KUNHIMUHAMMED@KUNHEETHU versus THE STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 392 · Decided: 06-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 392 : 2024 INSC 937
Kunhimuhammed@Kunheethu 
v. 
The State of Kerala
(Criminal Appeal No. 5097 of 2024)
06 December 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether appellant had the intention to commit murder; whether 
the appellant’s act can be brought under section 304, IPC in light 
of the offence being committed in exercise of private defense and 
thereby exceeding the power given under the law, that is under 
exception 2 to section 300, IPC; whether appellant’s sentence 
should be reduced on the grounds of parity with his co-accused.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 324 and 326/34 – The sympathizers 
of two political groups fought against each other – Appellant 
along with other accused committed murder of victim-S and 
injured CW-1 – Trial Court held appellant guilty u/ss.302, 324 
and 326/34 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment 
and the same was upheld by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: The severity of the injuries inflicted on the deceased has been 
central to the Courts’ conclusion that the act qualifies as murder 
under Section 300 of the IPC – As per the post-mortem report, the 
deceased sustained both external and internal ante-mortem injuries 
that were identified as being inflicted by a sharp-edged knife – 
The prosecution established beyond doubt that these injuries 
were inflicted by the appellant-accused no. 1 using a knife, which 
was recovered during the investigation based on the appellant’s 
disclosure statement – Further, the doctor PW-6 has stated that 
these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course 
of nature – Cross-examination of these witnesses did not reveal 
any inconsistencies that could undermine the credibility of the 
evidence – Consequently, the courts have rightly concluded that 
the fatal injuries inflicted by the appellant were the direct cause of 
the deceased’s death – As far as intention of appellant to commit 
* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
393
Kunhimuhammed@Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala
murder is concerned, the injuries were concentrated on the vital 
parts of the deceased’s body, such as the chest and ribs, which 
house critical organs like the heart and lungs – The deliberate 
targeting of these areas indicates a clear intent to cause harm 
that could lead to death – There is also the testimony of the 
injured witnesses that accused used considerable force while 
stabbing – The other co-accused were reportedly armed with sticks, 
the appellant-accused no. 1 was in possession of a sharp knife, 
which was used to inflict severe injuries – The decision to carry 
and use such a weapon during the scuffle reflects a readiness 
to escalate violence beyond a mere physical altercation – The 
third clause of Section 300, IPC defines murder as the act of 
causing death by causing such bodily injury as is likely to result 
in death in the ordinary course of nature – In the instant case, 
the appellant’s actions satisfy these criteria – The appellant was 
armed with a knife, which he used to inflict multiple injuries on 
vital organs – The fatal nature of these injuries, as confirmed by 
medical evidence, and the circumstances of the attack clearly 
point to an intent to cause death or at least an intention to inflict 
injuries with the knowledge that they were likely to result in death – 
Even if it is presumed that the appellant-accused no. 1 did not 
have an intention to cause such bodily injury, the act of causing 
injuries with knife to vital parts is reflective of the knowledge that 
causing such injuries is likely to cause death in the ordinary course.  
[Paras 25.1, 25.7, 25.8, 25.16]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.304 – Whether the appellant’s act can 
be brought under section 304, IPC in light of the offence 
being committed in exercise of private defense and thereby 
exceeding the power given under the law, that is under 
exception 2 to section 300, IPC:
Held: The courts below have made a categorical finding that the 
appellant-accused no.1 and his co-accused were the aggressors 
in the altercation – The attack was initiated by the accused group, 
who were armed with sticks and a knife, with the intent to intimidate 
or harm the victim and his companions – This fact is substantiated 
by the testimony of PW-1, an injured eyewitness, who described 
the sequence of events leading up to the stabbing – Even if it were 
assumed that the appellant-accused no. 1 acted in self-defense, 
the evidence overwhe

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