SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(Ker) 155

Judges : KOSHI,VARADARAJA IYENGAR
Thommen Thomas Alias Kunju - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : Crl. A. No. 99 of 1956 (E)
Decided On : 12/19/1956
Advocates Appeared :
R. Sankaradasan Thampi; For Accused C. M. Kuruvilla; For State

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of self-defence and the determination of whether the act of killing amounted to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under S.304(1) I.P.C.

Headnote:

Self-Defence - Murder Conviction - S.302 & 324 I.P.C. - S.304(1) - The court considered the appellant's plea of self-defence and concluded that the act of killing amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under S.304(1) I.P.C. The conviction for murder was set aside and reduced to one under S.304(1). The appellant's youth and over-drunken state were taken into account, and a sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment was awarded. The sentences for causing hurt under S.324 I.P.C. were confirmed.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for the murder of Thomman and causing hurt to Thomman's brother and mother. The court found that the appellant inflicted the injuries and engaged in a scuffle with the victims, leading to the fatal injury to Thomman.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under S.304(1) I.P.C. and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences for causing hurt under S.324 I.P.C. were confirmed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the act of killing Thomman amounted to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under S.304(1) I.P.C. The court also considered the appellant's plea of self-defence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the circumstances leading to the infliction of the fatal stab and concluded that the appellant had reason to apprehend danger to his body. It found that the act amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under S.304(1) I.P.C.

Final Decision: The conviction for murder was set aside and reduced to one under S.304(1) I.P.C. The appellant was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The sentences for causing hurt under S.324 I.P.C. were confirmed.

Judgment :-

1. Thomas alias Kunju who was accused No. 2 in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1955 on the file of the Parur Sessions Court has preferred this appeal against the convictions made against him by the learned Sessions judge under S.302 & 324 I.P.C. and the sentences passed therefor. Finding him guilty for the murder of one Thomman he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. For causing hurt with a dangerous weapon to Thomman's younger brother Ouseph (Pw. 1) and to their mother Annam (Pw. 2) he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment respectively for 4 months and 3 months. The judgment directs that all the three sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The case against the appellant was that in the afternoon of 14.12.1953 he stabbed one Thomman to death and that he also inflicted stab wounds on Thomman's brother and mother with the self-same weapon, to writ, a pen-knife, with which he killed Thomman. Accused No.1 in the case, one Kurian Kurian alias Chacko, the appellant's master, was alleged to have abetted the commission of these offences, but the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving that part of the case and accordingly acquitted accused No. 1. It would appear that accused 1 and accused 2 met Thomman in the afternoon of 14.12.1953 at a toddy shop conducted by Pw. 13. The two accused persons in the case would seem to have been spending the best part of the day in the toddy shop. After Thomman went to the shop for a drink a quarrel arose between the appellant and Thomman as the latter consumed the curry purchased by the appellant. When the quarrel looked like assuming serious proportions, Pw. 9, who was in the shop at that time, sent all the three out of the shop. They went southwards towards the direction of one Cheenikuzhi Bridge, but Thomman returned to the shop, purchased a cup of toddy and going back where the accused persons were offered the toddy to the appellant who refused to take it. Thomman threw away the toddy and its container, the cup. At that time the appellant had a pen-knife in his hand which he was keeping open. Pw.1 came along that way, fearing that the appellant might do some harm to his brother, improvised himself with a stick by breaking a branch of a'Vetti' and approached the place where the three people where. Thomman snatched away the stick from his brother and threw it away. Pw.1 took two small stones presumably to throw at the appellant, but as some school children passed along that way he dropped the stones down without using them against the appellant. At that time Pw. 2 appeared on the scene with a small stick and tried to persuade her sons to return home. Her attempt was unsuccessful, but Pw.1 however crossed the bridge after crossing which along he could reach his house. Thomman was not bold enough to do that and asked the appellant to keep his knife folded. When he declined to do that Thomman caught hold of the hand which had the knife. Immediately Pw.1 approached them and he caught hold of the appellant from behind. A tussle ensued between the three and all of them fell down. Thomman sustained some minor injuries from the knife in the hand of the appellant and when the three got up a scuffle ensued between accused 1 and Pw.1 and another between Thomman and accused 2. Struggling for some time each trying to get the better over the other, both Thomman and the appellant fell down, the former on his back and the appellant at once sat on the abdominal region of Thomman. The prosecution alleged that at that time accused 1 called out to the appellant to stab and the case of the prosecution is while Thomman was laying flat on his back the appellant sitting over the abdominal region of the latter gave a stab to Thomman on his chest. Pw.1 then tried to drag the appellant away from Thomman, but the appellant turning round to Pw.1 gave three stabs to him, who fell down immediately on receiving the stabs. Pw. 2 went to the side of her s


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top