Back
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Kunhimuhammed@ Kunheethu – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
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[IPC] 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 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.
(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 a....
The court reaffirmed that intention and the nature of injuries are critical in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide under IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence of eyewitnesses, the injured witness, and the medical evidence played a crucial role in establishing the guilt of the accused bey....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of intention and knowledge under Section 300 of the IPC to determine the culpability of the appellant-accused ....
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide under Section 304 if the act occurs without premeditation and in the heat of passion.
Special circumstances exist mitigating the gravity of the offence, which appeals to our judicial conscience and discretion to show clemency to the accused in the matter of sentence.
The court distinguished between murder and culpable homicide, concluding that the absence of intent to kill warranted a conviction under Section 304 Part-I instead of Section 302.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intent to kill can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC in cases of sudden provocation.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intention, with sudden provocation potentially reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murde....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
