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

2025 Supreme(Ker) 72

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

Advocates appeared:
FOR THE APPELLANT : BY ADVS. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL SRI.V.KRISHNADAS (K-541) SMT.SINDHU K.S. P.RAJKUMAR(R-532) KESHAVRAJ NAIR(K/797/2015) ARUN POOMULLI(D/3696/2015) ANAND REMESH(K/1491/2023) ABHIRAM.S.(K/3053/2022) ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR(K/2617/2022) GAADHA SURESH(K/817/2015) T.K.BABU(K/539/2013) MANU RAMACHANDRAN(K/917/2010) BIJU VIGNESWAR
FOR THE RESPONDENT: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. T.R.RENJITH

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 323, 201, and 34 - Appeal against conviction for murder - Accused Nos. 1 and 2 charged with murder and related offences - The 1st accused inflicted fatal stab injury on the deceased, while the 2nd accused was found not to have shared common intent - The court held that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was credible and consistent, establishing the guilt of the 1st accused beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 5, 11, 26, 28)

(B) Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC - Applicability - The court ruled that the plea of mutual fight was not applicable as the deceased was unarmed and did not retaliate, thus the act of the 1st accused constituted murder. (Paras 21, 26)

Facts of the case:
The deceased, Peethambaran, was attacked by the accused due to enmity over political affiliations, resulting in his death from a stab wound inflicted by the 1st accused. The prosecution presented 15 witnesses, including the deceased's wife, who testified to the events leading to the murder.

Findings of Court:
The court found the 1st accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC, while the 2nd accused was acquitted due to lack of evidence of shared intent.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies, the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, and the role of the 2nd accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the evidence of the wife of the deceased was credible and corroborated by other witnesses, and that the 1st accused's actions constituted murder as he took undue advantage in the altercation.

Result: The appeal of the 1st accused was dismissed, while the conviction of the 2nd accused was set aside.

JUDGMENT

    “CRâ€

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


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