[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ammed vs State Of Kerala on 22 January, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:5067
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 2ND MAGHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1281 OF 2019
CRIME NO.183/2017 OF VALAYAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.01.2019 IN SC NO.894
OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - I, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
AMMED
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O SHUKKOOR HAJI, VIRUTHIRAMATH VEEDU,
SHAPPMUKKU, VALAYAM P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673517
BY ADVS.
SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER
KUM.K.SALMA JENNATH
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. T.R.RENJITH, P.P.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
14.01.2026, THE COURT ON 22.01.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :2: 2026:KER:5067
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The sole accused in S.C. No.894/2017 on the file of the
Sessions Court, Kozhikode, has preferred this appeal challenging the
judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against him for
the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:
The accused and the deceased Subair were brothers, residing
together in their ancestral house bearing No.IX/2015 of Valayam Grama
Panchayath. Prior to the incident, the deceased had purchased a pair of
goats. But a dog attacked and killed one of the said goats, and the other
sustained injuries. Following the said incident, on 03.05.2017, the
deceased tied the injured goat in the verandah of the house to save it
from the dogs' attack. The accused, who disliked the same, on the same
day, at about 7 p.m. questioned the deceased, which resulted in a
sudden quarrel between them. During the quarrel, the accused went
inside the house, took a knife, placed it in his loin and came back to the
courtyard of the house. On seeing this, the deceased took a rafter. Then
the accused snatched the rafter from the deceased and beat him on the
head. Thereafter, the accused took the knife and stabbed the deceased
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :3: 2026:KER:5067
in the chest. After the incident, though the injured was taken to the
hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the accused is alleged to
have committed the offences mentioned above.
3. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report was laid
before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram. Being satisfied that
the case is one triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the learned
Magistrate, after complying with all the necessary formalities, committed
the case to the Court of Session, Kozhikode, under section 209 of Cr.P.C.
The learned Sessions Judge, having taken cognizance, issued process to
the accused, and in response to the same, the accused, who was under
judicial custody, was produced before the trial court. On production of
the accused, the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides under
section 227 of Cr.P.C. and upon perusal of the records, framed a written
charge against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 324
and 302 of IPC. When the charge was read over and explained to the
accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to
PW24 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P50. MO1 and MO6 were
exhibited and identified. After the completion of the prosecution
evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :4: 2026:KER:5067
during which he denied all the incriminating materials brought out in
evidence against him. Thereafter, both sides were heard under Section
232 of Cr.P.C., and since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused
under the said provision, the accused was directed to enter on his
defence and to adduce any evidence that he may have in support
thereof. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced from the side
of the accused. Thereafter, both sides were heard in detail, and finally,
the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 324 and 302 of the IPC, and he was
convicted. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for
offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC. In default of payment
of the fine, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for six months. The accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for offence punishable under Section
302 of the IPC. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Fine amount,
if paid or realised, Rs.50,000/- was ordered to be given to PW1 and her
two children under Section 357(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the trial
court had directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the District
Legal Services Authority concerned and recommended to fix and pay
appropriate compensation as per the victim compensation scheme
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :5: 2026:KER:5067
provided under Section 357-A of Cr.P.C. Challenging the said finding of
guilt, conviction, and the order of sentence passed, the accused has
preferred this appeal.
5. We heard Sri.Thareeq Anver K., the learned legal aid counsel
appearing for the appellant, and Sri. T. R. Renjith, the learned Public
Prosecutor.
6. This is a case of fratricide. The law was set in motion in this
case on the strength of the statement given by a neighbour of the
deceased to PW22, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Valayam Police
Station. Acting upon this initial statement, PW17, the Sub Inspector of
Police, Valayam Police Station, registered the First Information Report
(FIR), marked as Ext.P25, alleging the commission of offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following the
registration of the FIR, the Circle Inspector of Police, Nadapuram
(PW23), conducted investigation in the case, and after compiling the
evidence and materials collected, he filed the final report before the
Judicial Magistrate.
7. When the neighbour of the deceased, the first informant, was
examined as PW21, he deposed as follows:
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :6: 2026:KER:5067
He was acquainted with both the accused and the deceased, who
are brothers. On 03.05.2017, between 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m., while he
was watching television in his house, he heard a loud noise emanating
from the house of the accused. On hearing the same, he rushed to the
accused's house. Upon reaching there, he found Subair, the deceased,
lying in the courtyard of the house in a pool of blood. At that time, apart
from the accused, the wife (PW1), children, and mother of the deceased
were present at the scene. He also noticed the presence of neighbours,
namely Nadira, Shahina (PW19), and Abdulla. As directed by Abdulla, he
took Abdulla's jeep and took Subair to VIMS Hospital, Kallachi. The
accused, the wife of the deceased, her children, Abdulla, and one Rashid
(PW18) accompanied him in the said vehicle. After examining Subair, the
doctor informed them that his condition was serious and referred him to
the Medical College Hospital. Accordingly, Subair was taken to the
Malabar Medical College Hospital, Modakkallur in an ambulance. He did
not go to the Medical College hospital. PW21 further deposed that at the
hospital, the wife of the deceased stated that it was the accused who
had stabbed her husband and that he should not be spared.
Subsequently, he came to know that Subair had succumbed to his
injuries. Then he immediately went to the police station and gave a
statement to the police. Ext.P28 is the statement so given by him.
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :7: 2026:KER:5067
8. The crucial evidence which the prosecution relies upon to prove
the occurrence is the evidence of PW1 and PW4, the wife and son
respectively of the deceased. When the wife of the deceased was
examined as PW1, she deposed that the accused in this case is her
husband's brother. During the period of occurrence, she, along with her
husband and children were residing in the tharavad house where her
mother-in-law and the accused were also residing. The incident in this
case occurred on 03.05.2017. Prior to the incident, her husband
purchased two goats, out of which one was attacked and killed by a dog.
In order to save the other goat from dog's attack, her husband tied it in
the verandah of the house. The accused, who disliked the same, asked
her husband to remove the goat from the verandah. Then her husband
replied that he would remove the goat on the next day after making a
shed. Then there occurred a wordy altercation between both of them,
and her husband started to search the number of the police to call them.
Then the accused, who entered inside the house, returned with a knife.
By that time, her husband, who came to the courtyard of the house, took
a wooden rafter. Suddenly, the accused snatched the said rafter and
struck on her husband's head using the same. Thereafter the accused
took a knife from his loin and stabbed on her husband's chest. Then her
husband fell down. When she cried aloud, the neighbours, namely
Abdulla and Shahid, Najira and Ayisha rushed to the spot. Then her
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :8: 2026:KER:5067
husband was lying unconscious in the courtyard and the accused was
standing in the verandah. Then, one Nidhinlal (PW21) came with
Abdulla's jeep. Then she, her children, Rashid (PW18) and Abdulla took
her husband to a hospital in the said jeep. At the compulsion of the
neighbours, the accused also came to the hospital in the said jeep. Her
husband was initially taken to VIMS hospital, Kallachi. After examining
her husband, the doctor referred him to the Medical College Hospital
and accordingly, he was taken to Malabar Medical College in an
ambulance. After examining her husband, the doctor confirmed her
husband's death. According to PW1, when the wordy altercation
between her husband and the accused started, she also came out of the
house to the courtyard. PW1 identified the knife used by the accused to
stab her husband, and the same was marked as MO1. The rafter with
which the accused struck on the head of the deceased was also identified
by PW1, and the same was marked as MO2. The shirt and dothi worn by
her husband at the time of the occurrence were marked as MO3 and
MO4, respectively. The lungi worn by the accused at the time of
commission of the offence was also identified by PW1 and marked as
MO5.
9. When the minor child of the deceased was examined as PW4,
he deposed in tune with the evidence given by PW1. The evidence of
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :9: 2026:KER:5067
PW1 and PW4 regarding the material aspects of the incident is mutually
corroborative and free from contradictions and omissions, even of a
minor nature.
10. Before examining the reliability and credibility of the
eyewitnesses' evidence in detail, it is appropriate to consider the medical
evidence adduced regarding the nature of the injuries sustained by the
deceased and the cause of death. According to the prosecution case,
immediately after the incident, the injured was taken to VIMS Hospital,
Kallachi, and thereafter to the Malabar Medical College Hospital. When
the casualty medical officer of the Medical College Hospital was examined
as PW20, he deposed that on 03.05.2017, while he was working as the
casualty medical officer, one Mr. Subair (the deceased) was brought
before him by one Muhammad Rashid (PW18). PW20 stated that, upon
examination, he noted a deep lacerated wound over the lower chest and
that the injured was brought dead to the casualty. The examination
report prepared by PW20 was marked as Ext.P27.
11. The doctor who conducted autopsy examination when
examined as PW16, deposed that on 04.05.2017, while he was working
as Assistant Professor and Assistant Police Surgeon, Department of
Forensic Medicine, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, he
conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased in
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :10: 2026:KER:5067
this case. Ext.P24 is the postmortem certificate issued by PW16.
Referring to Ext.P24 postmortem certificate, PW16, deposed that in the
autopsy examination, he had noticed the following antemortem injuries:-
1. Scratch abrasion, 2.5cm long, curvilinear, transversely placed
with convexity facing downwards over outer aspect of right upper
arm, 7.5cm below tip of right shoulder.
2. Multiple abrasions, over an area 12x2-14cm, involving back
and both sides of right elbow and forearm, lower end, 19cm
above right wrist.
3. Abraded contusion, 3x2x1cm, on the front aspect of left mid
thigh, 14cm above knee.
4. Multiple skin contusions, over an area 12x2-4cm, over the
inner aspect of left upper arm and elbow, lower end at elbow.
5. Incised, punctured, penetrated wound, 3x0.5cm (maximum
possible approximation), vertically oblique on the front of lower
chest on right side, upper outer end 2.5cm to the right of midline
and 19 cm below right collar bone. The margins of the wound
were sharply cut. Upper end of the wound was blunt and lower
end seen sharply cut and showed minimal tailing towards right.
There was surrounding skin contusion, over an area 4x2 cm,
broader around the upper and inner aspect of the wound. This
wound entered into the mediastinum by penetrating the body of
sternum over its lower part (2.8x1.3 cm) just above the
xiphisternum and produced a cut over from portion of
pericardium, 3.5x1cm (maximum possible approximation). The
wound track reached to the right atrium, producing a cut over its
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :11: 2026:KER:5067
anterior wall, 3x0.5x1cm and produced a through and through
perforasion over the root of aorta. The right coronary artery seen
transected at its origin. The wound track seen entered into the
left atrium by penetrating its anterior wall. Pericardial sac
contained 200 ml of fluid blood and 100 gm of clotted blood.
Right chest cavity, contained 600 ml of fluid blood. Mediastinum
showed thick blood infiltration. The wound was directed from
right to left, below upwards and front to back. The total minimum
depth of the wound=Anterior chest wall (1.5cm) + Sternum
(1.3cm) Pericardium (0.1cm)+Right atrium (1cm)+Aorta
(0.2+0.2=0.4cm)+ Left atrium (0.5cm) = 4.8cm.
6. Scalp contusion, 5x2.5x0.3cm, over right parietal eminence.
7. Contusion, 0.5x0.3x0.2cm, inner mucosa of lower lip on right
side, 1.5cm outer to midline.
12. During examination before court after referring to Ext.P24
postmortem certificate, PW16 opined that the death was due to the
incised, punctured, penetrated (stab) wound sustained to the chest
entering into the heart (injury No.5). Likewise, when PW16 was
confronted with MO1 knife, the alleged weapon of offence, he deposed
that injury No. 5 noted by him could be caused by a weapon like MO1.
Furthermore, when confronted with MO2 wooden rafter, PW16 deposed
that injury No.6 could be inflicted by using a weapon like MO2. A
conjoint reading of the above-discussed evidence of PW20, PW16 and
the post-mortem certificate issued clearly demonstrates that the death
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :12: 2026:KER:5067
resulted from the incised, penetrating injury sustained to the chest, and
that the nature of the death was homicidal.
13. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the doctor who conducted the autopsy did not expressly
state that the injury observed during the post-mortem examination was
sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. While
considering this contention, it is significant to note that the autopsy
surgeon categorically deposed that it was Injury No. 5 that resulted in
the death of the deceased. It is true that the doctor did not specifically
state that the said injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature,
to cause death. However, the question of whether a medical expert must
invariably, in every case, state that an injury was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death is no longer res integra. In
Sannappa Rayappa Jadge v. State of Karnataka [1994 SCC (Cri)
1167], the Supreme Court held that "the failure of the doctor to
specifically state that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death was immaterial."
14. Likewise, in Joy Devaraj v. State of Kerala [(2024) 8 SCC
102], the Supreme Court clarified that the medical expert's opinion about
whether the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature is highly relevant but not mandatory for establishing murder.
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :13: 2026:KER:5067
However, the absence of a specific statement by the doctor that the
injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature does not preclude
the possibility of convicting an accused under Section 302 IPC, if other
evidence indicates that the injury was likely to cause death. In State of
West Bengal v. Mir Mohammed Omar and Others [(2000) 8 SC
Cases 382], it was observed as follows:
" The question whether the bodily injury was sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death was not put by Public Prosecutor to the doctor
who conducted the post-mortem examination. However, the doctor opined that
the deceased was murdered and that death had resulted from multiple injuries
and injuries on the vital organs. Where, from the nature of injuries, it could be
concluded that injuries are responsible for causing death, the trial court itself
could have come to the same conclusion and hence mere non-mention by the
doctor that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death would be inconsequential."
15. Therefore, even in the absence of a specific deposition by the
doctor stating that the injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of
nature, to cause death, the court can independently assess whether the
injury was likely to result in death by carefully examining the nature of
the wound, the part of the body affected, and the weapon used. In the
present case, the medical evidence indicates that the stab wound
penetrated the apex of the heart. It follows, without the necessity of an
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :14: 2026:KER:5067
expert opinion, that such an injury is sufficient, in the ordinary course of
nature, to cause death. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem
examination categorically deposed that the aforementioned injury was
the cause of death of the deceased. Therefore, the absence of a specific
statement by the doctor that the said injury was sufficient, in the
ordinary course of nature, to cause death is of little consequence.
Moreover, it is significant to note that PW20, the doctor who clinically
examined the injured immediately after the incident, unequivocally
deposed that the injury noted by him on the chest of the injured was
sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Therefore, we
have no hesitation in holding that the medical evidence adduced in this
case convincingly and unerringly establishes that the death of Subair was
nothing but homicide.
16. As already stated, the primary evidence relied upon by the
prosecution to prove the occurrence is the testimony of PW1 and PW4,
the wife and minor child of the deceased, respectively. PW1 deposed in
unequivocal terms that on the fateful day, while she was in the house, a
quarrel ensued between her husband and the accused and during the
said quarrel that the accused murdered her husband by stabbing him
with a knife. PW1 placed before the Court the entire sequence of events
relating to the occurrence with clarity and consistency. PW4, the son of
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :15: 2026:KER:5067
the deceased, also deposed regarding the incident in lines similar to the
testimony of PW1, thereby corroborating her version.
17. However, the evidence of PW1 and PW4 has been primarily
challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that,
being the wife and child of the deceased, they are interested witnesses
and that their testimony alone cannot form the basis for convicting the
accused. It was further contended that it would be unsafe to rely upon
the evidence of related witnesses to arrive at a finding of guilt against
the accused.
18. While considering the appellant's contention in this regard, it
must be borne in mind that there is no rigid or inflexible rule requiring
the evidence of a related witness to be viewed with suspicion in all
circumstances. Nevertheless, in assessing the reliability of the testimony
of a relative witness, the court must exercise caution and act with
discerning circumspection. In the present case, we are therefore firmly of
the view that the appellant's contention that the evidence of PW1 and
PW4 should be discarded at the threshold solely because they are the
wife and son, respectively, of the deceased cannot be accepted.
19. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Rayappa and others
[(2006) 4 SCC 512], the Supreme Court observed as under:
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :16: 2026:KER:5067
"Testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be
discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an
interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness
cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term interested
postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in
seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either
because of animosity or some other reasons. On the contrary, it has
now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and
depose before the court especially in criminal cases because of varied
reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging on for years to come and
the witnesses are harassed a lot. They have been threatened,
intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross-
examination. In such a situation the only natural witness available to
the prosecution would be the relative witness. The relative witness is
not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close
relation to the deceased they will try to prosecute the real culprit by
stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will
implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real
culprit to escape unpunished. The only requirement is that the
testimony of the relative witness should be examined cautiously. "
20. In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar [(1996) 1 SCC 614], it
was observed that "a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be
regarded as an interested witness. The term "interested" postulates that the
witness must have some interest in having the accused somehow or the other
convicted for some animosity or for some other reasons."
21. Keeping in mind the principles enunciated in the
aforementioned judicial pronouncements, while analysing the evidence of
PW1 and PW4, it is significant to note that they testified regarding an
incident in which their close relative tragically lost his life, allegedly at the
hands of the accused. Importantly, the accused is the brother of the
deceased. In ordinary human experience, it cannot reasonably be
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :17: 2026:KER:5067
expected that either a wife or a minor child of the deceased would falsely
implicate an innocent person in a case concerning the murder of their
close relative. This is particularly so because doing so would allow the
actual perpetrator of the offence to evade punishment.
22. Likewise, though PW1 and PW4 were subjected to thorough
and searching cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, they
successfully withstood the same. Even after cross-examination, their
evidence remained consistent and free from contradictions or omissions,
even of a minor nature. We also find no reason to doubt their presence
at the scene of occurrence, as they were inmates of the house where the
incident took place. Moreover, their presence at the house at the time of
commission of the offence stands corroborated by the evidence of the
neighbours who rushed to the scene immediately after the incident. In
view of the foregoing circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding
that the mutually corroborative testimonies of PW1 and PW4 are
sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
23. The remaining question for consideration is whether the facts
proved in this case attract the offence of murder punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC. As spelt out in Section 300 of the IPC, culpable
homicide amounts to murder only if the act causing death is committed
by the accused with the intention of causing the death of the victim, as
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :18: 2026:KER:5067
provided under the first limb of Section 300 IPC; or with the intention of
causing bodily injury to the victim which the accused knows is likely to
cause death, as provided under the second limb; or with the intention of
causing bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death, as provided under the third limb; or with the knowledge
that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability,
cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
committing the act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing
such death or injury, as provided under the fourth limb of Section 300
IPC.
24. In short, culpable homicide amounts to murder if the act is
done with the intention specified in Clauses (1), (2), or (3) of the
definition of murder under Section 300 of the IPC, or with the knowledge
specified in Clause (4) of the said Section. However, if the accused
proves that his act falls within any of the five exceptions provided under
the same Section, the act would be reduced to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
25. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued
that, if the appellant had committed any act that led to the death of the
deceased, such act was done on the spur of the moment during a quarrel
between the accused and the deceased. According to the learned
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :19: 2026:KER:5067
counsel, the proved facts themselves indicate that the act was committed
without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without any intention
to cause death or to inflict bodily injury likely to cause death.
26. While considering the said contention, it is significant to note
that this Court in Antony @ Jose v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC Online
682] observed that when an incident occurs during a sudden quarrel
without premeditation, the accused cannot be attributed with the
intention to commit murder, though he knew that the act is likely to
cause death. Similarly, in Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana
[(2009) 15 SCC 635], the Supreme Court held that where the accused
has no intention to cause death, but had knowledge that his act was
likely to cause death, Section 304 Part II is attracted.
27. In Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab (1981 (4) SCC 245), the
accused, without any prior enmity or premeditation, pursuant to an
abrupt quarrel, gave a single blow with a dagger which later proved to
be fatal. The Apex Court observed that since there was no premeditation,
Part III of Section 300 of the Penal Code would not be attracted as it
cannot be said that the accused intended to inflict that particular injury
which was ultimately found to have been inflicted. In the facts and
circumstances of that case, the conviction of the accused was altered
from Section 302 to that under Section 304 Part II of IPC, and the
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :20: 2026:KER:5067
accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.
28. In Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 2 SCC 342],
the accused, on the spur of the moment, inflicted a knife-blow on the
chest of the deceased. The injury proved to be fatal. The doctor opined
that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. The Apex Court held as under in paragraph No. 8 of the
judgment:
"8. ........The quarrel was of a trivial nature and even in
such a trivial quarrel the appellant wielded a weapon like a
knife and landed a blow in the chest. In these
circumstances, it is a permissible inference that the
appellant at least could be imputed with a knowledge that
he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause
death."
The Apex Court altered the conviction of the appellant from
Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced the accused to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years.
29. In Hem Raj v. The State (Delhi Administration) [1990
SCC (Cri) 713], the accused inflicted a single stab injury landing on the
chest of the deceased. The occurrence admittedly had taken place on the
spur of the moment and in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
According to the doctor, the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death. The Apex Court observed as under:
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :21: 2026:KER:5067
"The question is whether the appellant could be said to have
caused that particular injury with the intention of causing death of
the deceased. As the totality of the established facts and
circumstances do show that the occurrence had happened most
unexpectedly in a sudden quarrel and without premeditation
during the course of which the appellant caused a solitary injury,
he could not be imputed with the intention to cause death of the
deceased or with the intention to cause that particular fatal injury;
but he could be imputed with the knowledge that he was likely to
cause an injury which was likely to cause death. Because in the
absence of any positive proof that the appellant caused the death
of the deceased with the intention of causing death or intentionally
inflicted that particular injury which in the ordinary course of
nature was sufficient to cause death, neither clause I nor clause
III of Section 300 IPC will be attracted."
The Apex Court, while setting aside the conviction under Section
302, convicted the accused under Section 304 Part II and sentenced him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
30. In the case at hand, the evidence of PW1, the wife of the
deceased, clearly establishes that, apart from the incident that occurred
on the ill-fated day, the relationship between the accused and the
deceased was very cordial. Other prosecution witnesses also deposed
that the deceased and the accused shared a good relationship.
Consequently, it is apparent that the accused harboured no prior
animosity toward his brother that could have motivated him to
contemplate his murder. Notably, the evidence shows that immediately
before the unfortunate incident, a sudden quarrel arose between the
accused and the deceased over a trivial matter, and in the heat of the
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :22: 2026:KER:5067
moment, without any prior enmity or premeditation, the accused inflicted
a stab injury on the deceased with a knife. It is evident that the incident
was the direct outcome of a sudden quarrel, and the mere use of a knife
alone cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that there was an
intention to commit murder.
31. The circumstances proved in the case are not sufficient to hold
that the accused intended to cause the death of the victim, or that he
intended to cause bodily injury to the victim which is sufficient, in the
ordinary course of nature, to cause death. Similarly, the circumstances
are not sufficient to hold that the act was committed by the accused with
the knowledge that it was so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
and that he committed the act without any excuse for incurring the risk
of causing such death or injury. In essence, the act of the accused does
not fall under the fourth limb of Section 300 of the IPC. At the same
time, however, the accused can be attributed with the knowledge that
his act was likely to cause death. If that be so, the act committed by the
accused would fall under the third limb of Section 299 of the IPC, and he
is liable to be convicted under Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.
Criminal Appeal No.1281 of 2019 :23: 2026:KER:5067
In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed in part. The finding,
conviction, and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 324
IPC, as recorded by the Sessions Judge, stand confirmed. However, the
conviction of the appellant/accused under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code is altered to one under Section 304 Part II of IPC. The
appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- under Section
304 part II of IPC. In default of payment of the fine, the
appellant/accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further
period of six months. The sentences imposed shall run concurrently. The
fine, if realized or paid, shall be given to the wife of the deceased as
compensation, as provided under Section 357(1) of the Criminal
Procedure Code. The recommendation made by the Sessions Judge to
the District Legal Services Authority to fix and pay compensation under
the Victim Compensation Scheme requires no interference.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
