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) 935

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Kunhoyi - Appellant  
Versus 
State Of Kerala - Respondents 
Crl.A No. 16 of 2018
Decided on : 21-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL SMT.RESHMI JACOB SRI.T.U.SUJITH KUMAR SRI.P.S.SYAMKUTTAN SRI.P.VISHNU PAZHANGANAT
For the Respondent: BY SMT. NEEMA T.V, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The court established that intent to kill must be proven for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, and actions must be motivated by caste discrimination to apply the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) - Conviction for attempted murder and sentencing to life imprisonment - The appellant was convicted for attacking the victim with a chopper, causing grievous injuries, but the court found insufficient evidence to establish intent to kill under Section 307 IPC - The court held that the incident stemmed from personal animosity rather than caste-based discrimination. (Paras 1, 35)

(B) Legal Principles - The prosecution must prove intention to commit murder for conviction under Section 307 IPC - The SC/ST (PoA) Act requires proof of intent to belittle a person solely due to caste identity. (Paras 27, 34)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a supervisor, attacked PW1 with a chopper during a dispute over water supply, resulting in serious facial injuries. The relationship was strained due to previous incidents involving counterfeit currency. (Paras 2, 12)

Findings of Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of causing grievous injury under Section 326 IPC but acquitted him of attempted murder and SC/ST Act charges. (Paras 35, 36)

Issues: Whether the evidence established intent to kill and whether the attack was motivated by caste discrimination. (Paras 34, 35)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill under Section 307 IPC and that the attack was not motivated by caste-based animosity. (Paras 34, 35)

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside, guilty under Section 326 IPC with a sentence of three years imprisonment and a fine. (Paras 36)

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

The appellant herein stands convicted by the Special Judge for the Trial of SC/ST (PA) Act Cases/ Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default, to undergo a further period of two years under Section 307 of the IPC r/w. Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity “SC/ST (PoA) Act”). Challenging the finding of guilt conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. The facts fall within a short compass. One Hussain Haji (CW7) owned a piece of property at Kidangoor, where the appellant was employed as a Supervisor. For carrying out works on the property, the appellant used to employ PW1 (Shanmughadas) as well. The relationship between the appellant and PW1 was strained as on an earlier occasion counterfeit currency notes were given to PW1 as wages by the appellant. While so, on 28.09.2014 at about 10.30-10.45 a.m., when the disconnection of the water supply to the house of the appellant was questioned, the accused, after exhorting that he would teach the appellant a lesson for flaunting his power as a Cheraman, attacked PW1 with a chopper from behind. When he turned his face, the cut fell on the right side of his face causing serious injuries to the face, forehead, and eyelids.

3. Immediately after the incident, PW1 was rushed to the Medical College Hospital by PW2 (Rajeev) and PW4 (Babuleyan) in the jeep driven by PW9 (Manoj). PW6 (Dr. Ranjini) examined PW1 and issued Ext.P4 Accident Register-Wound Certificate. Ext.P1 FI Statement was then recorded by PW13, the Senior CPO attached to the Thamarassery Police Station, and registered Ext.P1(a) FIR under Section 307 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. One Noorudheen was arrayed as the 2nd accused in the FIR, and the specific allegation against him was that he had handed over the chopper to the appellant with which the cut injury was inflicted.

4. The investigation was then taken over by PW11, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thamarassery. He prepared Ext.P3 Scene Mahazar. The site sketch was prepared by PW7, and in terms of the directions issued by the Investigation Officer, Ext.P6 Caste Certificate was issued by PW8, the Tahsildar, Thamarassery. Ext.P9 Caste Certificate of the accused was issued by PW12, the Village Officer, Kumaranalloor. In the course of the investigation, as it was revealed that the 2nd accused in the FIR was not involved in the incident, Ext.P10 report was forwarded to the Court, seeking to delete the name. Later, Ext.P11 report was submitted seeking to incorporate Section 326 of the IPC. After completing the investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

5. Committal proceedings were initiated in accordance with the law and the case was committed to the Special Court for the Trial of SC/ST (PoA) Act Cases, Kozhikode. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, charges under Section 307 of the IPC and, Section 3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act were framed and when the same was read over, he pleaded not guilty and claimed that he be tried in accordance with law.

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 13 and through them, Exts.P1 to P13 were exhibited and marked. MOs 1 and 2 were produced and identified. After the close of prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials arising from the prosecution evidence were put to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances and maintained that he was innocent. No evidence was adduced by the defence.

7. The learned Sessions Judge, after evaluating the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully proved that the accused had inflicted cut injuries on the face of PW1 with MO1 Chopper, with the intention/knowledge to ca

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