# Kunhimuhammed@Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 937
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-12-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 5097 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, Prasanna B. Varale
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kunhimuhammed-kunheethu-v-the-state-of-kerala-37456
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

Whether appellant had the intention to commit murder; whether
the appellant's act can be brought 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; whether appellant's sentence
should be reduced on the grounds of parity with his co-accused.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 324 and 326/34 - The sympathizers
of two political groups fought against each other - Appellant
along with other accused committed murder of victim-S and
injured CW-1 - Trial Court held appellant guilty u/ss.302, 324
and 326/34 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment
and the same was upheld by the High Court - Correctness:
Held: 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 -
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 - Further, the doctor PW-6 has stated that
these injuries were 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 courts have rightly concluded that
the fatal injuries inflicted by the appellant were the direct cause of
the deceased's death - As far as intention of appellant to commit
* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
393
Kunhimuhammed@Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala
murder is concerned, 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 - There is also the testimony of the
injured witnesses that accused used considerable force while
stabbing - The other co-accused were 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 - 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 the ordinary course of nature - In the instant 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.
[Paras 25.1, 25.7, 25.8, 25.16]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.304 - Whether the appellant's act can
be brought 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:
Held: 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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,977 of 55,888. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39977 for what follows._

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 392 : 2024 INSC 937
Kunhimuhammed@Kunheethu
v.
The State of Kerala
(Criminal Appeal No. 5097 of 2024)
06 December 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether appellant had the intention to commit murder; whether
the appellant's act can be brought 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; whether appellant's sentence
should be reduced on the grounds of parity with his co-accused.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 324 and 326/34 - The sympathizers
of two political groups fought against each other - Appellant
along with other accused committed murder of victim-S and
injured CW-1 - Trial Court held appellant guilty u/ss.302, 324
and 326/34 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment
and the same was upheld by the High Court - Correctness:
Held: 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 -
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 - Further, the doctor PW-6 has stated that
these injuries were 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 courts have rightly concluded that
the fatal injuries inflicted by the appellant were the direct cause of
the deceased's death - As far as intention of appellant to commit
* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
393
Kunhimuhammed@Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala
murder is concerned, 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 - There is also the testimony of the
injured witnesses that accused used considerable force while
stabbing - The other co-accused were 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 - 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 the ordinary course of nature - In the instant 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.
[Paras 25.1, 25.7, 25.8, 25.16]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.304 - Whether the appellant's act can
be brought 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:
Held: 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
394
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
multiple times in vital organs such as the chest and heart goes far
beyond what is permissible under the right of private defense - In
the post-mortem report and corroborated by the testimony of PW-6
(the police surgeon), the injuries inflicted on the deceased were
severe and intentional, including a fatal wound to the heart - 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. [Paras 26.5, 26.6, 26.7]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 324 and 326/34 - Appellant- accused
no.1 was convicted u/ss.302, 324 and 326/34 of IPC and
sentenced to life imprisonment - Whereas, accused no.2 was
found guilty of offences punishable u/s.326 and u/ss.324/34
of IPC and he was sentenced to six years imprisonment
u/s.326 and two years rigorous imprisonment u/s.324 of IPC -
The third accused was also awarded the same sentence as
accused no.2 - The sentences were to run concurrently -
All the three accused filed separate appeals before the High
Court, which were dismissed - The second and third accused
preferred a separate SLP, wherein this Court extended
benefit of doubt to accused no.3 whereas accused no.2's
conviction was upheld, however, his sentence u/s.326 for
six years was reduced to three years - Whether appellant's
sentence should be reduced on the grounds of parity with
his co-accused:
Held: 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 - In
the instant case, 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 - The principle
of parity does not apply in the present case, as the appellant's
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
395
Kunhimuhammed@Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala
actions were materially different from those of his co-accused.
[Paras 27.2, 27.6, 27.7]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 324 and 326/34 - Appellant
convicted u/ss.302, 324 and 326/34 of IPC and sentenced to
life imprisonment - Plea of old age and deteriorating health:
Held: A murder committed 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 - While the Court acknowledges the
appellant's advanced age and medical condition, these factors cannot
outweigh the need for justice and the imperative to uphold the rule of
law - 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. [Paras 28.4, 28.5, 29]
Case Law Cited
Manubhai Atabhai v. State of Gujarat [2007] 7 SCR 1115 : (2007)
10 SCC 358; Arun Nivalaji More v. State of Maharashtra [2006]
Supp. 4 SCR 301 : (2006) 12 SCC 613; Nishan Singh v. State of
Punjab [2008] 4 SCR 500 : (2008) 17 SCC 505; Vinod Kumar v.
Amritpal [2021] 11 SCR 954 : (2021) 19 SCC 181; Balkar Singh
v. State of Uttarakhand [2009] 5 SCR 242 : (2009) 15 SCC 366;
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab [2010] 1 SCR 642 : (2010) 2
SCC 333; V. Subramani v. State of Tamil Nadu [2005] 2 SCR 536 :
(2005) 10 SCC 358; Sone Lal v. State of U.P. [1981] 3 SCR 352 :
(1981) 2 SCC 531 - referred to.
List of Acts
Evidence Act, 1872; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
List of Keywords
Third clause of Section 300, IPC; Injuries were sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature; Exception 2 to section 300,
IPC; Private defence; Doctrine of parity; Reduction of sentence;
Old age of accused; Deteriorating health of accused.
396
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
5097 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2018 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in CRLA No. 1477 of 2012
Appearances for Parties
Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv., Haris Beeran, Azhar Assees, Anand
B. Menon, Ms. Maneesha Sunilkumar, Radha Shyam Jena,
Advs. for the Appellant.
P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv., Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy,
Alim Anvar, Ms. Anna Oommen, Ms. Urvashi Chauhan, Advs. for
the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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 Penal Code, 18601 has been dismissed. The prosecution
story in brief is:
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
1
IPC
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
397
Kunhimuhammed@Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala
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 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 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
398
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 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 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 appellantwas 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. 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 knife from his back and stabbed the deceased and
2
CrPC
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
399
Kunhimuhammed@Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala
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 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.
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
400
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
401
Kunhimuhammed@Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala
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.
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 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.
402
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
403
Kunhimuhammed@Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala
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
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:
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.
404
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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 2 cm below occiput
and 2 cm outer to midline back, with tapering ends.
2.
Incised penetrating wound 12x3x1-2cm 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) 2x1.5x3.5cm
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.
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.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
405
Kunhimuhammed@Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala
(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 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.
(iii) Laceration of right lung 2x1x0.5 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:
406
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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, 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 Pepsu,3 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, 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 Gujarat,4 and Arun Nivalaji
More vs. State of Maharashtra,5 that when the ocular
evidence of eye witnesses are reliable and well corroborated
by medical, and other evidence also inspires the confidence
3
[1958] SCR 1495
4
[2007] 7 SCR 1115 : (2007) 10 SCC 358
5
[2006] Supp. 4 SCR 301 : (2006) 12 SCC 613
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
407
Kunhimuhammed@Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala
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.
25.6 This position has been elaborated by this Court in the case
of Nishan Singh vs. State of Punjab,6 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 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
6
[2008] 4 SCR 500 : (2008) 17 SCC 505
408
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
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
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.
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,
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
409
Kunhimuhammed@Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala
and that particular injury was sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death.
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 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."
410
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
25.13 This position has further been upheld by this Court recently in
the case of Vinod Kumar vs. Amritpal,7 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
ordinary course of nature.