Injury 'Likely', Not 'Sufficient', To Cause Death Reduces Murder (S.302) To Culpable Homicide (S.304 Part II) Conviction: Kerala High Court On S.300(3) IPC & S.34 IPC - 2025-04-09

Kerala High Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide Based on Medical Evidence, Upholds Common Intention

Kochi: The Kerala High Court, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan , recently modified the conviction of N. Noufal from murder ( Section 302 IPC ) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder ( Section 304 Part II IPC ) in a 2009 political attack case. The court emphasized the critical distinction between an injury "likely to cause death" and one "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" based on medical expert testimony, while affirming the appellant's guilt under the principle of common intention ( Section 34 IPC ) despite no specific overt act attributed to him.

Case Background

The case (CRL.A 1311/2019) stems from a Sessions Court judgment convicting N. Noufal (Accused No. 2) for the murder of O.T. Vineesh . The prosecution alleged that on May 13, 2009, Noufal and Manaf (Accused No. 1, absconding), purportedly affiliated with the SDPI, attacked Vineesh and his brother O.T. Vimal (PW14), associated with CPI(M), at a bus shelter. Noufal allegedly drove the motorcycle while Manaf wielded a sword, inflicting injuries. Vineesh succumbed to a severe injury behind his left knee. The trial court found Noufal guilty under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC (Murder with Common Intention) and Section 324 IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder. Noufal appealed this conviction.

Key Arguments

Appellant ( N. Noufal ): * Argued that the primary eyewitness (PW14, the deceased's brother) was unreliable due to inconsistencies and discrepancies compared to the initial prosecution version and medical evidence. * Highlighted that other eyewitnesses (PWs 1, 2, 4) turned hostile, undermining the prosecution's case. * Pointed out inconsistencies regarding the weapon mentioned in initial medical reports (axe vs. sword). * Questioned the reliability of the weapon recovery. * Crucially contended that the medical expert (PW19) stated the fatal injury was only "likely to cause death," not "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death," thus not meeting the criteria for Section 302 IPC . * Argued that no overt act was attributed to him, negating the charge of murder under Section 34 IPC .

Respondent (State of Kerala): * Maintained that PW14, being an injured witness and the deceased's brother, was highly reliable and unlikely to falsely implicate the appellant. * Argued that PW14's testimony was consistent and corroborated in material aspects by other witnesses, even those partially hostile. * Asserted that the recovery of the weapon (MO1 Sword) based on the appellant's disclosure added credibility. * Contended that the appellant's presence and actions (riding the bike, accompanying the main assailant) clearly demonstrated shared common intention under Section 34 IPC .

High Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and legal principles:

Homicidal Death : Confirmed that Vineesh 's death was homicidal based on medical evidence (PW18, PW19, PW20) detailing the fatal chop-cut injury to the left leg.

Witness Testimony:

Acknowledged that PWs 1, 2, and 4 turned hostile but found their testimonies corroborated PW14's presence and the sequence of events immediately before and after the incident. Citing Sat Paul v. Delhi Admn. , the court held that hostile witness testimony isn't automatically discarded and trustworthy parts can be relied upon.

Found PW14's testimony credible, emphasizing his status as an injured witness ( Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P. ) and the prompt lodging of the FIR naming the accused. The court applied the principle from Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras that conviction can rest on a single reliable witness (Section 134, Evidence Act).

Dismissed minor discrepancies (timing in hospital records, non-mention of assailants in initial wound certificate) as non-fatal to the prosecution case.

Common Intention ( Section 34 IPC ):

Rejected the appellant's argument that lack of an overt act absolved him. The court noted his role in bringing the assailant to the scene on a motorcycle and fleeing with him afterwards.

Cited Surendra Chauhan v. State of M.P. and Krishnan v. State of Kerala , reaffirming that Section 34 requires proof of common intention and participation, but not necessarily a specific overt act by each accused. Physical presence facilitating the crime suffices.

Distinction between S.300(3) and S.299(b) IPC :

This was the pivotal point for modification. The court focused on the Forensic Surgeon's (PW19) specific statement that the fatal injury was "likely to cause death," not "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death."

The judgment elaborated on the fine distinction: "likely" (Section 299(b) - Culpable Homicide) implies probability, while "sufficient in the ordinary course of nature" (Section 300(3) - Murder) implies the "most probable" result.

The court stated: "It is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree."

Given the medical expert's precise wording, the court concluded the injury fell under the knowledge aspect of culpable homicide (likely to cause death) rather than the higher degree required for murder under Section 300(3).

Final Decision

The High Court partially allowed the appeal:

The conviction under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC (Murder) was set aside.

The appellant, N. Noufal , was convicted under ** Section 304 Part II r/w Section 34 IPC ** (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, committed with knowledge it was likely to cause death).

The sentence was modified to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven (7) years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 (with a default sentence of six months RI).

The conviction and sentence under Section 324 r/w Section 34 IPC (causing hurt with dangerous weapon) were upheld.

Sentences are to run concurrently. Rs. 90,000 of the fine, if realized, is to be paid to PW14.

This judgment underscores the importance of precise medical evidence, particularly expert opinion on the nature of injuries, in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide, and clarifies the application of common intention under Section 34 IPC .