Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34613

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR TH TUESDAY, THE 16 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1948 CRL.A NO. 37 OF 2020 CRIME NO.446/2011 OF Town West Police Station, Thrissur AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2019 IN SC NO.186 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, THRISSUR COMMITTED AS PER C.P.54/2011 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II,THRISSUR APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SREEKUMAR AGED 40 YEARS S/O.RAMU, THOPUPARAMBIL HOUSE, AKG NAGAR, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.VINAY RAMDAS SMT.K.B.ANAMIKA RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
SMT. NEEMA. T.V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 16.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinay Ramdas, K.B.Anamika
For the Respondents: Neema. T.V.

An intentional infliction of a fatal injury on a vital organ that is objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death constitutes murder under Section 300, even if the result of a single blow, provided the case does not fall within any statutory exceptions.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 300 (firstly and thirdly) and Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313(1)(b) - Murder - Conviction - Mens rea - Intention or knowledge of accused - Determining factors - When determining whether an offence is murder or culpable homicide, the courts must assess the intention or knowledge of the accused - If an assailant intentionally inflicts a bodily injury that is objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence constitutes murder unless an exception applies - Single injury cases do not preclude a conviction for murder if the intent to kill or cause fatal injury is established - Motive recedes into background when credible direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, is available. (Paras 31, 33, 34, 35)

(B) Evidence - Credibility of witnesses - Minor discrepancies - While the appellate court must scrutinize evidence, it should not reject testimony based on minor inconsistencies or trivial details that do not touch upon the core of the prosecution case - The evaluation of witness testimony must be holistic, and the trial court's assessment should be accorded due weight unless found perverse or illegal. (Paras 18, 19, 21)

(C) Investigative Process - Delay - Mere procedural delays in registering an FIR or producing material objects, if effectively explained or not fundamentally impacting the sanctity of evidence, do not necessarily compromise the prosecution's case. (Paras 22, 25, 27)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was preferred against a conviction for murder arising from a fatal stabbing incident. The prosecution alleged that the accused confronted the victim regarding a missing memory card, resulting in an altercation, after which the accused fatally stabbed the victim in the chest. Various challenges were raised regarding the delay in FIR registration, inconsistencies in witness statements regarding the number of injuries, the forensic evidence pertaining to blood groups, and the reliability of material evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence of eyewitnesses was cogent, consistent, and reliable despite minor variations. The forensic evidence established the cause of death as a deep penetrating stab wound to the heart, a vital organ, confirming the act was done with the intent to cause an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The court rejected the argument that the incident constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as no exceptions were applicable.

Issues: The issues were whether evidentiary discrepancies rendered the eyewitness testimony unreliable, whether the procedural delays undermined the prosecution case, and whether the act constituted murder under Section 300 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that an intentional stabbing on a vital organ, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, fulfills the requirements for murder. The absence of applicability of any exceptions under Section 300 and the reliability of eyewitness accounts led to the affirmation of the guilt.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

J U D G M E N T

1.Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

The above-captioned appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who is the sole accused in S.C.No. 186 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. In the said case, he was tried for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with a default clause.

The Prosecution Case:

2. According to the prosecution, the accused and the deceased, a19-year-old youth by name Abhilash, were neighbours and were well acquainted with each other. The prosecution case is that the accused had earlier entrusted a memory card to Abhilash, which was allegedly not returned. Owing to the grievance arising from the non-return of the memory card, the accused confronted Abhilash on 13.04.2011 at about 9.30 p.m. and demanded its return. It is alleged that an altercation ensued between the two, and the persons present at the scene intervened and separated them. The prosecution allegation is that immediately thereafter, the accused rushed towards Abhilash and inflicted a stab injury on his chest. The injured was immediately taken to the hospital for treatment. However, he succumbed to the injuries sustained and was declared dead by the attending doctors.

Registration of Crime, Investigation and Trial :

3. On the basis of the information furnished by one Manikuttan (PW1), an alleged eye-witness, at about 10:55 p.m. on 13.04.2011, Ext.P1 FI statement was prepared, and on its basis Ext.P10 FIR was registered at 11:30 p.m. as Crime No. 446 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant is shown as the accused in the FIR.

4. On 14.04.2011, the investigation was taken over by PW15, who was then serving as the Circle Inspector of Police, Thrissur West Police Station. PW15 reached West Fort Hospital, Thrissur, at about 2.30 a.m., where he recorded the statement of the first informant as well as those of certain witnesses. Thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses present there. He further stated that a police officer was deputed to guard the scene of occurrence and that he thereafter returned to the Police Station at about 3.30 a.m. According to PW15, in the meanwhile, the accused had been apprehended by local residents and brought to the Police Station. After reaching the Station at about 3.30 a.m., he formally arrested the accused and prepared Ext.P15 series Arrest Memo and Arrest Notice. The clothes worn by the accused at the time of arrest were also seized under Ext.P8 seizure mahazar in the presence of witnesses. PW15 further deposed that at about 8.30 a.m., he reached West Fort Hospital, Thrissur, and conducted the inquest over the body of the deceased, preparing Ext.P3 inquest report. Thereafter, the body was forwarded to the Medical College Hospital for post-mortem examination. At about 11.00 a.m., the services of the Scientific Assistant were secured for conducting a scientific inspection of the scene of occurrence. During the inspection, a pair of slippers and a knife found at the scene were seized under Ext.P2 scene mahazar in the presence of witnesses. The articles collected and seized by the Scientific Assistant during the course of inspection were separately incorporated in Ext.P9 mahazar. PW15 further stated that he subsequently submitted Ext.P16 report before the jurisdictional Court furnishing the name, address and other identifying particulars of the accused.

5. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by PW16, who was then serving as the Circle Inspector of Police, Thrissur West Police Station. PW16 completed the remaining stages of the investigation and, upon being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the accused, laid the final report before the jurisdictional M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34613

An intentional infliction of a fatal injury on a vital organ that is objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death constitutes murder under Section 300, even if the result of a single blow, provided the case does not fall within any statutory exceptions.

Cases Referred (5)