A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around the culpability of the appellant in a politically motivated altercation that resulted in the murder of Subrahmannian and injuries to another person, CW-1. The appellant, along with co-accused, was convicted under Sections 302, 324, and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Trial Court and High Court upheld the conviction, rejecting claims of private defense and lack of intent. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the conviction, emphasizing the fatal injuries inflicted on vital organs, dismissing arguments for sentence reduction on parity grounds. The Court ruled that the plea of old age and medical condition could not override the severity of the crime.

Keywords:
Murder Conviction, Intention to Kill, Private Defense Exception, Doctrine of Parity, Reduction of Sentence

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title
Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala

ii) Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 5097 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date
06 December 2024

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B. Varale

vi) Author
Justice Vikram Nath

vii) Citation
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 392 : 2024 INSC 937

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

  • Section 302 – Punishment for Murder
  • Section 324 – Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Weapons
  • Section 326 – Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt
  • Section 34 – Common Intention

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

  • Section 313 – Examination of Accused

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872

  • Section 27 – Confession leading to discovery

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case
None.

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects

• Criminal Law
• Evidence Law
• Sentencing Jurisprudence

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arose from a politically charged altercation in which members of two political groups clashed violently. The prosecution alleged premeditated murder, whereas the defense claimed self-defense. The Trial Court convicted the appellant, and the High Court upheld the conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the conviction, asserting that (a) the act was not premeditated, (b) he acted in self-defense, (c) his sentence should be reduced on parity with co-accused, and (d) his old age and health should be considered for leniency. The Supreme Court dismissed all claims and upheld the life sentence.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Incident Background – On April 10, 2006, a political dispute between United Democratic Front (UDF) and Left Democratic Front (LDF) led to violent clashes.
2. Attack on April 11, 2006 – The appellant and his co-accused attacked the deceased (Subrahmannian) and CW-1 (Vasudevan Ramachandra) with sticks and a knife.
3. Fatal Assault – The appellant stabbed the deceased multiple times in the chest, heart, and back, leading to instant death.
4. Eyewitness Testimony – PW-1 and PW-2 provided consistent accounts, confirming that the appellant led the attack with a knife.
5. Medical Evidence – The post-mortem confirmed multiple stab wounds, including a fatal injury to the heart.
6. Trial and Conviction – The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 324, and 326 IPC, which was affirmed by the High Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Did the appellant have the intention to commit murder under Section 300, IPC?
2. Can the act be classified under Section 304, IPC as a case of exceeding private defense?
3. Should the appellant’s sentence be reduced based on parity with co-accused?
4. Should old age and health concerns be considered for reducing the sentence?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. No Premeditation – The appellant claimed the act was not pre-planned but happened in a scuffle.
2. Self-Defense – The appellant argued he acted in private defense when attacked by the deceased.
3. Parity with Co-Accused – The appellant sought sentence reduction on parity grounds, as one co-accused was acquitted, and another had a reduced sentence.
4. Old Age & Medical Condition – The appellant, aged 67, claimed health issues warranted leniency.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Premeditated Intent – The prosecution argued that multiple stab wounds to vital organs prove clear intent to kill.
2. Self-Defense Not Applicable – The appellant was the aggressor, and the force used was excessive.
3. Doctrine of Parity Not Applicable – The appellant played the primary role in the murder, unlike co-accused.
4. Old Age & Health Not Relevant – Life imprisonment is mandatory under Section 302 IPC, and age/health cannot mitigate the sentence.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Fatal Injuries Prove Intent – The appellant inflicted multiple stab wounds on the deceased’s heart and lungs, showing clear intention to kill.
2. Private Defense Rejected – The appellant initiated the attack and used disproportionate force, negating Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC.
3. Doctrine of Parity Not Applicable – The appellant’s act of stabbing was independent and deliberate, making parity with co-accused irrelevant.
4. Old Age & Health Not Grounds for Leniency – Since life imprisonment is the minimum punishment for murder, no further reduction is permissible.

b. OBITER DICTA (IF ANY)

• The political background of the case was noted, but did not influence the legal determination of the offense.

c. GUIDELINES (IF ANY)

• The principle of parity does not apply when co-accused play different roles in a crime.
• Self-defense cannot be claimed by aggressors who initiate violence.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirms well-established principles of criminal liability. The appellant’s intent to kill was inferred from the nature, severity, and location of the injuries. The plea of private defense was rightly rejected as the appellant was the aggressor. The principle of parity was not applicable as the appellant’s role was distinct and more culpable. The plea of old age and health could not override the mandatory life sentence under Section 302 IPC.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Virsa Singh v. State of Pepsu [(1958) SCR 1495]
2. Manubhai Atabhai v. State of Gujarat [(2007) 10 SCC 358]
3. Nishan Singh v. State of Punjab [(2008) 17 SCC 505]
4. Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab [(2010) 2 SCC 333]
5. Vinod Kumar v. Amritpal [(2021) 19 SCC 181]

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 304, 324, 326, 34)
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 27)
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 313)