’
conclusion that the act qualifies as murder under
Section 300 of the IPC. As per the post-mortem
report, the deceased sustained both external and
internal ante-mortem injuries that were identified
as being inflicted by a sharp-edged knife. These
injuries, detailed in the Trial Court's order,
include multiple incised penetration wounds to
vital regions such as the chest, rib cage, lungs,
and heart.
25.2 The evidence of PW-6, the police surgeon who
conducted the post-mortem examination, was
instrumental in establishing the fatal nature of
the injuries. He testified that the death resulted
from multiple injuries, including several incised
wounds caused by the knife recovered during the
investigation. The injuries sustained by the
deceased, as per the report, were as follows:
External Antemortem Injuries:
1. (a) Incised wound 4x2x0.5cm involving back of
right side of head, horizontal, upper inner end at
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 18 of 46
2 cm below occiput and 2 cm outer to midline
back, with tapering ends.
2. Incised penetrating wound 12x3xl-2cm involving
top and back of left shoulder, extending vertically
downwards and backwards, upper inner end at
17 cm outer to mid line front and on top of
shoulder.
3. (a) Incised penetrating wound (stab wounds)
3x2x3.5cm involving front of left chest, oblique,
upper end near to midline front than lower, upper
inner end at 12 cm outer to midline front and II
cm below middle of collar bone, directed
downwards. backwards and right wards, with
tapering ends, and contusion of margins.
4. (a) Incised penetrating wound (stab wound)
2xl.5x3.5cm including · front of right chest,
oblique, upper end away from midline front than
lower end, upper inner end at 10 cm outer to
midline front and 17 cm below middle of collar
bone, directed downwards, backwards and
leftwards, with tapering ends and contusion of
margins.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 19 of 46
5. Incised wound 2x0.8x0.5cm involving dorsum of
left hand at the root of middle finger.
Internal Antemortem Injuries:
1. (b) Contusions of scalp 17x10 em involving front
half and 5x3cm involving right side of back. Inter
one is. under neath and around the injury No. 1
-(a).
2. (b) (i) contusion 23x9cm involving left front chest
wall upper inner end at collar bone and in midline
front.
(ii) Incised penetrating wound 8x0.5x I cm
involving left front chest wall (rib cage and inter
costal muscles), oblique, which penetrates into
chest cavity, with fracture separation of 3rd
and 4th ribs and contusion of edges the upper
inner end at I 0 cm outer to midline front and
9 cm below middle of collar bone.
(iii) Incised penetrating wound 7x2x1.5 em
involving left atrium and upper part of left
ventricle of heart, which penetrates through
entire thickness of antero lateral wall into
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 20 of 46
cavity, tearing mitral valve leaflets, with
contusion at the edges of the wound.
(iv) Laceration of left lung 4xlx0.5cm involving
outer aspect of upper lobe and 2x2x0.5cm
including outer aspect · of lower lobe and
contusion 6x3 cm involving outer aspect of
lower lobe just below the previous injury
Injury No. 3 (b) is underneath and corresponds
with and continuation of injury no. (3) (a), and
total depth of both injuries taken together is 6
cm.
4.(b) (i) Contusion 10x7 cm involving right front
chest wall upper inner end at 13 cm belowcollar
bone and in midline front.
(ii) Incised penetrating wound 4x2x2cm involving
right front chest wall (rib cage and intercostale
muscles), oblique, penetrates into the chest
cavity, with fracture separation of 5th rib, the
upper inner end at 9 cm outer to midline front
and 20 cm below middle of collar bone, with
contusion of edges.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 21 of 46
(iii) Laceration of right lung 2xlx0.5 cm involving
outer aspect of middle lobe.
Injury No. (4) (b) is underneath, corresponds
with and continuation of injury No. (4) (a) and
the total depth of both injuries taken together
is 5 cm.
25.3 Among the injuries, some were specifically
identified as fatal, including:
i. Penetrating wounds to the chest and rib
cage. These injuries caused significant trauma
to the internal organs, including the lungs and
heart.
ii. Laceration of the heart. The most critical
injury involved a penetrating wound measuring
7x2x1.5 cm in the left atrium and the upper part
of the left ventricle, which extended through the
entire thickness of the anterolateral wall of the
heart. This injury also tore the mitral valve
leaflets and caused contusions at the edges of
the wound. The medical expert opined that this
particular injury was sufficient to cause death
in the ordinary course of nature. Additionally,
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 22 of 46
other injuries inflicted on the deceased were of
such severity that they compounded the fatal
outcome.
25.4 This Court held in Virsa Singh vs. State of
3
Pepsu , that to see whether the injury intended
and thus caused by the accused was sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death or
not, it must be examined in each case on the
basis of the facts and circumstances. In that
case, the injury was caused with a knife blow to
the stomach and it was inflicted with such force
that the knife penetrated the abdomen of the
deceased and caused injuries to the bowel. The
expert opinion of the doctor therein stated on
record that such an injury was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Further, in the absence of any evidence or
circumstances to prove that the injury was
accidental or unintentional, it was presumed that
the accused had intended to cause such injury,
3
1958 SCR 1495
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 23 of 46
thus making it fall under clause 3 of Section, 300
IPC.
25.5 It has been held by this Court in several cases
such as Manubhai Atabhai vs. State of
4
Gujarat , and Arun Nivalaji More vs. State of
5
Maharashtra , that when the ocular evidence of
eye witnesses are reliable and well corroborated
by medical, and other evidence also inspires the
confidence that the accused had the intention to
cause such fatal injuries, then such evidence is
enough to prove the charge of murder beyond
reasonable doubt. This intention is to be gathered
from a number of circumstances and evidence
like the place of injury the nature of the weapon,
the force applied while inflicting the injury, and
other such considerations. Whether the accused
had any intention to kill the deceased has to be
judged upon taking into consideration the facts
of each case.
4
(2007) 10 SCC 358
5
(2005) 12 SCC 613
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 24 of 46
25.6 This position has been elaborated by this Court
6
in the case of Nishan Singh vs. State of Punjab ,
where the accused person had snatched the
weapon carried by someone else and brutally
inflicted injuries on the deceased. The Court
stated that in such a case it cannot be said that
he did not have the intention to cause death.
25.7 The prosecution established beyond doubt that
these injuries were inflicted by the appellant–
accused no. 1 using a knife, which was recovered
during the investigation based on the appellant’s
disclosure statement. PW-18, the Investigating
Officer, corroborated this recovery, and the
seizure report was further attested by PW-16, an
independent witness. Further, the doctor PW-6
has stated that these injuries are sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Cross-examination of these witnesses did not
reveal any inconsistencies that could undermine
the credibility of the evidence. Consequently, the
6
(2008) 17 SCC 505
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 25 of 46
courts have rightly concluded that the fatal
injuries inflicted by the appellant were the direct
cause of the deceased’s death.
B. Intention to Commit Murder
25.8 The appellant's primary defence has been the
absence of intent to commit murder. However,
intent can be inferred from the circumstances
surrounding the act, including the nature and
location of the injuries inflicted, the weapon used,
and the actions of the appellant during the
incident. The injuries were concentrated on the
vital parts of the deceased’s body, such as the
chest and ribs, which house critical organs like
the heart and lungs. The deliberate targeting of
these areas indicates a clear intent to cause harm
that could lead to death. According to the
testimony of the injured eyewitness, the appellant
stabbed the deceased with considerable force,
further corroborating the prosecution’s argument
that the injuries were inflicted intentionally or at
least with the knowledge of their natural
consequence. While other co-accused were
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 26 of 46
reportedly armed with sticks, the appellant–
accused no. 1 was in possession of a sharp knife,
which was used to inflict severe injuries. The
decision to carry and use such a weapon during
the scuffle reflects a readiness to escalate
violence beyond a mere physical altercation. Even
if the appellant did not have a prior intention to
murder the deceased, the circumstances
demonstrate that such injuries were caused
which were sufficient in the ordinary course to
cause death. The deliberate act of stabbing vital
parts of the body, coupled with the force used,
indicates that the appellant must have been
aware of the likely fatal consequences of his
actions. Under the provisions of Section 300 IPC,
an intention to cause such injuries that are
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death qualifies as murder, and even if
ingredients other than intention to cause murder
are proved, mere knowledge of the result of fatal
actions is enough to ascribe culpability to the
accused person.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 27 of 46
25.9 The lower courts have also dismissed the
appellant’s argument that the act was not
premeditated. While the attack may not have
been planned in advance, intent can emerge in
the heat of the moment, particularly during a
violent confrontation. The appellant’s decision to
use a lethal weapon and the precise targeting of
the victim’s vital organs are sufficient to establish
the requisite intent for murder or at least
knowledge of the possible consequences of one’s
actions and to hold the appellant liable for death
of the deceased as per clause 3 of Section 300,
IPC.
25.10 This Court held in Virsa Singh (Supra) that the
,
prosecution must prove that there was an
intention to inflict that particular injury, that is
to say that the injury was not accidental or
unintentional or that some other kind of injury
was intended, and that particular injury was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 28 of 46
25.11 The third clause of section 300 speaks of an
intention to cause bodily injury which is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. This Court in the above-mentioned
judgment held that to bring the case under this
part of the section the prosecution must establish
objectively:
1. That a bodily injury is present;
2. That the nature of injury must be proved;
3. It must be proved that there was an intention
to inflict that particular bodily injury;
4. That the injury inflicted is sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of the nature.
25.12 The Court further held that:
“13. Once these four elements are
established by the prosecution (and, of
course, the burden is on the prosecution
throughout) the offence is murder under S.
300, “Thirdly. It does not matter that there
was no intention to cause death. It does
not matter that there was no intention
even to cause an injury of a kind that is
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature (not that there is any real
distinction between the two). It does not
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 29 of 46
even matter that there is no knowledge
that an act of that kind will be likely to
cause death. Once the intention to cause
the bodily injury actually found to be
present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is
purely objective and the only question is
whether, as a matter of purely objective
inference, the injury is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
No one has a licence to run around
inflicting injuries that are sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of
nature and claim that they are not guilty of
murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind,
they must face the consequences; and they
can only escape if it can be shown, or
reasonably deduced that the injury was
accidental or otherwise unintentional.”
25.13 This position has further been upheld by this
Court recently in the case of Vinod Kumar
vs.
7
Amritpal , wherein the bench observed that:
“24. Once the prosecution establishes the
existence of the three ingredients forming
a part of “thirdly” in Section 300, it is
irrelevant whether there was an intention
on the part of the accused to cause death.
Further, it does not matter that there was
no intention even to cause the injury of a
kind that is sufficient to cause death in
7
(2021) 19 SCC 181
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 30 of 46
ordinary course of nature. Even the
knowledge that an act of that kind is likely
to cause death is not necessary to attract
“thirdly”.”
25.14 This Court in the case of Balkar Singh vs. State
8
of Uttarakhand , while following the judgment
in Virsa Singh (Supra) further elaborated the
position of law and laid down that culpable
homicide is murder if two conditions are fulfilled:
a. the act which caused death is done with the
intention of causing death or is done with the
intention of causing a bodily injury; and
b. the injury intended to be inflicted in sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
25.15 The Court in the above-mentioned judgment
clarified that even if the intention of accused was
limited to inflicting a bodily injury sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the
offence of murder would still be made out.
25.16 The third clause of Section 300, IPC defines
murder as the act of causing death by causing
such bodily injury as is likely to result in death in
8
(2009) 15 SCC 366
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 31 of 46
the ordinary course of nature. In the present
case, the appellant’s actions satisfy these criteria.
The appellant was armed with a knife, which he
used to inflict multiple injuries on vital organs.
The fatal nature of these injuries, as confirmed by
medical evidence, and the circumstances of the
attack clearly point to an intent to cause death or
at least an intention to inflict injuries with the
knowledge that they were likely to result in death.
Even if it is presumed that the appellant –
accused no. 1 did not have an intention to cause
such bodily injury, the act of causing injuries
with knife to vital parts is reflective of the
knowledge that causing such injuries is likely to
cause death in the ordinary course.
25.17 The defence’s argument that the incident was a
spontaneous scuffle does not absolve the
appellant of liability. While the scuffle may have
triggered the attack, the appellant’s use of a lethal
weapon and the manner in which the injuries
were inflicted elevate the act from culpable
homicide to murder. Courts have consistently
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 32 of 46
held that intent can be inferred from the nature
and severity of injuries, as well as the choice of
weapon and the manner of its use. The use of a
lethal weapon and the deliberate targeting of vital
parts of the body are strong indicators of such
intent.
25.18 In light of the evidence and the legal principles
involved, the appellant’s plea for leniency on the
grounds of spontaneity and lack of premeditation
cannot be sustained. The nature and location of
the injuries inflicted, the choice of weapon, and
the circumstances of the attack unequivocally
establish the liability of the appellant for causing
the death of Subrahmannian. The argument that
the act was committed in the spur of the moment
does not diminish the gravity of the offence or the
appellant’s culpability.
2. Plea of Private Defence: The appellant’s counsel
has invoked the right of private defence arguing
that the act of stabbing was carried out under a
perceived threat to the appellant–accused no. 1’s
life. It is further contended that the appellant
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 33 of 46
exceeded the bounds of lawful defence, thereby
bringing the act within the ambit of Exception 2 to
Section 300, IPC, which reads:
"Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offender, in the exercise of good faith of the
right of private defence of person or
property, exceeds the power given to him
by law and causes the death of the person
against whom he is exercising such right."
26.1 To bring the appellant’s act under section 304,
IPC in light of the offence being committed in
exercise of private defense and thereby exceeding
the power given under the law, that is under
exception 2 to section 300, IPC – the ingredients
therein must be proved. The ingredients for this
exception are:
1. The accused must be free from fault in
bringing about the encounter;
2. There must be an impending peril to life or of
great bodily harm, either real or apparent;
3. Injuries received by the accused;
4. The injuries caused by the accused;
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 34 of 46
5. The accused did not have time or opportunity
to take recourse to public authorities.
26.2 This Court in Darshan Singh v. State of
9
Punjab , held that the law provides for the right
of private defense to citizens to enable them to
protect themselves when confronted with
imminent danger or unlawful aggression. But
such protection must not be misused or extend
beyond the necessities of the case.
26.3 The counsel for the appellant has argued that the
appellant acted under a genuine belief of
impending harm. However, this argument falls
short upon scrutiny of the injuries sustained by
the appellant during the altercation. As per the
wound certificate, the appellant suffered only
minor injuries:
i. A contusion on the back of the buttock.
ii. An abrasion over the forehead.
26.4 The medical evidence confirms that these injuries
were superficial and did not pose any real or
9
(2010) 2 SCC 333
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 35 of 46
imminent threat to the appellant’s life or safety.
The courts below have rightly concluded that the
appellant’s perception of danger was neither
reasonable nor proportional to the force he
employed in response. It is a settled position of
law that the number of injuries on the accused
side by itself may not be sufficient to establish
right of private defense, as has been held by this
Court in V. Subramani vs. State of Tamil
10
Nadu . But it has further been held that an
overall view of the case has to be taken to check
whether a case for private defense is made out
from the evidence on record.
26.5 Even if the appellant claims to have acted in
defense, his role in bringing about the altercation
cannot be overlooked. The appellant cannot
benefit from the exception when he was
instrumental in creating the circumstances that
led to the confrontation. It has been held in the
11
case of Sone Lal vs. State of U.P. , that when
10
(2005) 10 SCC 358
11
(1981) 2 SCC 531
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 36 of 46
the aggressors, even if they receive injuries from
the victims of their aggression, cannot have the
right of private defence. The courts below have
made a categorical finding that the appellant–
accused no.1 and his co-accused were the
aggressors in the altercation. The attack was
initiated by the accused group, who were armed
with sticks and a knife, with the intent to
intimidate or harm the victim and his
companions. This fact is substantiated by the
testimony of PW-1, an injured eyewitness, who
described the sequence of events leading up to
the stabbing. Even if it were assumed that the
appellant–accused no. 1 acted in self-defense, the
evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the
force used was excessive and disproportionate.
The act of stabbing the deceased multiple times
in vital organs such as the chest and heart goes
far beyond what is permissible under the right of
private defense.
26.6 As noted in the post-mortem report and
corroborated by the testimony of PW-6 (the police
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 37 of 46
surgeon), the injuries inflicted on the deceased
were severe and intentional, including a fatal
wound to the heart. The appellant’s actions
cannot be justified as a defensive response to the
minor injuries he sustained.
26.7 In light of the above findings, the plea of
exceeding the right of private defense under
Exception 2 to Section 300, IPC, is not applicable
to the appellant’s case. The courts below have
rightly rejected this argument, holding that the
appellant was not under any imminent peril and
that his actions were deliberate and excessive.
3. Parity with Other Accused Persons:
27.1 The appellant has further contended that his
sentence should be reduced on the grounds of
parity with his co-accused. It is argued that since
one co-accused had his sentence reduced, and
another was acquitted by this Court, the
appellant should be afforded similar leniency.
The appellant is seeking similar leniency on the
ground that the circumstances and involvement
of all accused were substantially similar.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 38 of 46
27.2 The doctrine of parity ensures fairness in
sentencing when co-accused persons are
similarly situated and share the same level of
culpability. However, parity is not an automatic
entitlement; the role, intent, and actions of each
accused must be individually assessed to
determine their degree of involvement in the
crime.
27.3 The evidence presented during the trial clearly
establishes that the appellant played a distinct
and more culpable role in the incident. While the
co-accused were armed with sticks and caused
non-fatal injuries to the victims, the appellant
alone was armed with a knife and used it to inflict
fatal injuries on the deceased. The testimony of
PW-1 reveals that the appellant stabbed the
deceased after his stick was snatched during the
altercation. This sequence of events
demonstrates a deliberate escalation by the
appellant, who resorted to using a deadly weapon
with the intent to cause grievous harm.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 39 of 46
27.4 Nothing has been brought on record to show that
the other accused persons had knowledge of
appellant being in possession of the knife. Thus,
there is no evidence to show that the other
accused persons shared a common intention with
the appellant to commit murder. The courts
below have meticulously analyzed the evidence
and concluded that the co-accused did not share
a common intention to commit murder. While the
group acted in concert to assault the victims, the
fatal stabbing by the appellant was an
independent and unilateral act. This finding is
crucial in distinguishing the appellant’s
culpability from that of his co-accused. The
absence of common intention among the co-
accused precludes the application of vicarious
liability under Section 34, IPC, for the act of
murder.
27.5 The sentence of Accused No. 2 was reduced from
six years to three years on the grounds that he
caused only grievous hurt with a stick and did
not participate in the stabbing and was also
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 40 of 46
unaware of the knife in possession of appellant.
Accused no.3 was given the benefit of doubt and
was acquitted due to lack of evidence linking him
to the assault.
27.6 The courts have carefully evaluated the evidence
against each accused and tailored their sentences
accordingly. The appellant’s argument for parity
fails to recognize the qualitative differences in
their roles and the gravity of their actions. The
appellant’s actions were not only more severe but
also demonstrated a clear intent to cause death.
The fatal injuries inflicted on the deceased, as
detailed in the post-mortem report, leave no room
for doubt about the appellant – accused no. 1’s
culpability. The courts below have correctly
observed that the appellant’s role in the crime is
incomparable to that of his co-accused.
27.7 The principle of parity does not apply in the
present case, as the appellant’s actions were
materially different from those of his co-accused.
The sentence imposed on the appellant reflects
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 41 of 46
the gravity of his offense and his individual
culpability.
28. Plea of old age and deteriorating health:
28.1 Another ground taken by the appellant for
reduction in sentence is that he is a senior citizen
and has severe health concerns necessitating
continuous treatment and physiotherapy. This
Court had once previously granted interim bail to
the appellant on medical grounds owing to the
fact that he had suffered a stroke and partial
paralysis as a result.
28.2 The Court is cognizant of the appellant's
advanced age and deteriorating medical
condition, considerations that warrant a humane
and compassionate approach to justice. These
factors, when presented in cases of serious
offences, often invite the judiciary to weigh
individual circumstances against the broader
interest of justice. However, the Court is also
tasked with balancing these personal hardships
against the severity and nature of the offence, as
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 42 of 46
well as its impact on the rule of law and societal
harmony.
28.3 In the present case, the appellant has been
convicted of murder, committed in the course of
a group attack fueled by political rivalry. The act
was not one of sudden provocation or impulse but
arose from a premeditated and collective intent to
harm the victim, even if the initial intention was
to cause hurt. The evidence unequivocally
establishes that the appellant actively
participated in the attack, which culminated in
the brutal stabbing of the victim in vital parts of
the body, leading to his death. Such an act,
carried out with the clear objective to eliminate
the victim, underscores its heinous nature and
deliberate execution.
28.4 While this Court has carefully considered the
appellant's plea for leniency on account of old age
and a medical condition, these factors alone
cannot absolve or mitigate the responsibility for a
crime of this magnitude. A murder committed
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 43 of 46
with the intent to target vital organs, particularly
in a group setting, reflects a level of intent and
cruelty that demands an appropriate punitive
response. To reduce the sentence in such a case
would risk undermining the seriousness of the
crime and the sanctity of life itself, principles that
the judicial system is duty-bound to uphold.
28.5 Furthermore, the offence occurred in a context of
political rivalry, a factor that exacerbates its
gravity. Crimes rooted in such motives often have
far-reaching consequences beyond the immediate
loss of life, contributing to social unrest and
weakening public confidence in the rule of law.
The Court must therefore ensure that its
decisions reinforce the principle of accountability
and deter the recurrence of such violent acts,
particularly those that disrupt public order. The
medical evidence, corroborated by eyewitness
testimony and the recovery of the weapon, leaves
no room for doubt. While the Court acknowledges
the appellant’s advanced age and medical
condition, these factors cannot outweigh the need
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 44 of 46
for justice and the imperative to uphold the rule
of law.
28.6 In light of the above, while we empathize with the
appellant’s personal circumstances, we find no
compelling justification to interfere with the
sentence imposed by the lower Court. The nature
of the offence, its deliberate execution, and its
societal implications necessitate that the
punishment reflects the seriousness of the crime.
29. Lastly, once conviction under Section 302 of IPC is
confirmed by all the Courts, then the minimum
sentence is imprisonment for life, as provided under
the provision itself. Thus, no ground or reason for
granting a lesser sentence arises. When the
minimum sentence itself is life imprisonment, then
grounds like parity, leniency, old age, health
concerns, etc. shall not be of any aid to the accused
while seeking reduction of sentence. Therefore, the
appellant herein has been granted the minimum
sentence for committing the offence of murder.
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 45 of 46
30. After thoroughly examining the appellant’s
submissions and the evidence presented in the
case, the Court concludes that the appeal against
conviction and the request for a reduction in
sentence are without merit. The findings of both the
Trial Court and the High Court are well-founded
and supported by compelling evidence.
31. The courts below have rightly concluded that the
appellant’s actions amount to murder under
Section 300, IPC and thus punishable under
Section 302, IPC. Accordingly, the appeal for
reduction of the sentence is dismissed. The
conviction and sentence are upheld.
…………………………………………………..J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
…………………………………………………..J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 06, 2024
SLP (CRL.) NO. 4403 OF 2023 Page 46 of 46