Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ.
Nazeer - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Kerala - Respondent
CRL.A 1366 Of 2022
Decided On : 22-05-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 - Appeal against conviction for murder - Conviction modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II due to lack of premeditation and intent to kill - The court found that the act was committed in the heat of the moment without prior intent to cause death. (Paras 1, 10, 34, 37)
(B) Culpable Homicide - Distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder - The court emphasized that the degree of intention or knowledge distinguishes murder from culpable homicide, with the latter applicable when death results from an act done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without intent to kill. (Paras 33, 34)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Madhusudanan Nair following a quarrel over liquor sharing, resulting in fatal injuries inflicted with a piece of firewood. The incident occurred on 30.04.2017, and the appellant was found guilty based on witness testimonies and forensic evidence. (Paras 1, 10)
Findings of Court:
The prosecution established that the appellant inflicted injuries leading to the deceased's death, but the court found the act to be impulsive rather than premeditated, warranting a lesser charge. (Paras 10, 37)
Issues: The main issues included whether the appellant's actions constituted murder or culpable homicide and the interpretation of intent under the IPC. (Paras 32, 34)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's actions did not demonstrate the intent required for a murder conviction, as the altercation was spontaneous and lacked premeditation. (Paras 34, 37)
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II, with a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. (Paras 37)
JUDGMENT :
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
In this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Cr.P.C ” for the sake of brevity), the appellant calls in question the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI, Kollam in judgment dated 11.06.2019 in S.C. No. 1251 of 2017. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No. 793 of 2017 of the Kadakkal Police Station. The appellant in the above case stood charge-sheeted for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 302 of the IPC. By the above judgment, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. No separate sentence was awarded for the other offences.
Prosecution Case
2. The deceased, Madhusudanan Nair @ Maniyan, was the husband of Ambili (PW16). Owing to a strained marital relationship, he began spending most nights at the Kadakkal Market and was employed there as a casual labourer. The accused, Nazeer, is alleged to have been both a friend and a co-worker of the deceased. On the evening of 30.04.2017, at approximately 6:30 p.m., the accused and the deceased arrived at the market, at which point a verbal altercation ensued between them. Both individuals were allegedly under the influence of alcohol and in an inebriated condition. According to the prosecution, the quarrel escalated over the sharing of liquor, culminating in the accused wrongfully restraining the deceased on the veranda of the Triveni Supermarket, Kadakkal. It is further alleged that, in the course of this confrontation, the accused assaulted the deceased using MO1, a piece of firewood, and struck him on various parts of his body. As per the charge against the accused, on 30.04.2017 at about 7:30 p.m., he wrongfully restrained the deceased in front of the Triveni Supermarket and, with the intention of causing his death, delivered a forceful punch below the deceased’s right ear and subsequently assaulted him with MO1 firewood. These acts are alleged to have resulted in injuries that ultimately led to the death of the deceased.
Registration of the crime and investigation:
3. Raveendran Nair (PW1), the elder brother of the deceased, was informed by the President of the local Panchayat at approximately 7:00 a.m. on 01.05.2017 that his younger brother, Madhusudanan Nair @ Maniyan, was found lying dead in the veranda of the Triveni Supermarket, Kadakkal. On receiving this information, PW1 immediately approached the local Police Station, where his statement was recorded at 8:30 a.m. on the same day. Based on his statement, Ext.P12 First Information Report was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as a case of unnatural death, by PW17, the Station House Officer of Kadakkal Police Station. At the time of the registration of Ext.P12 FIR, the cause of death of Maniyan was unknown.
4. PW17 conducted the inquest over the body of the deceased and prepared Ext.P2 Inquest Report.
5. Subsequently, PW18, the Inspector of Police, Kadakkal, assumed charge of the investigation on 01.05.2017. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence and took custody of the material objects seized earlier by PW8, the Scientific Officer, under Ext.P8 Mahazar. At around 5:30 p.m. on the same day, the appellant was arrested as per Ext.P14 Arrest Memo. The nail clippings and other biological samples collected during the postmortem examination by the Medical Officer were formally seized by the Investigating Officer under Ext.P9 Mahazar. Ext.P13 Property List was thereafter submitted to the Court. On the strength of the alleged disclosure statement made by the accused, the MO1 piece of firewood was recovered from the northern side of the shopping complex, about 6 meters away from the place where the body of the deceased was found. Ext.P4(a) contains the relevant extract of the accused’s confession statement leading to this recovery.
6. PW18 then submitted Ext.P15 report b
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide is based on the degree of intent, with the latter applicable when death results from an act done with knowledge of its likelihood but without inte....
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was adjusted to culpable homicide under Section 304 due to ambiguities in witness accounts and lack of intent, establishing a precedent for interpreting ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence presented by the prosecution only supported a charge under Section 304 Part –II IPC, and the appellant's conviction and sentence ....
In Exception 4-culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without offender having taken undue advantage or....
The court upheld the conviction for murder and attempted murder based on reliable eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence, establishing intent through the nature of the attack.
Conviction requires reliable evidence and knowledge of victim's medical condition; lacking such knowledge limits liability to lesser offenses.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Rinkesh Goyal For the Respondent : Ajeet Singh Bhadoriya, Rajeev Upadhyay
The court considered the absence of premeditation or previous motive, the nature of the weapon used, and the amount of force employed to determine the accused's guilt.
The prosecution must establish a clear causal link between an accused's actions and the resulting death; failure to do so may lead to a conviction for a lesser offense.
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
