IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, G.GIRISH, JJ.
Thomas @ Thomachan, S/o. Pothan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.A No.691 of 2019
Decided on : 03-09-2024
Criminal - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 449 - The court interpreted the provisions of IPC Sections 302 and 449, establishing that the accused's actions constituted murder and criminal trespass, rejecting the claim of self-defense.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, after a dispute over a pathway, stabbed the victim during an altercation, leading to the victim's death. The incident occurred in the victim's courtyard, where the accused had verbally abused the victim and his wife prior to the attack.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence clearly established the accused's guilt for murder and criminal trespass, dismissing the defense of self-defense as the accused was the initial aggressor.
Issues: Whether the accused acted in self-defense and whether the trial court erred in convicting him under IPC Sections 302 and 449.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right of private defense cannot be claimed by an aggressor and that the evidence supported the conclusion that the accused committed murder and trespass.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of the accused.
JUDGMENT :
G.Girish, J.
The judgment dated 27.09.2017 of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kottayam in S.C.No.116/2012 convicting and sentencing the sole accused for the commission of offence under Sections 449 and 302 I.P.C, is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant herein who faced trial in the said case, was awarded life imprisonment and fine Rs.50,000/- under Section 302 I.P.C and rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 449 I.P.C.
Prosecution Case
2. The accused and the victim are neighbours. A pathway in front of the courtyard of the house of the victim, is the only way of access to the residence of the accused. The transit of the accused and the persons associated with him through the above pathway often gave rise to issues between the victim and the accused. The accused wanted to widen the above pathway into a cartable road, but the victim was not willing to surrender land for it. Due to the above grudge, the accused used to verbally abuse the victim and his wife and threaten them. On 23.02.2011 at about 2:15 p.m, the accused, as usual, parked his Maruti Omni Van at the road ending near the residence of the victim and walked through the pathway by the side of the courtyard of the house of the victim showering verbal abuses attributing illicit relationship of the wife of the victim with a neighbour. PW4, the driver of the accused followed him. Hearing the abusive words of the accused, the victim and his wife came to the sitout of their house and asked the accused to stop the verbal abuse. Thereupon the accused criminally trespassed into the sitout of the house of the victim, pulled the victim out to the courtyard of the house and stabbed on his right eyebrow with a knife inflicting incised penetrating wound which pierced the dura and extended upto the under aspect of frontal lobe of the brain. PW2 and PW3, the neighbours of the victim, rushed to the spot hearing the screams. The victim who collapsed at the courtyard of his house, was taken to a nearby private hospital by PW2 and PW3, in the vehicle of the accused driven by PW4. The doctor who attended the victim at the private hospital declared that the victim was brought dead.
Registration of the Crime and Commencement of Investigation
3. On getting information about the incident from the victim’s younger brother’s wife, PW1, the son of the elder brother of the victim, went to the private hospital and saw the body of the victim soaked in blood. After ascertaining the details from PW2 and PW3, PW1 went to the Kaduthuruthy Police Station and gave Ext.P1 first information statement on the basis of which Ext.P13 first information report was registered by PW20, the Sub Inspector of Police. Soon, PW21, the Circle Inspector of Police, took over the investigation and proceeded with the legal formalities. The accused was arrested by PW21 on the date of the incident itself. PW21 also conducted the inquest and effected the recovery of the weapon of offence and prepared the scene mahazar. The dead body was subjected to autopsy, and the material objects were sent for scientific analysis. During the course of investigation, the statements of PW2 to PW4 under Section 164 Cr.P.C were recorded by PW22, the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ettumanoor. After the completion of the investigation, PW21 laid the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Enquiry by the Magistrate and Committal of the Case
4. The Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Vaikom before whom the final report was filed, took the case to files and issued summons to the accused. After procuring the presence of the accused, the learned Magistrate complied with the legal formalities and committed the case to the Sessions Court, Kottayam which made over the case to the Additional Sessions Judge-I for trial.
Framing of Charge
5. After considering the prosecution records and conducting the preliminary hearing, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kottayam framed charges under Sect
Bhanwar Singh v. State of M.P. (2008) 16 SCC 657
Munney Khan v. State of M.P. (1970) 2 SCC 480
Stalin v. State represented by the Inspector of Police (2020) 9 SCC 524
State of M.P. v. Ramesh (2005) 9 SCC 705
State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat (2022) 4 SCC 227 .
The right of private defense is not available to an aggressor, and the evidence supported the conviction for murder and criminal trespass.
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 court determined that the accused's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation, altering the conviction fr....
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code, and the assessment of the accused's knowledge and intention in....
(1) Right of private defence (Self-defence) – Self-preservation is basic human instinct and is duly recognised by criminal jurisprudence of all civilized countries – In order to justify act of causin....
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.
Murder and grievous hurt – Fatal injury inflicted by sword on chest of victim is offence of murder under Section 302 of IPC.
If intention of accused was limited to infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and did not extend to intention of causing death, offence would be murder.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on intention and circumstances, with the court applying Exception-4 of Section 300 IPC in cases of sudden quarrel.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.