K. RAMAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 1222 · Decided: 18-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
K. RAMAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
MARCH 18, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIKAND M.B. SHAH, JJ.], 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 378 and 386-Murder 
trial-Acquittal by the Trial Court-Appeal against such acquittal-Scope of 
jurisdiction of the High Court-Consistent evidence of three eye witnesses that 
C the appellant-Accused gave a knife blow on vital part of the deceased when 
he come out of the house on the cries of his son-the eye-witness account was 
fully corroborated by medical evidence-Held, High Court was fully justified 
in re-appreciating the entire evidence on record and to record its own con-
clusions as to whether conviction was sustainable--<::riminal trial-Penal 
D Code, 1860, Sections 300, 302. 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 302 and 304 Part II-Absence of intention to cause deafh and 
· knowledge that the death would be the inevitable result-Effect on conviction 
E under Section 302-Accused giving blows by stick on deceased's son and on 
hearing the cries, the sister and deceased came out of the house-On being 
asked as to why the accused was beating his son, the deceased was given a 
blow on his abdomen by a knife by the accused-However the blow was only 
on account of the altercation and not with any animosity with accused 
p -Under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the accused gave the blow 
with the intention of causing murder or with the knowledge that the 
Deceased's death would be the inevitable result-Hence, the case was one 
which fell under Section 304 Part II and not under Section 302. 
Section 304 Part II-Sentence under-Case being heard in this Court 
G after 13 years-Accused was on bail by the Order of this Court-Accused 
undergoing about 4 years in jail---ln such circumstances, the sentences was 
limited to the period undergone in jail-Criminal Trial-Sentence. 
Relationship between the appellant and the deceased was strained 
H on account of the deceased helping a person with whom appellant had 
1222 
t 
... 
K. RAMAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN v. STATE 
1223 
property dispute. O;i the date of occurrence, the appellant and the accused A 
passed by when PW 1 was sitting on the varandah of a shop near his house, 
when the appellant abused PW 1 and PW 1 also in turn abused him. On 
this score, there was some scuffie, but due to the intervention of the wife 
of appellant, appellant left the place. Appellant, however, came back with 
his son (the acquitted accused) and the second accused gave a stick blow 
on the head of PW 1 and caught hold of him and then the appellant stabbed 
him with a knife. On hearing the noises, the sister of PW 1 rushed to the 
scene and the father of PW 1 (the deceased) also reached the scene. It is 
at this stage that the appellant stabbed the deceased on his abdomen of 
which he ultimately died. On the statement of PW 1, FIR was registered 
B 
by the police. During the trial, the eye witness account of the three eye C 
witnesses was that when PW 1 cried out, his sister and deceased (father of 
PW 1), came out of the house and asked as to why his son was being beaten 
up and then the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife. The post-
mortem report of the deceased indicated existence of a sutured incised 
wound of inverted 'L' shape on the left side of the abdomen. The doctor D 
PW 8 in his evidence stated that the deceased had an incised wound of 4 
cm below the umbilicus, left to the midline of the body with a part of the 
intestine protruding out and that was the only injury. PW 9, the doctor 
who conducted the autopsy, in his evidence stated that there were three 
injuries on the deceased, but injury Nos. 1 and 3 were surgical injuries and 
injury No. 2 was the inflicted injury. On these facts, the appellant and his 
son stood charged for offences under Section 449, 341, 324 and 302 read 
with Section 34 IPC. The additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused 
on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond 
reasonable doubt. On appeal, the High Court reversed the acquittal of the 
appellant and convicted him under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. He was 
awarded life imprisonment for the offence committed under Section 302 
but no punishment was awarded for the offence committed under Section 
324 IPC. Hence this appeal. 
E 
F 
It was contended by the appellant that the High Court could have 
interfered with the order of the Trial Court after being satisfied that the G 
view taken by the acquitting Judge was clearly unreasonab

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.