IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Baiju @ Porinchu Baiju Kunju - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
CRL.A 930 OF 2019
Decided On : 28-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 304, 324, and 326 - Appeal against conviction for murder - The court found that the accused acted under grave and sudden provocation, leading to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II - The incident arose from the deceased's inappropriate behavior towards the accused's wife, resulting in a physical altercation - The accused's actions were deemed not premeditated but a reaction to provocation. (Paras 9 , 22 , 33 )
(B) Grave and Sudden Provocation - The court emphasized that the provocation must be assessed based on the circumstances and the reaction of a reasonable person, distinguishing between culpable homicide and murder. (Paras 24 , 28 )
JUDGMENT :
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.8.2008 in S.C.No.558 of 2010 passed by the Court of Sessions, Thrissur, finding the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 and 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo -
a) imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC;
b) imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50000/- for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC;
c) imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC.
2. Before delving into the contentions raised in this appeal, it would be apposite to first set out the sequence of events, as established by the evidence presented through the prosecution witnesses.
a. The accused (Baiju), the deceased (Vinu), and PW2 (Rajan) were friends and associates. Divya (PW4) is the wife of the deceased. On 14.04.2008, ‘Vishu’ festival was celebrated across Kerala. In the morning, while Divya, along with the deceased and their son, was on their way to the house of Bindu, her sister, they encountered the accused. Vinu stopped the bike and informed the accused that they could meet later. The accused, the deceased, and PW2 (Rajan) went to the market at Varapuzha, where they consumed liquor before eventually parting ways for the time being.
b. PW2 was then asked by the deceased to buy alcohol and he bought the same and went to the house of the deceased. He sat there and drank alcohol alone for a couple of hours. At approximately 2:30 p.m., Vinu and his wife returned home. Thereafter, the accused, the deceased, and PW2 proceeded to the house of PW1 (Thankamani), the mother-in-law of the accused, in an auto rickshaw driven by PW3 (Manoj). PW5 (Bindu), along with her brother (Biju) and PW1, were present in the house.
c. The accused, the deceased and PW2 consumed alcohol. Under the apparent influence of alcohol, the deceased began making inappropriate advances towards the wife of the accused. PW1 and her son strongly disapproved of Vinu’s behaviour and PW1 questioned the accused for inviting him in. The accused, in response, asked Vinu to leave the house, pushed him outside, and closed the door. Meantime, PW2 had stepped out of the house to smoke a cigarette and he overheard the hue and cry. When he got back, he found that Vinu and the accused were engaged in a physical altercation. Vinu, who was shut out of the door, insisted on re-entering. The accused, in a fit of anger, pushed him down. As Vinu attempted to get up, the accused picked up a piece of firewood lying outside the house and struck him on the head multiple times. Vinu collapsed to the ground, bleeding profusely from the head.
d. PW2 Rajan, aghast at the happenings, did not go to the rescue of his friend or take him to the hospital. Instead, he fled from the scene in the auto rickshaw driven by PW3 leaving Vinu in the hands of the accused and PW1.
e. PW1 promptly dialed for an ambulance, to which PW6 responded. The injured was immediately shifted to St. James Hospital, Chalakkudy. He was examined by PW10, the Chief Medical Officer of the hospital, at 7:55 p.m. on 14.04.2008. The examination revealed a lacerated wound over the right supraorbital region, a fracture of the supraorbital bone, and a lacerated wound extending from the occipital area to the left parietal region. The doctor also noted bleeding from the mouth, nose, and ears.
3. On 15.04.2008, at 1.45 a.m., while Vinu was undergoing treatment, the statement of PW1, the mother-in-law of the accused, was recorded and Ext.P9 crime was registered as Crime No. 189 of 2008 of the Mala Police Station for the offences under Sections 324, 326 and 307 of the IPC.
4. On the same day at 4.20 p.m., the injured succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.
5. On 16.04.2008, Ext.P5 inquest over the dead body was prepared by the Circle Inspector
Mangesh v. State Of Maharashtra
Devku Bhikha v. State Of Gujarat
Arun Raj v Union of India and Others
K. M. Nanavati v. State Of Maharashtra
The court ruled that actions taken under grave and sudden provocation can lead to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, distinguishing it from murder under Section 302 IPC.
The court established that a homicide can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder if committed under grave and sudden provocation, emphasizing the importance of context and the acc....
(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....
The court affirmed that evidence must establish intention to commit murder, ruling that provocation claimed by the accused did not mitigate the crime, reaffirming conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which outlines situations where culpable homicide does not amount to murder, based on the abs....
The court reaffirmed that intention and the nature of injuries are critical in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide under IPC.
The court clarified that for Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC to apply, provocation must be both grave and sudden, leading to a temporary loss of self-control.
Culpable homicide can be reduced from murder to a lesser charge if the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation, as outlined in Section 300 IPC.
The court ruled that the appellant's actions were provoked by the victim's threats, justifying a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 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.