IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
Thankappan S/o Ikkiran - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
CRL.A 270 OF 2018
Decided On : 15-01-2025
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
This appeal is preferred by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C.No. 19 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Pathanamthitta, challenging the finding of guilt, conviction, and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In the above case, the appellants, along with one Rajeev, were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 201, 302 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
Short Facts:
2. Peethambaran, the deceased in the instant case, is the husband of Valsala (PW2). The prosecution allegation is that on 12.06.2006, at 6:00 p.m., due to the enmity that the deceased refused to join the Kerala Democratic Party, accused Nos. 2 and 3 inflicted bodily injuries on Peethambaran with intent to murder him. Thereafter, the 1st accused stabbed Peethambaran on his neck with a budding knife leading to his death.
Registration of Crime and Investigation
3. One Brijendralal (PW1), a Law Student, appeared before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Adoor Police Station, and lodged Ext.P1 FI Statement at 8:00 p.m. on 12.06.2006, based on which Crime No. 386 of 2006 was registered under Section 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC. The investigation was taken over by PW12, the Circle Inspector of Police, Adoor Police Station on 13.06.2006. He prepared the inquest over the dead body and seized the items that were found on the body of the deceased. On the same day, he prepared Ext.P6 Scene Mahazar. At the time of preparation of the Scene Mahazar, the red shirt as well as the weapon used for the commission of the offence along with blood-stained soil and grass were seized by the Investigating Officer. He identified the scene of the crime, and on 14.06.2006, at about 5:00 a.m., the 3rd accused was arrested, in terms of Ext.P7 arrest memo. Based on the disclosure statement given by him, the clothes worn by him at the time of the occurrence of the crime were seized, as per Ext.P8 recovery Mahazar. Thereafter, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested at 5:30 a.m. on 15.06.2006, while they were standing near the Elamannur Junction. Based on the disclosure statement given by the 1st accused, the clothes worn by him at the time of the commission of the offence were seized, as per Ext.P13 Mahazar. Later, Ext.P15 report was submitted before the Court furnishing the address and other details of the accused, and a separate report incorporating Section 201 of the IPC was incorporated. The items that were seized from the scene of the crime were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory and Ext.P18 report was later obtained. The investigation was then taken over by CW18, who at the time of trial had gone abroad. After completion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. After complying with the formalities, committal proceedings were initiated, and the accused were committed to the Court of Session. The case was then made over to the Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta for trial and disposal.
Evidence Tendered
4. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses as PWs 1 to 15 to prove its case, and through them, Exts.P1 to P22 were exhibited and marked. MOs 1 to 10 series were produced and identified. The incriminating materials arising out of the prosecution evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code. He emphatically denied the circumstances. He contended that the accused picked up a quarrel with Sundareshan and when he refused to interfere, a false case was framed against him. On finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C, he was called upon to enter his defence but no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced.
The sentence imposed
5. The learned Sessions Judge, after a careful evaluation of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to establish without any manner of do
Syed Ibrahim v. State Of Andhra Pradesh
Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory Chandigarh
Anda and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
The court affirmed that the 1st accused's act of stabbing the deceased constituted murder, rejecting the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC due to the absence of mutual combat.
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.
Sudden quarrel without premeditation, single stab in heat of passion without undue advantage or cruelty attracts Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC; offence reduced from Section 302 murder to Section 304....
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the lack of premeditation and the nature of the altercation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC in cases of sudden fights and the absence of premeditation, leading to a conviction under Section....
The Court modified conviction from murder to culpable homicide, applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC for sudden assault without premeditation.
The accused committed murder with the use of deadly weapons and there was no sudden fight or quarrel as envisaged in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
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.