Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, G.Girish, JJ.
Sinesh, S/O.Govindan – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Rep. By The Inspector Of Police, Njarakkal – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 1127 OF 2018
Decided On : 23-10-2024
Murder - IPC - [Sections 299, 300, 302, 325] - The court interpreted the definitions of culpable homicide and murder, emphasizing the necessity of intention and knowledge in establishing the nature of the offense, ultimately reducing the charge from murder to grievous hurt under Section 325.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for murdering his brother during a scuffle, resulting in fatal injuries. The prosecution presented eyewitness accounts of the incident, while the appellant claimed self-defense and denied causing the injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the deceased died from injuries inflicted by the appellant, the prosecution failed to prove the requisite intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm, leading to a conviction for a lesser offense.
Issues: Whether the appellant's actions constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or a lesser offense, and whether the prosecution proved the necessary intent and knowledge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution did not establish that the appellant intended to cause death or inflicted injuries sufficient to cause death, thus reducing the charge to grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC.
Result: The conviction for murder was set aside, and the appellant was convicted under Section 325 IPC with a sentence of 5 years imprisonment.
JUDGMENT :
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
The above appeal has been preferred by the accused in S.C.No.540 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, N. Paravur. In the above case, the appellant faced indictment for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. By judgment dated 25.01.2018, he was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.
Prosecution Case in a nutshell
2. The appellant is a married man and he along with his wife and son are residing in the house bearing Door No. 19/27 of Pallippuram Panchayat. The deceased Santhosh was the elder brother of the appellant and he is unmarried. House No.19/27 originally belonged to the father of the appellant. Santhosh was working in a petrol pump and he used to come and reside in the family house. This was not liked by the appellant. As per the charge, on 16.12.2014, between 9.30 p.m. and 11.15 p.m., after a brief scuffle, the appellant fisted and kicked Santhosh on his head and other parts of his body, in front of the courtyard of the building bearing No.19/27 with the intention of causing his death and thereby committed the offence of murder. Santhosh sustained diffuse subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhage, fracture of his ribs, and other injuries. He fell into a state of unconsciousness and blood came out of his nose and mouth. He was later rushed to the Government Hospital, North Paravur by Jolly (PW13) and Sreejith (PW9) in the autorickshaw of Arun (PW8). He was declared dead by the Doctor on examination.
Registration of the Crime and Investigation
3. Asokan (PW1), the brother-in-law of the accused, went to the police and set the law in motion by lodging Ext.P1 FI Statement at 3.30 a.m. on 17.12.2014, based on which Ext.P8 FIR was registered under Section 302 of the IPC arraying the appellant as the accused.
4. PW19 took over the investigation on 17.12.2014. He conducted the inquest over the body of the deceased and prepared Ext.P2 inquest report. He then went to the scene of the crime along with PW17 Scientific Assistant. The Scientific Assistant collected some hair from a towel found at the scene of the crime and took samples of stained soil and controlled soil and the same was handed over to PW19 who forwarded it to the Chemical Examiner’s lab. He prepared Ext.P6 scene mahazar and seized MO4 chappals and MO5 towel found at the scene of the crime. The steps were taken to conduct the autopsy. The sample blood, hair, etc. collected by the Police Surgeon at the time of autopsy were seized as per seizure Ext.P4 mahazar. The arrest of the accused was recorded at 7.00 p.m. on 17.12.2014 as per Ext.P9 arrest memo. The accused was sent for medical examination on 18.12.2014 and samples of blood, hair, and nail clippings were collected. A request was made for forwarding the seized items for scientific examination. He later completed the investigation and laid the final report before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Njarakkal.
The Committal and Framing of Charge
5. The learned Magistrate numbered the case as C.P.No.31 of 2015 and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The case was later made over to the Additional Sessions Judge. By following the procedure and after hearing both sides, the charge was framed. The Court charge reads as under:
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
The evidence let in and the stand taken by the accused
6. On the side of the
The court clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, emphasizing the need for intent and knowledge in determining the nature of the offense.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder lies in the intention of the accused and the nature of the injuries inflicted.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, highlighting that the accused acted with sufficient intent, despite claims of provocation, based on consistent eyewitness testimoni....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder, establishing that a single fatal blow with a weapon can constitute murder if intended to cause serious injury, rejecting claims of provocation.
(1) Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case – ‘Intent’ and ‘knowledge’ cannot be equated with each other – They conno....
The distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and that not amounting to murder hinges on the presence of intention and the nature of the injury inflicted, defined under Sections 299 a....
(1) Murder – Adequacy or otherwise of medical attention is not a relevant factor when doctor who conducted post-mortem clearly deposed that death was caused due to cardio respiratory failures, as a r....
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
