Mere Knowledge Of Result Of Fatal Actions Is Enough To Ascribe Culpability To Murder Accused: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in a murder case, observed that mere knowledge of the result of fatal actions is enough to ascribe culpability to the accused person.

The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred against the Judgment by which the accused was convicted under Sections 302, 324, 326, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The two-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held, “The deliberate act of stabbing vital parts of the body, coupled with the force used, indicates that the appellant must have been aware of the likely fatal consequences of his actions. Under the provisions of Section 300 IPC, an intention to cause such injuries that are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death qualifies as murder, and even if ingredients other than intention to cause murder are proved, mere knowledge of the result of fatal actions is enough to ascribe culpability to the accused person.”

The Bench said that, even if it is presumed that the accused did not have an intention to cause bodily injury, the act of causing injuries with knife to vital parts is reflective of the knowledge that causing such injuries is likely to cause death in the ordinary course.

Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel appeared on behalf of the Appellant/accused while Senior Advocate P.V. Dinesh appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.

Brief Facts -

As per the prosecution case, in 2006, the sympathizers of United Democratic Front (UDF) and Left Democratic Front (LDF) fought against each other in connection with the dispute regarding the drawing of their election symbol at a place near a library in Kunnappalli, Pathaikkara Village. A criminal case with non-bailable offences was registered against the sympathisers of UDF in connection with the said incident. The Appellant along with the other accused who were sympathisers of Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) on account of the enmity and with the intention to commit murder of the deceased, waited at Mukkilaplavu Junction for their arrival and at about 08:45 PM when the deceased along with another reached at the said place, the first accused allegedly attempted to beat the deceased with a tamarind stick, on his head.

The deceased saved himself from the said attack and snatched the stick from the first accused and started assaulting the first accused on his forehead and back with the same stick. At this stage, the first accused took out a knife from his hip region and stabbed the deceased on the left side of chest, back of the head, and the left shoulder. Another person was also injured during this fight. Accordingly, a case was registered against the accused. The Trial Court held the Appellant guilty of murder. Three Appeals were filed before the High Court but the same were dismissed.

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “The decision to carry and use such a weapon during the scuffle reflects a readiness to escalate violence beyond a mere physical altercation. Even if the appellant did not have a prior intention to murder the deceased, the circumstances demonstrate that such injuries were caused which were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.”

The Court observed that the defence’s argument that the incident was a spontaneous scuffle does not absolve the Appellant of liability and while the scuffle may have triggered the attack, the Appellant’s use of a lethal weapon and the manner in which the injuries were inflicted, elevate the act from culpable homicide to murder.

“Courts have consistently held that intent can be inferred from the nature and severity of injuries, as well as the choice of weapon and the manner of its use. The use of a lethal weapon and the deliberate targeting of vital parts of the body are strong indicators of such intent”, it reiterated.

The Court further explained that, to bring the Appellant’s act under Section 304 IPC in light of the offence being committed in exercise of private defense and thereby exceeding the power given under the law, that is under Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC, the ingredients therein must be proved. It took note of the following ingredients for this exception –

1. The accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter;

2. There must be an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm, either real or apparent;

3. Injuries received by the accused;

4. The injuries caused by the accused;

5. The accused did not have time or opportunity to take recourse to public authorities.

“Even if the appellant claims to have acted in defense, his role in bringing about the altercation cannot be overlooked. The appellant cannot benefit from the exception when he was instrumental in creating the circumstances that led to the confrontation”, also enunciated the Court.

The Court said that, even if it were assumed that the Appellant acted in self-defense, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the force used was excessive and disproportionate and that the act of stabbing the deceased multiple times in vital organs such as the chest and heart goes far beyond what is permissible under the right of private defense.

“The doctrine of parity ensures fairness in sentencing when co-accused persons are similarly situated and share the same level of culpability. However, parity is not an automatic entitlement; the role, intent, and actions of each accused must be individually assessed to determine their degree of involvement in the crime”, it clarified.

Moreover, the Court remarked that a murder committed with the intent to target vital organs, particularly in a group setting, reflects a level of intent and cruelty that demands an appropriate punitive response and to reduce the sentence in such a case would risk undermining the seriousness of the crime and the sanctity of life itself, principles that the judicial system is duty-bound to uphold.

“Furthermore, the offence occurred in a context of political rivalry, a factor that exacerbates its gravity. Crimes rooted in such motives often have far-reaching consequences beyond the immediate loss of life, contributing to social unrest and weakening public confidence in the rule of law. The Court must therefore ensure that its decisions reinforce the principle of accountability and deter the recurrence of such violent acts, particularly those that disrupt public order”, it added.

The Court, therefore, concluded that, once conviction under Section 302 of IPC is confirmed by all the Courts, then the minimum sentence is imprisonment for life, as provided under the provision itself and thus, no ground or reason for granting a lesser sentence arises. It added that, when the minimum sentence itself is life imprisonment, then grounds like parity, leniency, old age, health concerns, etc. shall not be of any aid to the accused while seeking reduction of sentence and, therefore, the Appellant has been granted the minimum sentence for committing the offence of murder.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal for reduction of sentence and upheld the conviction.

Cause Title- Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 937)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, AOR Radha Shyam Jena, Advocates Haris Beeran, Azhar Assees, and Anand B. Menon.

Respondent: Senior Advocate P.V. Dinesh, AOR Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advocates Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Anna Oommen, and Urvashi Chauhan.

Click here to read/download the Judgment