Back
GOPINATH P.
Sivankutty Nair S/o Bhaskara Pillai – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused in S.C. No. 482/2001 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The prosecution case is that on 02-05-1999, at about 9 p.m. when PWs. 1 to 3 (son, wife and daughter of the deceased Subair Kunju) and the deceased Subair Kunju were in their house, the appellant/accused, who was their neighbour was seen coughing and spitting on a small public pathway in front of their house. It is alleged that when PW-1, son of the deceased Subair Kunju, had come out of the house and had questioned the appellant/accused as to why he was coughing and spitting, the appellant/accused got infuriated. It is alleged that the appellant/accused and PW-1 engaged in a tussle and the appellant/accused took out a folding knife (a penknife) and stabbed PW-1 causing an injury on his right thigh. On hearing the cries of PW-1, the deceased Subair Kunju and his wife (PW-2) came rushing out and while they were trying to ensure that the appellant/accused did not cause any further injury to PW-1, the appellant/accused stabbed the deceased Subair Kunju and he died almost instantaneo
If right of private defence has not been established (on test of preponderance of probabilities) as required under Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act, if court, on an overall appreciation of facts an....
The accused's actions exceeded the limits of self-defence, constituting murder rather than culpable homicide, as he pursued and stabbed the deceased after the initial threat had ceased.
The accused, as the initial aggressor, cannot claim self-defense against actions taken in response to his provocation, leading to the upheld conviction for murder.
The right of private defense is not available to an aggressor, and the evidence supported the conviction for murder and criminal trespass.
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 established that the use of deadly weapons in a coordinated attack indicates a common intention to kill, and the defense of private defense was not applicable as the accused did not demonst....
A prima facie case for murder requires proof that the accused intentionally inflicted injuries leading to death; provocation and self-defence defenses were insufficient as actions were premeditated.
(1) Right of private defence – Instinct of self-preservation is embedded in DNA of every person – Doctrine of right to private defence is founded on very same instinct of self-preservation that has b....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the right of private defence arises only when this burden is met, which was not established in this case.
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
