Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Political Rivalry Case: Kunhimuhammed vs. State of Kerala (2024)

Date of the Judgment: December 06, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 937

Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Prasanna B. Varale, J.

Can a sudden fight during a political clash lead to a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a fatal stabbing during a political altercation. The core issue was whether the accused’s actions constituted murder or a lesser offense of culpable homicide. The court examined the evidence to determine if the accused had the intention to kill or merely acted in the heat of the moment. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

Case Background

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on April 11, 2006, in Kunnappalli, Pathaikkara Village, Kerala. The appellant, Kunhimuhammed, along with other accused, who were sympathizers of the Indian Union Muslim League, engaged in a violent confrontation with sympathizers of the Left Democratic Front (LDF). This clash was rooted in a prior dispute on April 10, 2006, concerning the drawing of election symbols, which led to a criminal case against UDF sympathizers. On April 11, 2006, the appellant and other accused waited at Mukkilaplavu Junction, intending to harm Subrahmannian and Vasudevan Ramachandra. When Subrahmannian and Vasudevan Ramachandra arrived, the appellant initially attempted to assault Subrahmannian with a tamarind stick. Subrahmannian retaliated, snatching the stick and hitting the appellant. The appellant then pulled out a knife and stabbed Subrahmannian multiple times, resulting in his death. Vasudevan Ramachandra was also stabbed when he tried to intervene. Following the incident, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered, and the accused were arrested.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court found the appellant guilty of offenses under Sections 302, 324, and 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder and additional terms for other offenses. The High Court of Kerala dismissed the appeals of all three accused, affirming the Trial Court’s decision. The second and third accused had previously approached the Supreme Court, which partly allowed their appeal. The Supreme Court extended the benefit of doubt to the third accused and reduced the sentence of the second accused. The current appeal was filed by the first accused, challenging his conviction and sentence.

Legal Framework

The key legal provisions in this case are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder, which is life imprisonment or the death penalty.
• Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines murder and culpable homicide. Clause 3 of Section 300 states that culpable homicide is murder if the act is done with the intention of causing bodily injury, and the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the admissibility of information leading to the discovery of facts.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The incident was not a premeditated murder but a result of a sudden scuffle.
• There was no mens rea (guilty mind) for committing murder. The intention was only to assault with a stick.
• The appellant acted in self-defense after the deceased snatched the stick and began assaulting him.
• The appellant is 67 years old and suffering from multiple ailments, having served over twelve and a half years of actual sentence.
• The conviction should be converted to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and the sentence should be reduced.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The Trial Court and High Court correctly found it to be a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder.
• The appellant carrying a knife and the number of assaults on the deceased clearly indicate an intention to commit murder.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the court was:

1. Whether the appellant’s act of stabbing the deceased amounted to murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to a reduction in sentence based on his age, health condition, and parity with the co-accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Virsa Singh vs. State of Pepsu, 1958 SCR 1495, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to explain that for an injury to be considered sufficient to cause death, it must be examined based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court also discussed the intention to cause a specific injury.
• Manubhai Atabhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2007) 10 SCC 358, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to support the position that when eyewitness testimony is reliable and corroborated by medical and other evidence, it is sufficient to prove the charge of murder.
• Arun Nivalaji More vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 12 SCC 613, Supreme Court of India: This case was also cited to support the position that when eyewitness testimony is reliable and corroborated by medical and other evidence, it is sufficient to prove the charge of murder.
• Nishan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 17 SCC 505, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to highlight that if a person snatches a weapon and inflicts injuries, it cannot be said that they did not have the intention to cause death.
• Vinod Kumar vs. Amritpal, (2021) 19 SCC 181, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to reiterate that once the prosecution establishes the ingredients of Section 300, it is irrelevant whether the accused intended to cause death or knew their actions were likely to cause death.
• Balkar Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2009) 15 SCC 366, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to explain that culpable homicide is murder if the act causing death is done with the intention of causing death or bodily injury, and if the injury is sufficient to cause death.
• Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to explain that the right of private defense is provided to citizens to protect themselves from imminent danger but should not be misused.
• V. Subramani vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 10 SCC 358, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to explain that the number of injuries on the accused side may not be sufficient to establish right of private defense.
• Sone Lal vs. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 531, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to explain that aggressors cannot claim the right of private defense.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Authorities

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Nature of Injuries: The severity and location of the injuries inflicted on the deceased, particularly the fatal wounds to the heart and lungs, were crucial in establishing the intent to cause death.
• Use of a Deadly Weapon: The appellant’s use of a knife, a lethal weapon, indicated a readiness to escalate violence and cause grievous harm.
• Eyewitness Testimony: The testimony of PW1, the injured eyewitness, was found to be credible and consistent with the medical evidence.
• Lack of Private Defense: The appellant’s injuries were minor, and he was found to be the aggressor, negating any claim of private defense.
• Culpability: The appellant’s actions were deemed more culpable than the co-accused, as he was the one who inflicted the fatal injuries.
• Legal Precedents: The court relied on established legal principles and precedents to determine that the appellant’s actions constituted murder.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Ratio of Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of Subrahmannian. The court found that the evidence, including eyewitness testimony, medical reports, and forensic findings, overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that the appellant had intentionally caused the death of the deceased. The Court also rejected the appellant’s plea for a reduction in sentence, emphasizing that the gravity of the offense and the appellant’s individual culpability outweighed considerations of age and health. The court stated that “the appellant’s actions amount to murder under Section 300, IPC and thus punishable under Section 302, IPC.”

The court also reiterated the principle 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.” The court further added that “grounds like parity, leniency, old age, health concerns, etc. shall not be of any aid to the accused while seeking reduction of sentence.”

Key Takeaways

• The use of a deadly weapon and the targeting of vital organs can establish intent to cause death, leading to a murder conviction.
• Claims of private defense must be supported by evidence of imminent danger and proportionate force.
• Sentencing decisions are based on the individual culpability of the accused, and parity with co-accused is not automatic.
• Old age and health conditions are considered but do not automatically mitigate the severity of a murder conviction.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the established legal principles regarding murder under Section 300 and the punishment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment emphasizes that the intention to cause death can be inferred from the nature of injuries, the weapon used, and the circumstances of the attack. It also clarifies that the right of private defense is not absolute and that aggressors cannot claim this right. The Court reiterated that once a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is confirmed, the minimum sentence is life imprisonment.

Conclusion

In the case of Kunhimuhammed vs. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s murder conviction, affirming that the act of stabbing and killing during a political clash constituted murder. The court emphasized the severity of the injuries, the use of a deadly weapon, and the lack of a valid claim of private defense. The judgment underscores the importance of individual culpability in sentencing and the limitations of using age and health as mitigating factors in serious crimes like murder.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Culpable Homicide
• Murder
• Right of Private Defense

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Kunhimuhammed vs. State of Kerala case?

A: The main issue was whether the appellant’s act of stabbing and killing the deceased during a scuffle amounted to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and dismissed the appeal for a reduction in sentence.

Q: What is the significance of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

A: Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, specifies the punishment for murder, which is life imprisonment or the death penalty.

Q: What is the difference between murder and culpable homicide?

A: Murder is a more severe form of culpable homicide, which involves the intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder may involve a lesser degree of intent or knowledge.

Q: Can a person claim self-defense in a murder case?

A: Yes, but the claim must be supported by evidence of imminent danger and the use of proportionate force. The right of private defense is not available to the aggressor.

Q: How does the court determine the intention to commit murder?

A: The court examines the nature of the injuries, the weapon used, the circumstances of the attack, and the actions of the accused to determine the intention behind the act.

Q: Does old age or health condition reduce the sentence for murder?

A: While these factors are considered, they do not automatically reduce the sentence for murder. The gravity of the crime and the culpability of the accused are also taken into account.