Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment and order passed by the Kerala High Court, whereby the appeal of the convict 1, against his conviction under Sections , and read with Section of (‘IPC’) has been dismissed, the division bench of Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. while upholding the conviction and sentence, held that the courts below have rightly concluded that the convict’s actions amount to murder under Section , and thus punishable under Section . Further, the Court dismissed the appeal for reduction of the sentence.
Background:
On 10-04-2006, supporters of the United Democratic Front (UDF) and Left Democratic Front (LDF) clashed over a dispute related to the drawing of their election symbols, leading to a criminal case against UDF sympathizers.
On 11-04-2006, the convict, along with others sympathetic to the Indian Union Muslim League, planned the murder of the deceased due to ongoing enmity. Convict 1 attempted to strike the deceased with a tamarind stick, but the deceased fought back, snatching the stick and retaliating. Convict 1 then pulled out a knife and stabbed the deceased multiple times (chest, back of the head, and shoulder). When the second injured person tried to intervene, convict 1 stabbed him in the left buttock. As the second injured person fell, convict 1 fractured his foot with the tamarind stick, while convict 3 further assaulted him with a wooden stick on the chest.
Following the attack, both the injured and the deceased were taken to the Hospital, where the Additional Sub-Inspector recorded the injured person’s statement. Based on the statement, an FIR was registered against the convicts under Sections , , and . The convicts were arrested, and the Investigating Officer recovered the knife used in the crime, based on the convict 1 disclosure statement.
The Trial Court convicted the convict 1 for offences under Sections , , and , sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 302, six years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000 under Section 326-, and two-years’ imprisonment under Section 324. Convict 2 and convict 3 were convicted under Sections and read with Section and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000 under Section 326, and two-years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 324.
The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s verdict. Aggrieved, convict 1 filed the present appeal was filed.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court said that the prosecution established beyond doubt that the injuries were inflicted by convict 1 using a knife, which was recovered during the investigation based on his disclosure statement. Thus, the Courts have rightly concluded that the fatal injuries inflicted by convict 1 were the direct cause of the deceased’s death.
The Court noted that the convict’s primary defence has been the absence of intent to commit murder. However, as per the Court, 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 convict 1 during the incident.
The Court said that 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. The decision to carry and use a knife during the scuffle reflects a readiness to escalate violence beyond a mere physical altercation. Even if the convict 1 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 Court said that the convict’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 convict liable for death of the deceased as per clause 3 of Section .
The Court applied the third clause of Section of the , which defines murder as causing death by inflicting bodily injury likely to result in death in the ordinary course of nature. The Court observed that the convict’s actions clearly met this criterion.
The Court said that “the defence’s argument that the incident was a spontaneous scuffle does not absolve the convict of liability. While the scuffle may have triggered the attack, the convict’s use of a lethal weapon and the manner in which the injuries were inflicted elevate the act from culpable homicide to murder”.
Noting that the convict 1 has invoked the right of private defence arguing that the act of stabbing was carried out under a perceived threat to his life, the Court said that even if the convict 1 claims to have acted in defense, his role in bringing about the altercation cannot be overlooked. Convict 1 cannot benefit from the exception when he was instrumental in creating the circumstances that led to the confrontation.
The Court held that the plea of exceeding the right of private defense under Exception 2 to Section , , is not applicable to the convict’s case. The Courts below have rightly held that the convict 1 was not under any imminent peril and that his actions were deliberate and excessive.
Concerning the contention of the convict 1 that his sentence should be reduced on the grounds of parity with his co-convict, the Court explained that the doctrine of parity ensures fairness in sentencing when co-convicts are similarly situated and share the same level of culpability. However, parity is not an automatic entitlement; the role, intent, and actions of each convict must be individually assessed to determine their degree of involvement in the crime.
The Court said that the evidence presented during the trial clearly establishes that convict 1 played a distinct and more culpable role in the incident. While the co-convicts were armed with sticks and caused non-fatal injuries to the victims, convict 1 alone was armed with a knife and used it to inflict fatal injuries on the deceased.
The Court mentioned that there is no evidence to show that the other convicts shared a common intention with convict 1 to commit murder. The courts below have meticulously analyzed the evidence and concluded that the convicts did not share a common intention to commit murder. While the group acted in concert to assault the victims, the fatal stabbing by convict 1 was an independent and unilateral act. The absence of common intention among the co-convict precludes the application of vicarious liability under Section , , for the act of murder.
While considering the plea for leniency on account of old age and a medical condition, the Court said that these factors alone cannot absolve or mitigate the responsibility for a crime of this magnitude. 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.
The Court, while empathising with the convict’s personal circumstances, found no compelling justification to interfere with the sentence imposed by the lower Court.
The Court, upon confirming the convict’s conviction under Section of the for the offence of murder, reiterated that the minimum sentence prescribed under the provision is life imprisonment. Thus, there is no justification for granting a lesser sentence. The Court emphasized that when the law mandates life imprisonment as the minimum penalty, factors such as parity, leniency, old age, or health concerns cannot be considered as grounds for reducing the sentence. Therefore, convict 1 was sentenced to the minimum punishment under Section , , which is life imprisonment, for the crime of murder.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: Criminal Appeal No.-005097-005097 — 2024 Appellants : Kunhimuhammed Respondents : State of Keralam | Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, AOR Radha Shyam Jena, Advocates Haris Beeran, Azhar Assees, and Anand B. Menon. For Respondent(s): Senior Advocate P.V. Dinesh, AOR Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advocates Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Anna Oommen, and Urvashi Chauhan. |
CORAM :
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .