2024 Supreme(SC) 1144

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Kunhimuhammed@ Kunheethu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Kerala – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5097 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4403 of 2023)
Decided on : 06-12-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Parity – Conviction for murder – Doctrine of parity ensures fairness in sentencing when co-accused persons are similarly situated and share 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 crime.
(2) Murder – When minimum sentence itself is life imprisonment, then grounds like parity, leniency, old age, health concerns, etc. shall not be of any aid to accused while seeking reduction of sentence.
(3) Just Sentence – Old age and medical condition, these factors alone cannot absolve or mitigate responsibility for a grave crime – To reduce sentence in such a case would risk undermining seriousness of crime and sanctity of life itself, principles that judicial system is duty-bound to uphold.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 324 and 326/34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1), 118(1) and 118(2)/3(5)] – Murder and grievous hurt – Common intention – Life sentence – Prosecution established beyond doubt that injuries were inflicted by appellant–Accused no. 1 using a knife which was recovered during investigation based on appellant’s disclosure statement – Doctor has stated that injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature – Cross-examination of witnesses did not reveal any inconsistencies that could undermine credibility of evidence – Intent can be inferred from circumstances surrounding act, including nature and location of injuries inflicted, weapon used and actions of appellant during incident – Injuries were concentrated on vital parts of deceased’s body, such as chest and ribs which house critical organs like heart and lungs – Deliberate targeting of these areas indicates a clear intent to cause harm that could lead to death – Decision to carry and use a sharp knife during scuffle reflects a readiness to escalate violence beyond a mere physical altercation – Even if ingredients other than intention to cause murder are proved, mere knowledge of result of fatal actions is enough to ascribe culpability to accused person – Appellant’s decision to use a lethal weapon and the precise targeting of victim’s vital organs are sufficient to establish requisite intent for murder – Appellant is liable for death of deceased as per clause 3 of Section 300, IPC – Defence’s argument that incident was a spontaneous scuffle does not absolve appellant of liability. (Paras 25.7, 25.8 and 25.17)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 324 and 326/34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1), 118(1) and 118(2)/3(5)] – Murder and grievous hurt – Common intention – Life sentence – Right of private defence – Act of stabbing was allegedly carried out under perceived threat to appellant–accused no. 1’s life – Number of injuries on accused side by itself may not be sufficient to establish right of private defence – Even if appellant claims to have acted in defence, his role in bringing about altercation cannot be overlooked – Appellant cannot benefit from exception when he was instrumental in creating the circumstances that led to confrontation – Attack was initiated by accused group who were armed with sticks and knife, with intent to intimidate or harm victim and his companions – Act of stabbing deceased multiple times in vital organs such as chest and heart goes far beyond what is permissible under right of private defence – Appellant’s actions cannot be justified as a defensive response to minor injuries he sustained – Plea of exceeding right of private defence under Exception 2 to Section 300, IPC, is not applicable to appellant’s case – Courts below have rightly rejected this argument – There is no evidence to show that other accused persons shared a common intention with appellant to commit murder – Absence of common intention among co-accused precludes application of vicarious liability under Section 34, IPC, for act of murder – Principle of parity does not apply in present case as appellant’s actions were materially different from those of his co-accused – No compelling justification to interfere with sentence imposed by lower Court – Nature of offence, its deliberate execution and its societal implications necessitate that punishment reflects seriousness of crime – No ground or reason for granting lesser sentence arises – When minimum sentence itself is life imprisonment, then grounds like parity, leniency, old age, health concerns, etc. shall not be of any aid to accused while seeking reduction of sentence – Conviction maintained and appeal for reduction of sentence dismissed. (Paras 26.4, 26.5, 26.7, 27.4, 27.7, 28.6, 29, 30 and 31)

(C) Criminal Law – Parity – Conviction for murder – Doctrine of parity ensures fairness in sentencing when co-accused persons are similarly situated and share 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 crime – In present case, appellant played a distinct and more culpable role in incident – While co-accused were armed with sticks and caused non-fatal injuries to victims, appellant alone was armed with a knife and used it to inflict fatal injuries on deceased – Sequence of events demonstrates deliberate escalation by appellant who resorted to using a deadly weapon with intent to cause grievous harm – Appellant’s role in crime is incomparable to that of his co-accused. (Paras 27.2, 27.3 and 27.6)

(D) Criminal Law – Just Sentence – Conviction for murder – Appellant's advanced age and deteriorating medical condition, when presented in cases of serious offences, often invite judiciary to weigh individual circumstances against broader interest of justice – However, Court is also tasked with balancing these personal hardships against severity and nature of offence, as well as its impact on rule of law and societal harmony – Act was not one of sudden provocation or impulse but arose from a premeditated and collective intent to harm victim, even if initial intention was to cause hurt – Evidence unequivocally establishes that appellant actively participated in attack, which culminated in brutal stabbing of victim in vital parts of body, leading to his death – Such an act, carried out with clear objective to eliminate victim, underscores its heinous nature and deliberate execution – Old age and medical condition, these factors alone cannot absolve or mitigate responsibility for a crime of this magnitude – To reduce sentence in such a case would risk undermining seriousness of crime and sanctity of life itself, principles that judicial system is duty-bound to uphold – Crimes rooted in such motives often have far-reaching consequences beyond immediate loss of life, contributing to social unrest and weakening public confidence in rule of law – Court must ensure that its decisions reinforce principle of accountability and deter recurrence of such violent acts, particularly those that disrupt public order – Nature of offence, its deliberate execution and its societal implications necessitate that punishment reflects seriousness of crime – No compelling justification to interfere with sentence imposed by lower Court. (Paras 28.2, 28.3, 28.4, 38.5 and 28.6)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal assails correctness of judgment and order dated 18.09.2018 whereby appeal of appellant-accused no.1, against his conviction under Sections 302, 324 and 326/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been dismissed.

Findings of Court:

Appeal against conviction and request for a reduction in sentence are without merit. Findings of both Trial Court and High Court are well-founded and supported by compelling evidence.

Result : Appeal dismissed.