Santhosh Kumar vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 8774 Ker

Kerala High Court

Santhosh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 16 September, 2025

   ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​                 ​1​              ​2025:KER:68207​




                 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 SEPTEMBER 2025 / 25TH BHADRA,​​
                     ​                                    1947​

                              CRL.A NO. 496 OF 2020​
                              ​

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2019 IN S.C.No.1161 of 2017​
 ​

    ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOTTARAKKARA.​
    ​

APPELLANT​
​        /ACCUSED:​
         ​

                ​ANTHOSH KUMAR​
                S
                AGED 51 YEARS​
                ​
                S/O. KOCHUNARAYANAN, PELAPPEKONATHU CHARUVILA PUTHEN​
                ​
                VEEDU, PALONAM MURI, KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.​
                ​


                ​Y ADVS.​
                B
                SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR​
                ​
                SMT.SWAPNA VIJAYAN​
                ​
                SHRI.MOHANAN M.K.​
                ​
                SMT.RADHIKA S.ANIL​
                ​

RESPONDENT​

​         /COMPLAINANT:​
          ​

                ​TATE OF KERALA​
                S
                REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,​
                ​
                HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.​
                ​

                BY ADV SMT. NEEMA K.V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR​
                ​

     ​HIS​ ​
     T     CRIMINAL​ ​
                     APPEAL​ ​
                             HAVING​ ​
                                     BEEN​ ​
                                           FINALLY​ ​
                                                    HEARD​ ​
                                                           ON​ ​
                                                               16.09.2025,​
     THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:​
     ​
 ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​                            ​2​                              ​2025:KER:68207​




                                        ​J U D G M E N T​



  ​Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.​

​This​​appeal​​is​​filed​​challenging​​the​​judgment​​dated​​20.12.2019​​in​ ​S.C.​​No.​

​1161​​of​​2017​​on​​the​​files​​of​​the​​Additional​​Sessions​​Court,​​Kottarakkara.​​This​​is​​a​

​case​​of​​matricide,​​and​​the​​appellant​​is​​the​​sole​​accused​​who​​was​​convicted​​by​​the​

​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​for​ ​committing​ ​offences​ ​punishable​ ​under​ ​Sections​ ​302​

​and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.​

​2.​ ​The​ ​appellant​ ​herein​ ​stands​​charged​​for​​the​​offence​​under​​Sections​

​302​ ​and​ ​201​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC​ ​for​ ​committing​​the​​offence​​of​​matricide​​and​​causing​​the​

​disappearance of evidence.​

​3.​ ​Radha,​ ​a​ ​65-year-old​ ​woman,​ ​the​ ​mother​ ​of​ ​the​ ​appellant,​ ​was​

​residing​​at​​Palonam​​in​​Kadakkal​​along​​with​​the​​appellant's​​wife​​(PW4)​​and​​his​​two​

​children.​ ​The​ ​appellant​ ​used​ ​to​ ​regularly​ ​pick​ ​up​ ​quarrels​ ​with​ ​his​ ​mother​ ​and​

​wife,​​which​​often​​led​​to​​physical​​violence,​​due​​to​​which​​the​​wife​​and​​children​​were​

​living​ ​separately​ ​at​ ​a​ ​place​ ​called​ ​Kunnikode.​ ​The​ ​prosecution​ ​alleges​ ​that​ ​on​

​20.05.2017,​​the​​appellant,​​in​​an​​inebriated​​state,​​started​​to​​torture​​his​​mother.​​At​

​about​ ​4:00​ ​p.m.,​ ​while​ ​his​ ​mother​​was​​standing​​in​​the​​northern​​courtyard​​of​​her​

​house,​​he​​attacked​​her​​with​​a​​rubber​​tree​​stick​​and​​caused​​injuries.​​After​​inflicting​

​injuries,​​he​​dragged​​her​​to​​the​​house​​and​​deserted​​her.​​It​​is​​alleged​​that​​he​​later​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​3​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​burned​ ​the​ ​stick​ ​he​ ​had​​used,​​as​​it​​bore​​the​​blood​​stains​​of​​his​​mother.​​She​​was​

​left​ ​unattended​ ​without​ ​medical​ ​care​​for​​about​​8​​days.​​On​​28.05.2017,​​as​​Radha​

​was​ ​found​ ​lying​ ​in​ ​a​ ​comatose​ ​state,​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​called​ ​Anju​ ​(PW4)​ ​for​

​assistance,​ ​and​ ​they​​took​​Radha​​to​​the​​Kadakkal​​Taluk​​Hospital.​​Radha​​was​​seen​

​by​​PW9,​​the​​Casualty​​Medical​​Officer,​​who,​​after​​providing​​first​​aid,​​referred​​her​​to​

​the​ ​Medical​​College​​Hospital​​("MCH"),​​Thiruvananthapuram.​​She​​was​​seen​​by​​the​

​Head​​of​​the​​Department​​and​​Professor​​(Medicine),​​MCH,​​Thiruvananthapuram.​​He​

​noted​ ​numerous​ ​injuries​ ​on​ ​the​ ​body​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased.​ ​The​ ​next​ ​day,​ ​Radha​

​succumbed to the injuries.​

​4.​ ​At​ ​10:00​ ​a.m.,​ ​on​ ​29.05.2017,​ ​PW15,​ ​the​ ​Sub​ ​Inspector​ ​of​ ​Police,​

​Kadakkal​​Police​​Station,​​recorded​​the​​statement​​of​​Latha​​(PW1),​​a​​Member​​of​​the​

​Kadakkal​ ​Grama​ ​Panchayat​ ​and​ ​registered​ ​Ext.P17​ ​FIR​ ​under​ ​Section​​174​​of​​the​

​Cr.P.C. The Member expressed doubt with regard to the cause of death of Radha.​

​5.​ ​Dr.​ ​Seena​ ​(PW13),​ ​the​ ​Assistant​ ​Professor​ ​and​ ​Assistant​ ​Police​

​Surgeon,​​Department​​of​​Forensic​​Medicine,​​MCH,​​Thiruvananthapuram,​​conducted​

​the​ ​postmortem​ ​and​ ​issued​ ​Ext.P13​ ​Postmortem​​Certificate.​ ​She​​noted​​as​​many​

​as​ ​22​ ​injuries​ ​on​ ​the​ ​body​ ​of​ ​Radha,​ ​which​ ​include​ ​healing​​wounds,​​contusions,​

​abrasions​ ​and​ ​subarachnoid​ ​haemorrhage.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​findings​ ​in​ ​the​

​post-mortem​ ​report,​ ​Ext.P18​ ​report​ ​was​ ​submitted,​ ​incorporating​ ​Section​ ​302​ ​of​

​the IPC.​

​6.​ ​Investigation​ ​was​ ​then​ ​taken​ ​over​ ​by​ ​Sani​ ​S.​ ​(PW16),​ ​the​ ​Grade​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​4​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​Inspector​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Kadakkal​ ​Police​ ​Station.​ ​He​ ​recorded​ ​the​ ​statements​ ​of​ ​the​

​neighbours​​and​​prepared​​Ext.P9​​Scene​​Mahazar.​​On​​29.05.2017,​​at​​7:30​​p.m.,​​the​

​appellant​​was​​arrested​​as​​per​​Ext.P19​​arrest​​memo.​​Ext.P23​​report​​was​​submitted​

​before​ ​the​ ​jurisdictional​ ​Magistrate,​ ​incorporating​ ​Sections​ ​341,​ ​324​ ​and​ ​201​ ​of​

​the​ ​IPC.​ ​On​ ​interrogating​ ​the​ ​accused,​ ​he​ ​is​ ​alleged​ ​to​ ​have​ ​disclosed​ ​that​ ​the​

​stick​​which​​was​​used​​for​​inflicting​​the​​injuries​​was​​burned​​and​​though​​an​​attempt​

​was​​made​​to​​collect​​the​​remnants,​​it​​did​​not​​yield​​any​​result.​​After​​concluding​​the​

​investigation, the final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate.​

​7.​ ​After​ ​initiating​ ​the​ ​committal​ ​proceedings​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​law,​

​the​ ​case​​was​​committed​​to​​the​​Court​​of​​Session,​​from​​where​​the​​case​​was​​made​

​over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottarakkara.​

​8.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​appearing​ ​before​ ​the​ ​Court,​ ​after​ ​following​ ​the​

​procedure,​​the​​charge​​was​​read​​over,​​to​​which​​he​​pleaded​​not​​guilty.​ ​On​​the​​side​

​of​ ​the​ ​prosecution,​ ​16​ ​witnesses​ ​were​ ​examined​ ​as​ ​PWs​ ​1​ ​to​ ​16,​ ​and​ ​through​

​them,​ ​Exts.​ ​P1​ ​to​ ​P24​ ​were​ ​exhibited​ ​and​ ​marked.​ ​After​ ​the​ ​close​ ​of​ ​the​

​prosecution​ ​evidence,​ ​the​ ​incriminating​ ​materials​ ​arising​ ​from​​the​​evidence​​were​

​put​​to​​the​​accused​​under​​Section​​313(1)(b)​​of​​the​​Code​​of​​Criminal​​Procedure.​​He​

​emphatically​​denied​​the​​circumstances.​​On​​the​​side​​of​​the​​defence,​​the​​stepsister​

​of the deceased was examined as DW1.​

​9.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge,​ ​after​​evaluation​​of​​the​​entire​​evidence​

​let​ ​in​ ​by​ ​the​​prosecution​​as​​well​​as​​the​​defence,​​came​​to​​the​​conclusion​​that​​the​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​5​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​prosecution​ ​had​ ​convincingly​ ​established​ ​that​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​had​ ​inflicted​ ​fatal​

​injuries​ ​on​ ​the​ ​head​ ​of​ ​his​ ​mother​ ​and​ ​thereafter​ ​abandoned​ ​her​ ​without​

​providing​ ​medical​ ​aid​ ​for​ ​8​ ​days,​ ​resulting​ ​in​ ​her​ ​death.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​

​Judge​ ​also​ ​noted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​had​ ​a​ ​history​ ​of​ ​Vulnerable​ ​Neurological​

​Disorder,​​and​​the​​appellant​​was​​aware​​that​​his​​mother​​was​​frail​​and​​suffering​​from​

​illness.​ ​The​​very​​act​​of​​the​​accused​​in​​inflicting​​severe​​blows​​with​​a​​heavy​​stick,​

​leading​ ​to​ ​haemorrhage​ ​in​ ​the​ ​brain,​ ​led​ ​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​to​​arrive​​at​

​the​ ​conclusion​ ​that​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​was​ ​fully​ ​aware​ ​that​ ​the​​fatal​​blow​​on​​the​​head​

​would​ ​be​ ​so​ ​imminently​ ​dangerous​ ​that​ ​it​ ​must​ ​in​ ​all​ ​probability​ ​cause​​death​​or​

​such​​bodily​​injury​​as​​is​​likely​​to​​cause​​his​​death.​ ​His​​act​​of​​abandoning​​his​​mother​

​without​​providing​​medical​​aid​​after​​inflicting​​such​​severe​​injuries​​was​​also​​held​​to​

​be​ ​a​ ​reason​ ​to​ ​conclude​ ​that​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​was​​having​​the​​intention​​to​​cause​​the​

​death​ ​of​ ​his​ ​mother.​ ​Holding​​so,​​he​​was​​found​​guilty​​of​​the​​offence​​punishable​

​under​​Section​​302​​of​​the​​IPC​​and​​was​​sentenced​​to​​undergo​​imprisonment​​for​​life​

​and​ ​to​​pay​​a​​fine​​of​​Rs.25,000/-.​ ​He​​was​​acquitted​​of​​the​​offence​​under​​Section​

​201 of the IPC.​

​10.​ ​Sri.​ ​Anil​ ​Kumar,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​appellant,​

​advanced the following contentions to assail the finding of guilt:​

​a)​ ​The​ ​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​erred​​in​​placing​​reliance​​on​​the​​evidence​

​tendered​​by​​PW3,​​the​​alleged​​eyewitness,​​whose​​evidence​​was​​discrepant​

​in​​material​​particulars.​​Despite​​having​​an​​occasion​​to​​witness​​the​​incident,​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​6​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​he​​did​​not​​set​​the​​law​​in​​motion​​or​​take​​any​​measures​​to​​provide​​medical​

​aid​ ​to​ ​the​ ​victim​ ​or​ ​intervene​ ​in​ ​the​​matter.​ ​This​​is​​despite​​the​​fact​​that​

​his​ ​brother,​ ​who​ ​was​ ​examined​ ​as​ ​PW5,​ ​was​ ​a​ ​police​ ​man.​ ​Even​ ​with​

​regard​ ​to​ ​his​ ​version​ ​of​​the​​incident​​and​​the​​nature​​of​​the​​weapon​​used,​

​there​​was​​no​​consistency.​ ​However,​​all​​these​​aspects​​were​​ignored​​by​​the​

​learned Sessions Judge.​

​b)​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​has​ ​also​ ​erred​ ​in​ ​placing​ ​reliance​ ​on​ ​the​

​evidence of PW5, as his version before the court was highly embellished.​

​c)​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​has​ ​erred​ ​in​ ​not​ ​properly​ ​appreciating​ ​the​

​evidence​ ​of​ ​PW9,​ ​the​ ​Casualty​ ​Medical​ ​Officer​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Kadakkal​ ​Taluk​

​Hospital,​ ​where​ ​the​ ​injured​ ​was​ ​taken​ ​by​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​and​ ​his​ ​wife​ ​on​

​28.05.2017.​ ​The​ ​Doctor​ ​had​ ​no​ ​occasion​ ​to​ ​notice​ ​any​ ​injuries​ ​on​ ​the​

​body of the deceased.​

​d)​ ​It​ ​is​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​failure​ ​of​ ​the​ ​police​ ​to​ ​detect​ ​the​ ​weapon​ ​of​

​offence​ ​is​ ​fatal,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​same​ ​would​​adversely​​affect​​the​​genuineness​​of​

​the prosecution case.​

​e)​ ​The​​delay​​in​​registering​​the​​crime​​is​​also​​highlighted​​as​​yet​​another​​reason​

​to doubt the prosecution version.​

​11.​ ​Smt.​ ​Neema​ ​K.V.,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Public​ ​Prosecutor,​ ​submitted​​that​​the​

​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​evaluated​​the​​entire​​evidence​​in​​its​​proper​​perspective​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​7​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​and​​has​​arrived​​at​​the​​finding​​of​​guilt.​​According​​to​​the​​learned​​Public​​Prosecutor,​

​a​ ​reading​ ​of​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​PWs​ ​3​ ​and​ ​5,​ ​coupled​ ​with​ ​the​ ​medical​ ​evidence,​

​would​ ​clearly​ ​reveal​ ​that​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​has​ ​established​ ​its​ ​case​ ​beyond​ ​a​

​reasonable doubt.​

​12.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​carefully​ ​considered​ ​the​ ​submissions​ ​advanced​ ​by​ ​both​

​sides.​​We​​have​​gone​​through​​the​​evidence​​and​​also​​the​​judgment​​rendered​​by​​the​

​learned Sessions Judge.​

​13.​ ​The​​first​​question​​is​​whether​​the​​death​​of​​Radha​​was​​homicidal.​​The​

​prosecution​ ​relies​ ​on​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​PW3​ ​(Sujith),​ ​a​ ​Postgraduate​ ​student​

​residing​​on​​the​​western​​side​​of​​the​​house​​of​​Radha,​​to​​bring​​home​​the​​point​​that,​

​on​​20.5.2017​​at​​about​​04:00​​p.m.,​​he​​heard​​a​​hue​​and​​cry​​from​​the​​house​​of​​the​

​deceased.​ ​He​ ​is​ ​alleged​ ​to​ ​have​ ​witnessed​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​inflicting​ ​a​ ​blow​ ​on​ ​the​

​head​ ​of​ ​Radha.​ ​He​ ​also​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​thereafter​ ​he​ ​had​ ​no​ ​occasion​ ​to​ ​see​ ​the​

​deceased​ ​in​ ​and​ ​around​ ​the​ ​house.​ ​We​ ​shall​ ​deal​ ​with​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​PW3​ ​in​

​detail at a later stage.​

​14.​ ​Though​ ​the​ ​incident​ ​took​ ​place​ ​on​ ​20.05.2017,​ ​Radha​ ​was​ ​not​

​provided​ ​any​ ​medical​ ​aid.​ ​It​ ​was​ ​only​ ​on​ ​28.05.2017​ ​that​ ​she​ ​was​ ​taken​ ​to​ ​the​

​Kadakkal​ ​Taluk​ ​Hospital.​ ​PW9,​ ​the​ ​Casualty​ ​Medical​ ​Officer​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​the​

​Kadakkal​​Taluk​​Hospital,​​stated​​that​​the​​victim​​had​​injuries​​on​​her​​head.​​PW9​​also​

​stated​ ​that​ ​he​ ​found​ ​bedsores​ ​on​ ​the​ ​body​ ​of​​the​​deceased.​​However,​​he​​stated​

​that​​he​​omitted​​to​​record​​the​​injuries​​in​​detail​​since​​he​​had​​no​​reason​​to​​doubt​​the​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​8​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​version​​of​​the​​son​​who​​had​​brought​​the​​injured​​to​​the​​hospital.​​His​​endeavour​​was​

​to​ ​stabilise​ ​the​ ​patient​ ​and​ ​to​ ​transport​ ​her​ ​in​ ​an​ ​Ambulance​ ​equipped​ ​with​

​emergency​ ​care​ ​and​ ​ventilator​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Medical​ ​College​ ​Hospital,​

​Thiruvananthapuram.​

​15.​ ​PW12​​is​​the​​Professor​​and​​HOD​​(Medicine)​​who​​treated​​the​​victim​​at​

​the​ ​Medical​ ​College​ ​Hospital,​ ​Thiruvananthapuram,​ ​when​ ​she​ ​was​ ​admitted​ ​on​

​28.05.2017.​​Through​​him,​​Ext.P12​​treatment​​certificate,​​Ext.P14​​referral​​letter​​and​

​Ext.P15​ ​case​ ​sheet​ ​were​ ​marked.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​him,​ ​Radha​ ​passed​ ​away​ ​on​

​29.05.2017.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​Radha​ ​had​ ​sustained​ ​a​ ​lacerated​ ​wound​ ​on​ ​the​ ​left​

​side​ ​of​ ​her​ ​scalp​ ​with​ ​dimensions​ ​4x3​ ​cm,​​and​​he​​also​​noted​​a​​contusion​​on​​the​

​right​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​neck.​ ​She​ ​was​ ​also​ ​found​ ​to​ ​be​​having​​bedsores​​on​​her​​sacral​

​region.​ ​He​ ​noted​ ​multiple​ ​abrasions​ ​on​ ​the​ ​right​ ​shoulder​ ​and​ ​right​ ​elbow.​ ​He​

​added​​that​​the​​lacerated​​wound​​noted​​on​​the​​head​​could​​have​​been​​inflicted​​with​

​a​​blunt​​object.​ ​When​​a​​pointed​​question​​was​​put​​to​​him​​as​​to​​whether​​the​​injury​

​could​​be​​caused​​by​​hitting​​with​​a​​rubber​​stick,​​he​​answered​​in​​the​​affirmative.​ ​He​

​also​​added​​that​​the​​patient​​was​​in​​a​​coma​​when​​she​​was​​brought​​to​​the​​hospital.​

​According​ ​to​ ​him,​ ​he​ ​suggested​ ​an​ ​autopsy​ ​as​ ​the​ ​lacerated​​wound​​was​​noticed​

​on​ ​the​ ​scalp.​ ​Though​ ​the​ ​witness​ ​was​ ​cross-examined​ ​in​ ​detail,​ ​he​ ​maintained​

​that​​the​​injury​​found​​on​​the​​scalp​​could​​not​​have​​been​​caused​​by​​just​​falling​​down​

​after​​being​​afflicted​​by​​epilepsy.​ ​He​​also​​added​​that​​clinically,​​the​​patient​​was​​not​

​found​ ​to​ ​be​ ​suffering​ ​from​ ​epilepsy.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​patient​ ​died​ ​due​ ​to​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​9​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​bleeding from the head injury.​

​16.​ ​PW13​​was​​the​​Assistant​​Professor​​and​​Assistant​​Police​​Surgeon​​who​

​had​ ​conducted​ ​the​ ​autopsy​ ​over​ ​the​ ​body​ ​of​ ​Radha.​ ​Through​ ​her,​ ​Ext.P13​

​Postmortem​​Certificate​​was​​marked.​​Apart​​from​​abrasions​​and​​bruises,​​the​​Doctor​

​noted the following injuries on the head of the deceased :​

​a)​ H ​ ealing​​wound​ ​7​​x​​1.5​​x​​0.2​​cm​​on​​the​​top​​and​​front​​of​​left​ ​side​​of​​head,​​its​​front​​extending​​8.5​​cm​​above​​eyebrow​​and​ ​2.5 cm outer to midline..​

​b)​ C ​ ontusion​​5x4x.8​​cm​​on​​the​​left​​side​​of​​the​​back​​of​​head​​just​ ​behind the root of ear.​

​c)​ C ​ ontusion​ ​4x3x.8​ ​cm​ ​on​ ​the​ ​back​ ​of​ ​head​ ​in​ ​midline​ ​3​ ​cm​ ​below occiput.​

​d)​ C ​ ontusion​ ​7x7x1​ ​cm​ ​on​ ​the​ ​right​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​back​ ​of​ ​head​ ​just​ ​behind​ ​the​ ​root​ ​of​ ​the​​ear.​​There​​were​​patchy​​areas​​of​ ​subarachnoid​ ​haemorrhage(dark​ ​red)​ ​in​ ​the​ ​brain.​ ​There​ ​were​ ​constitution​ ​(​ ​yellowish​ ​brown​ ​in​ ​colour)​ ​.8x3x2.5​ ​cm​ ​on​ ​the​ ​right​ ​occipital​ ​and​ ​adjoining​ ​temporal​ ​lobe​ ​and​ ​constitution​ ​3x3x2​ ​cm​ ​on​​the​​right​​cerebellum.​​The​​brain​​in​ ​the​​contused​​area​​was​​soft.​​There​​was​​flattening​​of​​gyri​​and​ ​narrowing of sulci of brain​

​e)​ C ​ ontusion​​4.5​​x​​3​​x​​1​​cm​​on​​the​​right​​side​​of​​front​​of​​neck,​​3​ ​cm above inner end of collar bone​

​f )​ C ​ ontusion​ ​15​ ​x​ ​9​ ​x​​1​​cm​​on​​the​​right​​side​​and​​right​​side​​of​ ​back​​of​​head,​​its​​front​​extent​​just​​below​​and​​just​​in​​front​​of​ ​lobule of ear.​

​ lap​​dissection​​of​​the​​neck​​was​​done​​under​​a​​bloodless​​field.​ F ​There​ ​were​ ​infiltration​ ​in​ ​fat​ ​and​ ​subcutaneous​ ​tissue​ ​13x9x0.5​ ​cm​ ​on​ ​right​ ​side​ ​of​ ​front​ ​of​ ​neck​ ​and​ ​adjoining​ ​front​​of​​chest​​and​​7​​x​​5​​x​​0.3​​cm​​on​​the​​left​​side​​of​​front​​of​ ​neck​​and​​adjoining​​chest.​​Other​​neck​​structures​​were​​normal​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​10​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​and intact.​

​The​​Doctor​​stated​​that​​the​​death​​was​​due​​to​​blunt​​injuries​​sustained​​to​​the​

​head.​​In​​view​​of​​the​​above​​evidence,​​it​​can​​safely​​be​​concluded​​that​​the​​death​​of​

​Radha was a case of homicide and not due to an accidental fall.​

​17.​ ​In​ ​order​ ​to​​establish​​the​​incident,​​the​​prosecution​​examined​​several​

​witnesses​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​the​ ​occurrence​ ​of​ ​the​ ​assault​ ​and​ ​the​ ​subsequent​ ​death​ ​of​

​Radha.​

​18.​ ​PW1,​ ​the​ ​elected​ ​Ward​ ​Member​ ​of​ ​Attupuram​ ​Ward,​ ​deposed​ ​that​

​she​ ​approached​ ​the​ ​Police​ ​and​ ​lodged​ ​the​ ​First​ ​Information​ ​Statement​ ​(Ext.P1)​

​after​ ​learning​ ​of​ ​Radha's​ ​death​ ​at​ ​the​ ​Medical​ ​College​ ​Hospital,​

​Thiruvananthapuram.​ ​She​ ​further​ ​testified​ ​that​ ​local​ ​residents​ ​expressed​ ​serious​

​doubts regarding the cause of death, prompting her to alert the authorities.​

​19.​ ​PW2,​​a​​near​​relative​​of​​the​​deceased,​​was​​examined​​to​​prove​​certain​

​preliminary​ ​facts​ ​connected​ ​to​ ​the​ ​incident.​ ​However,​ ​she​ ​failed​ ​to​ ​support​ ​the​

​prosecution's​ ​case,​ ​and​ ​her​ ​testimony​​did​​not​​speak​​in​​tune​​with​​the​​prosecution​

​narrative.​

​20.​ ​PW3​ ​(Sujith),​ ​a​ ​tuition​ ​teacher​ ​by​ ​professor​ ​and​ ​an​ ​immediate​

​neighbour​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​whose​ ​residence​ ​lay​ ​on​ ​the​ ​western​ ​side​ ​of​ ​Radha's​

​house,​ ​was​ ​the​ ​crucial​ ​eyewitness​ ​examined​ ​by​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​the​

​occurrence.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​Radha​ ​lived​ ​with​ ​her​ ​son​​immediately​​to​​the​​east​​of​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​11​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​his​ ​property.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​him,​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​was​ ​a​ ​habitual​ ​alcoholic​ ​who​

​frequently​ ​quarrelled​ ​with​ ​his​ ​mother.​ ​Sujith​ ​testified​ ​that​ ​on​ ​20.05.2017​ ​at​

​approximately​ ​4:00​ ​p.m.,​ ​while​ ​watching​ ​television,​ ​he​ ​heard​ ​loud​ ​cries​ ​from​

​Radha's​ ​house.​ ​On​ ​stepping​ ​outside,​ ​he​ ​saw​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​and​ ​Radha​ ​near​ ​the​

​backyard​ ​well,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​was​ ​found​ ​striking​ ​Radha​ ​on​ ​the​ ​head​ ​with​ ​a​

​round​ ​wooden​ ​stick.​ ​Radha​ ​collapsed​ ​to​ ​the​ ​ground​ ​from​ ​the​ ​force​ ​of​ ​the​ ​blow.​

​Sujith​ ​admitted​ ​that​ ​he​ ​did​ ​not​​intervene​​and​​returned​​to​​his​​house,​​and​​that​​he​

​never​​again​​saw​​Radha​​alive.​​Later,​​he​​learned​​that​​Radha​​had​​been​​taken​​first​​to​

​the​ ​Taluk​ ​Hospital​ ​at​ ​Kadakkal​ ​and​ ​then​ ​shifted​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Medical​ ​College​ ​Hospital,​

​where​ ​she​ ​succumbed​ ​to​ ​her​ ​injuries​ ​during​ ​treatment.​ ​He​ ​further​ ​recalled​ ​that​

​two​​or​​three​​days​​prior,​​at​​about​​7:30-8:00​​p.m.,​​he​​had​​heard​​cries​​from​​Radha's​

​house.​ ​His​ ​brother​ ​Shyam​ ​(PW5),​ ​a​ ​Police​ ​Constable,​ ​went​ ​to​ ​investigate​ ​and​

​intervened​ ​in​ ​a​ ​violent​ ​altercation​ ​between​ ​the​ ​accused,​ ​his​ ​wife,​ ​and​ ​their​

​children.​ ​Sujith​ ​stated​ ​that,​ ​along​ ​with​ ​his​ ​other​ ​brothers,​ ​he​ ​witnessed​ ​Shyam​

​arrange​ ​for​ ​an​ ​autorickshaw​ ​to​ ​take​ ​the​ ​accused's​ ​wife​ ​and​ ​children​ ​to​ ​her​

​parental​​home​​for​​safety.​​During​​cross-examination,​​the​​defence​​questioned​​Sujith​

​about​​his​​ability​​to​​remember​​the​​exact​​date​​of​​the​​fatal​​incident.​​He​​replied​​that​

​the​​shocking​​nature​​of​​the​​assault​​had​​etched​​the​​details​​indelibly​​in​​his​​memory.​

​Despite​ ​extensive​ ​cross-examination,​ ​the​ ​defence​ ​could​ ​not​ ​discredit​ ​his​

​testimony.​

​21.​ ​PW4,​ ​the​ ​wife​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused,​ ​turned​ ​hostile​ ​and​ ​did​ ​not​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​12​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​substantively​ ​support​ ​the​ ​prosecution.​ ​She​ ​merely​ ​admitted​ ​that​ ​she​ ​had​ ​heard​

​her mother-in-law was unwell on 20.05.2017.​

​22.​ ​PW5,​ ​Shyam,​ ​the​ ​elder​ ​brother​ ​of​ ​PW3​ ​and​ ​a​ ​Police​ ​Constable,​

​confirmed​​that​​he​​lived​​west​​of​​the​​deceased's​​house.​​He​​identified​​the​​accused​​in​

​court​ ​and​ ​testified​ ​that​ ​the​​accused​​was​​an​​alcoholic​​prone​​to​​quarrels​​with​​both​

​his​ ​wife​ ​and​ ​his​ ​mother.​ ​Because​ ​such​ ​disputes​ ​were​ ​frequent,​ ​he​ ​often​​ignored​

​them;​ ​however,​ ​on​​one​​occasion,​​he​​intervened.​​He​​and​​his​​brothers​​went​​to​​the​

​house​​of​​the​​accused​​after​​hearing​​cries.​​There,​​they​​found​​the​​accused​​assaulting​

​his​​wife​​while​​his​​mother​​lay​​on​​the​​ground,​​weeping.​​Shyam​​pushed​​the​​accused​

​aside​​and,​​on​​speaking​​with​​the​​wife​​and​​mother,​​learned​​that​​they​​were​​suffering​

​continuous​ ​harassment​ ​and​ ​cruelty.​​Although​​he​​offered​​to​​inform​​the​​police,​​the​

​accused's​ ​wife​ ​declined,​ ​fearing​ ​repercussions​ ​later.​ ​Shyam​ ​then​ ​arranged​ ​an​

​autorickshaw​ ​to​​take​​the​​wife​​and​​children​​to​​her​​parental​​home​​and​​advised​​the​

​mother​​to​​contact​​him​​if​​future​​problems​​arose.​​He​​subsequently​​learned​​from​​his​

​brother​ ​that​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​had​ ​inflicted​ ​injuries​ ​on​ ​his​ ​mother​ ​and​ ​that,​ ​despite​

​medical treatment, she had died.​

​23.​ ​PW6​ ​and​ ​PW7​ ​were​ ​examined​ ​as​ ​attestors​ ​to​ ​the​ ​scene​ ​mahazar​

​(Ext.P9).​ ​PW8​ ​attested​ ​the​ ​inquest​ ​report​ ​(Ext.P10).​​PW11,​​the​​Village​​Officer​​of​

​Kadakkal,​ ​prepared​ ​the​ ​property​ ​sketch​ ​marked​ ​as​ ​Ext.P11,​ ​thereby​ ​establishing​

​the topographical details of the scene of occurrence.​

​24.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​defence,​ ​the​ ​step-sister​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased,​ ​one​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​13​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​Baby,​​was​​examined​​as​​DW1.​​She​​testified​​that​​she​​maintained​​a​​close​​relationship​

​with​ ​Radha​ ​but​ ​professed​ ​ignorance​ ​as​ ​to​ ​whether​ ​Radha's​ ​husband​ ​was​ ​alive.​

​She​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​took​ ​care​ ​of​ ​his​ ​mother​ ​and​ ​that​ ​there​ ​were​ ​no​

​quarrels​ ​between​ ​them.​ ​She​ ​further​ ​deposed​ ​that​ ​Radha​ ​suffered​ ​from​ ​epilepsy​

​and​​would​​collapse​​during​​seizures.​​According​​to​​her,​​Radha​​could​​have​​fallen​​and​

​injured herself, and the accused had no involvement in the fatal injuries.​

​25.​ ​As​ ​is​ ​evident​ ​from​ ​the​ ​record,​ ​the​ ​case​ ​rests​ ​on​ ​the​ ​testimony​ ​of​

​PW3,​​PW5,​​PW9,​​PW12​​and​​PW13.​​With​​particular​​reference​​to​​PW3,​​the​​principal​

​ocular​ ​witness,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​defence​ ​advanced​ ​several​

​arguments​ ​in​ ​an​​effort​​to​​impeach​​his​​credibility.​​It​​was​​contended​​that​​PW3​​had​

​not​ ​maintained​ ​a​ ​consistent​ ​account​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​weapon​ ​of​ ​offence.​ ​In​ ​his​

​statement​​to​​the​​police​​under​​Section​​161​​of​​the​​Cr.P.C.,​​he​​described​​the​​weapon​

​simply​ ​as​ ​a​ ​"stick."​ ​In​ ​the​ ​final​ ​report,​ ​the​ ​weapon​ ​was​ ​described​ ​as​ ​a​ ​"rubber​

​stick,"​ ​whereas​ ​during​ ​his​ ​deposition​ ​before​ ​the​ ​Court,​ ​PW3​ ​referred​ ​to​ ​it​ ​as​ ​a​

​"rounded​ ​stick."​ ​The​ ​defence​ ​highlighted​ ​these​ ​variations​ ​to​ ​suggest​ ​that​ ​his​

​version​​was​​unreliable.​​The​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge,​​however,​​rightly​​observed​​that​

​such​​minor​​variations​​are​​neither​​unusual​​nor​​material.​​A​​lay​​witness​​describing​​an​

​ordinary​​blunt​​object​​may,​​without​​contradiction,​​refer​​to​​it​​at​​different​​times​​as​​a​

​stick,​ ​a​ ​round​ ​stick,​ ​or​ ​a​ ​rubber​ ​stick.​ ​We​ ​are​ ​equally​ ​unpersuaded​ ​that​ ​this​

​discrepancy​ ​undermines​ ​the​ ​substance​ ​of​ ​his​ ​testimony.​ ​The​ ​defence​ ​further​

​argued​​that​​PW3's​​precise​​recollection​​of​​the​​date​​of​​the​​incident​​was​​inconsistent​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​14​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​with​ ​his​ ​inability​ ​to​ ​recall​ ​unrelated​ ​dates,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​the​ ​date​ ​on​​which​​he​​passed​

​certain​ ​examinations​ ​or​ ​the​ ​date​ ​of​ ​his​ ​father's​ ​death.​ ​We​ ​find​ ​no​ ​merit​ ​in​ ​this​

​contention.​ ​PW3​ ​consistently​ ​maintained​ ​that​ ​he​ ​personally​ ​witnessed​ ​the​ ​brutal​

​assault​​in​​which​​the​​accused​​struck​​his​​own​​mother​​with​​a​​stick,​​and​​he​​explained​

​that​​the​​gravity​​of​​that​​event​​etched​​the​​date​​indelibly​​in​​his​​memory.​​It​​was​​next​

​contended​​that​​PW3​​testified​​falsely​​at​​the​​behest​​of​​his​​brother,​​PW5,​​who​​serves​

​as​​a​​Police​​Constable.​​This​​argument​​is​​equally​​untenable.​​PW5​​was​​examined​​not​

​in​​his​​official​​capacity​​as​​a​​Police​​Officer​​but​​as​​an​​independent​​neighbour​​residing​

​immediately​ ​west​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased's​ ​house.​ ​Both​ ​brothers​ ​gave​ ​a​ ​clear​ ​and​

​coherent​ ​account​ ​of​ ​their​ ​version​ ​and​ ​their​ ​testimonies​ ​were​ ​subjected​ ​to​

​thorough​ ​cross-examination​ ​without​ ​any​ ​material​ ​contradiction.​ ​We​ ​find​ ​no​

​circumstance​​to​​suggest​​bias​​or​​collusion.​​Accordingly,​​we​​concur​​with​​the​​learned​

​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​that​ ​the​​evidence​​of​​PW3​​and​​PW5​​is​​trustworthy​​and​​provides​​a​

​graphic​ ​and​ ​reliable​ ​description​ ​of​ ​the​ ​manner​ ​in​ ​which​ ​the​ ​offence​ ​was​

​committed.​

​26.​ ​The​ ​next​ ​contention​ ​of​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​is​ ​that​ ​PW3​ ​had​ ​only​

​seen​ ​the​ ​infliction​ ​of​ ​a​ ​single​ ​blow​ ​on​ ​the​ ​skull​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased.​ ​The​ ​medical​

​evidence​ ​in​ ​this​ ​case​​reveals​​a​​series​​of​​extremely​​serious​​injuries,​​particularly​​to​

​the​​head​​and​​neck.​​The​​post-mortem​​certificate​​notes​​several​​deep​​contusions​​on​

​different​​parts​​of​​the​​scalp,​​including​​a​​healing​​wound​​measuring​​7×1.5​​0.2​​cm​​on​

​the​​top​​and​​front​​of​​the​​left​​side​​of​​the​​head,​​a​​5×4×0.8​​cm​​contusion​​behind​​the​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​15​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​left​​ear,​​another​​4×3×0.8cm​​contusion​​along​​the​​midline​​below​​the​​occiput,​​and​​a​

​7×7×1cm​ ​contusion​ ​behind​ ​the​ ​right​ ​ear.​ ​Internally,​ ​there​ ​were​ ​patchy​ ​areas​ ​of​

​subarachnoid​​haemorrhage​​and​​widespread​​contusions​​in​​the​​brain​​itself,​​including​

​8×3×2.5cm​ ​lesion​ ​on​ ​the​ ​right​ ​occipital​ ​and​ ​adjoining​ ​temporal​ ​lobe​ ​and​

​3×3×2cm​ ​lesion​ ​on​ ​the​ ​right​ ​cerebellum.​ ​The​ ​contused​ ​areas​ ​of​ ​the​ ​brain​ ​were​

​soft,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​gyri​ ​were​ ​flattened​ ​with​ ​narrowing​ ​of​ ​the​ ​sulci,​ ​all​ ​of​ ​which​ ​are​

​classic​ ​signs​ ​of​ ​significant​ ​traumatic​ ​brain​ ​injury​ ​and​ ​raised​​intracranial​​pressure.​

​Other​ ​injuries​ ​include​ ​a​ ​4.5×3×1cm​ ​contusion​ ​on​ ​the​ ​front​ ​of​ ​the​ ​neck​ ​and​ ​a​

​massive​ ​15×9×1cm​ ​contusion​ ​extending​ ​from​ ​the​ ​right​ ​side​ ​back​ ​of​​neck​​to​​the​

​front​ ​of​ ​lobule​ ​of​ ​ear,​ ​with​ ​further​ ​infiltration​ ​of​ ​the​ ​subcutaneous​ ​tissues​ ​of​​the​

​neck​ ​and​ ​chest.​ ​These​ ​findings​ ​demonstrate​ ​that​ ​the​ ​victim​ ​suffered​ ​multiple,​

​forceful​​blunt​​impacts​​to​​vital​​areas​​of​​the​​body.​​The​​mere​​fact​​that​​PW3​​testified​

​to​​having​​witnessed​​only​​a​​single​​blow​​cannot,​​by​​itself,​​lead​​to​​the​​inference​​that​

​the​ ​deceased​ ​sustained​ ​only​ ​one​ ​injury.​ ​PW3​ ​clearly​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​after​ ​observing​

​the​ ​initial​ ​assault,​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​dragged​ ​his​ ​mother​ ​inside​ ​the​ ​house,​ ​thereby​

​preventing​​further​​observation​​of​​the​​incident.​​PW3​​then​​returned​​indoors​​and​​was​

​no​ ​longer​ ​in​ ​a​ ​position​ ​to​ ​see​ ​what​ ​transpired​ ​thereafter.​ ​The​ ​medical​ ​evidence,​

​however,​ ​unequivocally​ ​establishes​ ​that​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​continued​ ​his​ ​attack​ ​and​

​inflicted​ ​multiple​ ​additional​ ​injuries​ ​to​ ​the​ ​head.​ ​The​ ​postmortem​ ​findings,​

​showing​ ​several​ ​distinct​ ​contusions​ ​and​ ​extensive​ ​intracranial​ ​haemorrhage,​

​corroborate​ ​this​ ​conclusion​ ​and​ ​dispel​ ​any​ ​suggestion​ ​that​ ​the​ ​fatal​ ​injuries​

​resulted​ ​from​ ​a​ ​single​ ​strike.​ ​Thus,​ ​the​ ​limited​ ​scope​ ​of​ ​the​ ​eyewitness​ ​account​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​16​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​reflects​ ​only​ ​the​ ​extent​ ​of​ ​PW3's​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​observe,​ ​not​ ​the​ ​entirety​ ​of​ ​the​

​assault itself.​

​27.​ ​In​​Anda​​And​​Others​​v.​​State​​Of​​Rajasthan​​1​​,​​the​​Apex​​Court​​had​

​to​ ​deal​ ​with​ ​a​ ​case​ ​wherein​ ​several​ ​accused​ ​beat​ ​the​ ​victim​ ​with​ ​sticks​ ​after​

​dragging​ ​him​ ​into​ ​a​ ​house​ ​and​ ​caused​ ​multiple​ ​injuries,​ ​including​ ​16​ ​lacerated​

​wounds​ ​on​ ​the​ ​arms​​and​​legs,​​a​​hematoma​​on​​the​​forehead​​and​​a​​bruise​​on​​the​

​chest.​​Under​​these​​injuries​​to​​the​​arms​​and​​legs​​lay​​fractures​​of​​the​​right​​and​​left​

​ulnas,​ ​second​ ​and​ ​third​ ​metacarpal​ ​bones​ ​on​ ​the​ ​right​ ​hand​ ​and​ ​second​

​metacarpal​ ​bone​ ​of​​the​​left​​hand,​​compound​​fractures​​of​​the​​right​​tibia​​and​​right​

​fibula.​ ​There​ ​was​ ​loss​ ​of​ ​blood​ ​from​ ​the​ ​injuries.​ ​The​ ​medical​ ​officer​ ​who​

​conducted​​the​​autopsy​​opined​​that​​the​​cause​​of​​the​​death​​was​​shock​​and​​syncope​

​due​​to​​multiple​​injuries;​​that​​all​​the​​injuries​​collectively​​could​​be​​sufficient​​to​​cause​

​death​ ​in​ ​the​ ​ordinary​ ​course​ ​of​ ​nature,​ ​but​ ​individually​ ​none​ ​of​ ​them​ ​was​ ​so​

​sufficient.​

​28.​ ​Question​ ​arose​ ​whether,​ ​in​ ​such​ ​a​ ​case​ ​when​ ​no​ ​significant​ ​injury​

​had​​been​​inflicted​​on​​a​​vital​​part​​of​​the​​body,​​and​​the​​weapons​​used​​were​​ordinary​

​lathis,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​could​​not​​be​​said​​to​​have​​the​​intention​​of​​causing​​death,​

​the​ ​offence​ ​would​ ​be​ ​"murder"​ ​or​ ​merely​ ​"culpable​ ​homicide​ ​not​ ​amounting​ ​to​

​murder".​ ​The​ ​Apex​ ​Court,​ ​speaking​ ​through​ ​Hidayatullah,​ ​J.,​ ​after​​explaining​​the​

​comparative​​scope​​of​​and​​the​​distinction​​between​​Sections​​299​​and​​300,​​answered​

​1​ ​1966 AIR SC 148​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​17​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​the question in these terms:​

"​ The​​injuries​​were​​not​​on​​a​​vital​​part​​of​​the​​body​​and​​no​ ​weapon​​was​​used​​which​​can​​be​​described​​as​​specially​​dangerous.​ ​Only​ ​lathis​ ​were​ ​used.​ ​It​ ​cannot,​ ​therefore,​ ​be​ ​said​ ​safely​ ​that​ ​there​ ​was​ ​an​ ​intention​ ​to​ ​cause​ ​the​ ​death​​of​​Bherun​​within​​the​ ​first​​clause​​of​​Section​​300.​​At​​the​​same​​time,​​it​​is​​obvious​​that​​his​ ​hands​ ​and​ ​legs​ ​were​ ​smashed​ ​and​ ​numerous​ ​bruises​ ​and​ ​lacerated​ ​wounds​ ​were​ ​caused.​ ​The​ ​number​ ​of​ ​injuries​ ​shows​ ​that​ ​everyone​ ​joined​ ​in​ ​beating​ ​him.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​clear​ ​that​ ​the​ ​assailants​ ​aimed​ ​at​ ​breaking​ ​his​ ​arms​ ​and​ ​legs.​ ​Looking​ ​at​ ​the​ ​injuries​​caused​​to​​Bherun​​in​​furtherance​​of​​the​​common​​intention​ ​of​ ​all​ ​it​ ​is​ ​clear​ ​that​ ​the​ ​injuries​ ​intended​ ​to​ ​be​ ​caused​ ​were​ ​sufficient​​to​​cause​​death​​in​​the​​ordinary​​course​​of​​nature​​even​​if​ ​it​​cannot​​be​​said​​that​​his​​death​​was​​intended.​​This​​is​​sufficient​​to​ ​bring the case within thirdly of Section 300.​

​29.​ ​The​ ​ratio​ ​of​ ​Anda​ ​And​​Others​​(supra)​​applies​​in​​full​​force​​to​​the​

​facts of the present case.​

​30.​ ​In​ ​Maniklal​ ​Sahu​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Chhattisgarh​​2​​,​ ​the​ ​Apex​ ​Court​

​was​​confronted​​with​​the​​question​​as​​to​​whether​​in​​a​​case​​where​​the​​prosecution​

​has​ ​proved​​that​​the​​injury​​inflicted​​on​​the​​victim​​was​​fatal​​and​​that​​the​​accused​

​intended​​to​​cause​​death,​​the​​offence​​still​​amount​​to​​murder​​if​​the​​victim's​​death​

​occurred​ ​only​ ​after​ ​several​ ​days​ ​owing​ ​to​​supervening​​medical​​complications​​or​

​other​ ​intervening​ ​circumstances.​ ​The​ ​issue​ ​required​ ​the​ ​Apex​​Court​​to​​examine​

​the​ ​principles​ ​of​ ​causation​ ​and​ ​the​ ​effect​ ​of​ ​delayed​ ​death​ ​on​ ​criminal​ ​liability​

​under​ ​Section​ ​300​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC.​ ​The​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​answered​ ​this​ ​question​ ​in​ ​the​

​affirmative​ ​and,​ ​in​ ​doing​ ​so,​ ​reiterated​ ​and​ ​clarified​ ​certain​ ​broad​ ​principles​ ​to​ ​2​ ​2025 INSC 1107​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​18​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​guide​​the​​Courts.​​These​​principles​​emphasise​​that​​once​​it​​is​​established​​that​​the​

​act​​of​​the​​accused​​inflicted​​an​​injury​​sufficient​​in​​the​​ordinary​​course​​of​​nature​​to​

​cause​​death,​​the​​mere​​lapse​​of​​time​​between​​the​​assault​​and​​the​​eventual​​death,​

​whether​ ​due​ ​to​ ​medical​ ​complications,​ ​infections,​ ​or​ ​other​ ​supervening​ ​factors,​

​does​​not​​dilute​​the​​culpability​​for​​murder.​​The​​Apex​​Court​​laid​​down​​the​​following​

​principles for guidance:​

​a)​ I​ f​​it​​is​​proved​​that​​the​​injury​​was​​fatal​​and​​the​​intention​​was​ ​to​​cause​​death,​​though​​the​​death​​occurred​​after​​several​​days​ ​of​ ​septicaemia​ ​or​ ​other​ ​complications​ ​having​ ​supervened,​ ​yet​​it​​is​​undoubtedly​​a​​murder​​as​​it​​falls​​within​​the​​first​​limb​ ​of Section 300 of the IPC.​

​b)​ I​ f​​it​​is​​proved​​that​​the​​injuries​​by​​themselves​​were​​sufficient​ ​to​ ​cause​ ​death​ ​in​ ​the​ ​ordinary​ ​course​​of​​nature,​​and​​if​​it​​is​ ​established​ ​that​ ​those​ ​injuries​ ​were​ ​the​ ​intended​ ​injuries,​ ​though​ ​the​ ​death​ ​might​ ​have​ ​occurred​ ​after​​septicaemia​​or​ ​other​ ​complications​ ​had​ ​supervened,​ ​yet​ ​the​ ​act​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​would​ ​squarely​ ​fall​ ​under​ ​the​ ​third​ ​limb​ ​of​​Section​ ​300​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC​ ​and​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​is​ ​therefore​ ​liable​ ​to​ ​be​ ​punished under Section 302 of the IPC.​

​c)​ I​ f​​it​​is​​proved​​that​​the​​injuries​​were​​imminently​​dangerous​​to​ ​life,​ ​though​ ​the​ ​death​ ​had​ ​occurred​ ​after​ ​septicaemia​ ​or​ ​other​ ​complications​ ​had​ ​supervened,​ ​yet​ ​the​ ​act​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​​would​ ​squarely​​fall​​under​​the​​fourth​​limb​​of​​Section​ ​300​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC,​ ​provided,​ ​the​ ​other​ ​requirements​ ​like​ ​knowledge​​on​​the​​part​​of​​the​​accused,​​etc.​​are​​satisfied​​and​ ​so​​the​​accused​​would​​be​​liable​​to​​be​​punished​​under​​Section​ ​302​​of​​the​​IPC.​​Here​​also,​​the​​primary​​cause​​of​​the​​death​​is​ ​the injuries and septicaemia.​

​d)​ I​ n​​judging​​whether​​the​​injuries​​inflicted​​were​​sufficient​​in​​the​ ​ordinary​​course​​of​​nature​​to​​cause​​death,​​the​​possibility​​that​ ​skilful​​and​​efficient​​medical​​treatment​​might​​prevent​​the​​fatal​ ​result is wholly irrelevant.​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​19​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​e)​ I​ f​ ​the​ ​supervening​ ​causes​ ​are​ ​attributable​ ​to​ ​the​ ​injuries​ ​caused,​ ​then​ ​the​ ​person​ ​inflicting​ ​the​ ​injuries​ ​is​ ​liable​ ​for​ ​causing​​death,​​even​​if​​death​​was​​not​​the​​direct​​result​​of​​the​ ​injuries.​

​f )​ B ​ roadly​ ​speaking,​ ​the​ ​courts​ ​would​ ​have​ ​to​ ​undertake​ ​the​ ​exercise​ ​to​ ​distinguish​ ​between​ ​two​ ​types​ ​of​ ​cases;​ ​first,​ ​where​​the​​intervening​​cause​​of​​death,​​like​​peritonitis,​​is​​only​ ​a​​remote​​and​​a​​rather​​improbable​​consequence​​of​​the​​injury;​ ​then​ ​it​ ​can​ ​be​ ​said​ ​that​ ​the​ ​injury​ ​is​ ​one​ ​which​ ​may,​ ​in​ ​particular​​circumstances,​​result​​in​​death,​​but​​which​​may​​not​ ​in​​ordinary​​course​​of​​nature​​be​​likely​​to​​lead​​to​​it.​​Secondly,​ ​where​ ​the​ ​complication​ ​which​ ​is​ ​the​ ​intervening​ ​cause​ ​of​ ​death​ ​is​​itself​​a​​practically​​inevitable​​sequence​​to​​the​​injury.​ ​In​​that​​event,​​the​​probability​​is​​very​​high​​indeed,​​amounting​ ​to​ ​practical​ ​certainty​ ​i.e.,​ ​death​ ​is​ ​a​ ​result​ ​in​​due​​course​​of​ ​natural​ ​events.​ ​A​ ​deep​ ​abdominal​ ​thrust​ ​with​ ​a​ ​knife​ ​followed​​by​​injury​​to​​the​​internal​​organs​​is​​practically​​certain​ ​to​ ​result​ ​in​ ​acute​ ​peritonitis​ ​causing​ ​death.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​clearly​ ​a​ ​case​ ​of​ ​murder​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​302​ ​and​ ​not​ ​merely​ ​of​ ​culpable homicide.​

​g)​ E ​ ven​ ​when​ ​the​​medical​​evidence​​does​​not​​say​​that​​any​​one​ ​of​​the​​injuries​​on​​the​​body​​of​​the​​deceased​​was​​sufficient​​to​ ​cause​ ​death​ ​in​ ​the​ ​ordinary​ ​course​​of​​nature,​​yet​​it​​is​​open​ ​to​ ​the​​Court​​to​​look​​into​​the​​nature​​of​​the​​injuries​​found​​on​ ​the​ ​body​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​and​ ​infer​ ​from​ ​them​ ​that​ ​the​ ​assailants​​intended​​to​​cause​​death​​of​​the​​deceased.​​If​​none​ ​of​​the​​injuries​​alone​​were​​sufficient​​in​​the​​ordinary​​course​​of​ ​nature​ ​to​ ​cause​ ​the​ ​death​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased,​ ​cumulatively,​ ​they​ ​may​ ​be​ ​sufficient​ ​in​ ​the​ ​ordinary​ ​course​ ​of​ ​nature​ ​to​ ​cause his death.​

​h)​ W ​ hat​ ​the​ ​courts​ ​must​ ​see​ ​is​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​injuries​ ​were​ ​sufficient​​in​​the​​ordinary​​course​​of​​nature​​to​​cause​​death,​​or​ ​to​​cause​​such​​bodily​​injuries​​as​​the​​accused​​knew​​to​​be​​likely​ ​to​ ​cause​ ​death​ ​although​ ​death​ ​was​ ​ultimately​ ​due​ ​to​ ​supervention​ ​of​ ​some​ ​other​ ​cause.​ ​An​ ​intervening​ ​cause​​or​ ​complication​ ​is​ ​by​ ​itself​ ​not​ ​of​ ​such​ ​significance.​ ​What​ ​is​ ​significant​​is​​whether​​death​​was​​only​​a​​remote​​possibility,​​or​ ​is one which would have occurred in due course.​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​20​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​i)​ ​ o​ ​sum​ ​it​ ​up,​ ​where​ ​death​ ​is​ ​delayed​ ​due​ ​to​ ​later​ T ​complications​ ​or​ ​developments,​ ​the​ ​courts​ ​should​ ​consider​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​of​ ​the​ ​injury,​ ​complications​ ​or​ ​the​ ​attending​ ​circumstances.​​If​​the​​complications​​or​​developments​​are​​the​ ​natural,​​or​​probable,​​or​​necessary​​consequence​​of​​the​​injury,​ ​and​ ​if​ ​it​ ​is​ ​reasonably​ ​contemplated​ ​as​​its​​result,​​the​​injury​ ​could​ ​be​ ​said​ ​to​ ​have​ ​caused​ ​death.​ ​If​ ​on​ ​the​ ​other​ ​hand,​ ​the​ ​chain​ ​of​ ​consequences​ ​is​ ​broken,​ ​or​ ​if​ ​there​ ​is​ ​unexpected​ ​complication​ ​causing​ ​new​ ​mischief,​ ​the​ ​relation​ ​of​ ​cause​ ​and​ ​effect​ ​is​ ​not​ ​established,​ ​or​ ​the​ ​causal​ ​connection​ ​is​ ​too​ ​remote​ ​then​ ​the​ ​injury​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​said​ ​to​ ​have​ ​caused​ ​death.​ ​If​ ​the​ ​original​ ​injury​ ​itself​ ​is​ ​of​ ​a​ ​fatal​ ​nature,​ ​it​ ​makes​ ​no​​difference​​that​​death​​is​​actually​​caused​ ​by​ ​a​​complication​​naturally​​flowing​​from​​the​​injury​​and​​not​ ​the injury itself, since causal connection is proximate.​

​31.​ ​In​​the​​case​​on​​hand,​​a​​direct​​causal​​connection​​between​​the​​act​​of​

​the​ ​accused​ ​and​ ​the​ ​death​ ​has​ ​been​ ​established.​ ​The​ ​injuries​ ​were​ ​also​ ​the​

​direct​ ​cause​ ​of​ ​the​ ​death.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​also​ ​no​ ​doubt​ ​whatsoever​ ​that​ ​the​ ​beating​

​was​ ​premeditated​ ​and​ ​calculated​ ​as​ ​opined​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Doctor​ ​who​ ​conducted​ ​the​

​autopsy.​ ​The​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​the​ ​mother​ ​used​ ​to​ ​be​ ​physically​ ​assaulted​ ​even​ ​earlier​

​was​ ​established​ ​by​ ​examining​ ​PW3​ ​and​ ​PW5.​ ​The​ ​aim​ ​of​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​was​ ​to​

​smash​ ​the​ ​skull​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased,​ ​and​ ​he​ ​succeeded​ ​in​ ​that​ ​design,​ ​causing​​no​

​less​​than​​22​​injuries,​​including​​multiple​​fatal​​contusions​​on​​the​​head.​​The​​acts​​of​

​the​ ​accused​ ​were​ ​preplanned​ ​and​ ​intentional,​ ​which,​ ​considered​ ​objectively​ ​in​

​the​​light​​of​​the​​medical​​evidence,​​were​​sufficient​​in​​the​​ordinary​​course​​of​​nature​

​to​​cause​​death.​​The​​mere​​fact​​that​​the​​beating​​was​​with​​a​​stick​​or​​that​​she​​had​

​died​ ​after​ ​a​ ​few​ ​days​ ​or​ ​that​ ​none​ ​of​ ​the​ ​multiple​ ​injuries​ ​inflicted​ ​was​

​individually​ ​sufficient​ ​in​ ​the​ ​ordinary​ ​course​ ​of​ ​nature​ ​to​ ​cause​ ​death,​ ​will​ ​not​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​21​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​exclude​ ​the​ ​application​ ​of​ ​clause​ ​thirdly​ ​of​ ​Section​ ​300.​ ​The​ ​expression​ ​"bodily​

​injury"​ ​in​ ​clause​​thirdly​​also​​includes​​its​​plural,​​so​​that​​the​​clause​​would​​cover​​a​

​case​ ​where​ ​all​ ​the​ ​injuries​ ​intentionally​​caused​​by​​the​​accused​​are​​cumulatively​

​sufficient​ ​to​ ​cause​ ​the​ ​death​ ​in​ ​the​ ​ordinary​ ​course​ ​of​ ​nature,​ ​even​ ​if​ ​none​ ​of​

​those​​injuries​​individually​​measures​​up​​to​​such​​sufficiency.​​The​​sufficiency​​spoken​

​of​ ​in​ ​this​ ​clause,​ ​as​ ​already​ ​noticed,​ ​is​ ​the​ ​high​ ​probability​ ​of​ ​death​ ​in​ ​the​

​ordinary​​course​​of​​nature,​​and​​if​​such​​sufficiency​​exists​​and​​death​​is​​caused​​and​

​the​ ​injury​ ​causing​ ​it​ ​is​ ​intentional,​ ​the​ ​case​ ​would​ ​fall​ ​under​ ​clause​ ​thirdly​ ​of​

​Section​ ​300​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC.​ ​The​ ​weapon​ ​used,​ ​the​ ​size​ ​of​ ​the​ ​weapon,​ ​the​ ​place​

​where​ ​the​ ​assault​ ​took​ ​place,​ ​the​ ​background​ ​facts​ ​leading​ ​to​ ​the​ ​assault,​​and​

​the​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​body​ ​where​ ​the​ ​blow​ ​was​ ​given​ ​are​ ​factors​ ​that​ ​are​ ​to​ ​be​

​considered.​​All​​the​​conditions​​which​​are​​a​​prerequisite​​for​​the​​applicability​​of​​this​

​clause​​have​​been​​established,​​and​​the​​offence​​committed​​by​​the​​accused,​​in​​the​

​instant​​case,​​was​​"murder".​​Furthermore,​​the​​deceased​​was​​known​​to​​suffer​​from​

​a​ ​vulnerable​ ​neurological​ ​disorder,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​was​ ​aware​ ​of​ ​her​ ​frail​

​condition.​​This​​awareness​​heightens​​the​​foreseeability​​of​​death​​and​​removes​​any​

​possible​ ​excuse​ ​for​ ​assuming​ ​the​ ​risk.​ ​The​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​the​ ​victim​ ​died​ ​eight​ ​days​

​later​ ​does​ ​not​ ​break​ ​the​ ​causal​ ​chain;​ ​delayed​ ​death​ ​from​​intracranial​​bleeding​

​and brain swelling is a well-recognised consequence of severe head trauma.​

​32.​ ​In​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​discussion​ ​above,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​of​ ​the​ ​view​ ​that​ ​the​

​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​has​​evaluated​​the​​entire​​evidence​​and​​has​​rightly​​arrived​ ​Crl.A. No. 496 of 2020​ ​22​ ​2025:KER:68207​

​at​ ​the​ ​finding​ ​of​ ​guilt,​ ​conviction​ ​and​ ​sentence.​ ​We​ ​find​ ​no​ ​reason​ ​to​ ​interfere​

​with the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge.​

​This Appeal is dismissed.​

Sd/-​ ​

​RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,​ ​JUDGE​

Sd/-​ ​ ​K.V. JAYAKUMAR,​ ​JUDGE​

​PS/15/9/25​