Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Kunhimuhammed@ Kunheetu v. The State of Kerela has held that lack of intention to commit murder is irrelevant if the injuries caused are with lethal weapons which are likely to cause death. 

What was the Background of the Kunhimuhammed@ Kunheetu v. The State of Kerela Case?  

• The incident originated from a political dispute between supporters of the United Democratic Front (UDF) and Left Democratic Front (LDF) in Kunnappalli, Pathaikkara Village. 
• The initial dispute concerned the drawing of election symbols near a library, resulting in a criminal case with non-bailable offenses against UDF sympathizers. 
• The following day, on 11th April 2006, at approximately 8:45 PM, the main incident occurred at Mukkilaplavu Junction 
• The appellant and other accused, who were Indian Union Muslim League sympathizers, allegedly waited for the deceased (Subrahmannian) and for the witness (Vasudevan Ramachandra) 
• The first accused initially attempted to assault the deceased with a tamarind stick 
• The deceased managed to defend himself, snatched the stick, and began striking the first accused 
• The first accused then allegedly pulled out a knife and stabbed the deceased on the left chest, back of head, and left shoulder 
• When the witness tried to intervene, he was stabbed in the left buttock by the first accused 
• The second accused allegedly fractured the witness’s foot with another tamarind stick 
• The third accused reportedly struck witness’s right chest with a wooden stick 
• Crime was registered against three accused under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The investigation led to the recovery of the knife based on the first accused's disclosure 
• A charge sheet was filed before the Trail Court. 
• The accused claimed innocence and alleged false implication due to political rivalry with CPI(M) leaders. 
• the Trial Court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant intentionally caused the death of the victim and grievously injured the witness. 
• The case was then appealed before the High Court of Kerela where the court noted that the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming, including eyewitness testimonies, medical reports, and forensic findings and therefore upheld the conviction. 
• Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant then appealed before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • On Intent and Murder Classification: 
    • Even without premeditated intent to murder, causing bodily injury likely to cause death qualifies as murder under Section 300(3) IPC 
    • The accused's knowledge that injuries to vital parts are likely to cause death is sufficient 
    • The defense of "spontaneous scuffle" does not reduce liability when lethal weapons are used to target vital body parts 
  • Application of Virsa Singh Principles: The Court applied the four essential criteria from Virsa Singh v. State of Pepsu (1958): 
    • Presence of bodily injury 
    • Nature of injury must be proved 
    • Intention to inflict that specific injury 
    • Injury sufficient to cause death in ordinary course 
  • The Court found all these elements were present in this case. 
  • On the Nature of the Crime: 
    • The attack arose from political rivalry 
    • While initial confrontation may have been spontaneous, the use of lethal weapon and targeting of vital organs elevated it to murder 
    • The act was carried out with collective intent in a group setting 
    • The crime had broader societal implications, potentially disrupting public order  
  • On Sentencing and Leniency: 
    • Life imprisonment is the minimum sentence under Section 302 IPC 
    • Factors like parity, old age, health concerns cannot justify reduction below the minimum sentence 
    • The appellant's personal circumstances (age 67, medical conditions) cannot outweigh the need for justice 
    • Reducing the sentence would risk undermining the seriousness of the crime 
  • On Evidence: 
    • Medical evidence, eyewitness testimony, and weapon recovery provided conclusive proof 
    • The findings of both Trial Court and High Court were well-founded 
    • The nature and location of injuries, choice of weapon, and attack circumstances clearly established liability 
• The Supreme Court ultimately upheld both the conviction under Section 302 IPC and the life imprisonment sentence, finding no merit in the appeal for reduction of sentence. 

What are the Legal Provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Involved in the Case? 

• Section 101: Murder 
  • Section 101 deals with Murder. 
  • Direct Intention 
    • Act done with the intention of causing death. 
  • Knowledge-Based Intent 
    • Act done with intention to cause bodily injury. 
    • Offender knows injury likely to cause death. 
  • Natural Consequence 
    • Act done with intention to cause bodily injury. 
    • Injury sufficient in ordinary course to cause death. 
  • Imminently Dangerous Acts 
    • A person knows the act is imminently dangerous. 
    • High probability of causing death/fatal injury. 
    • No excuse for risk. 
  • Exceptions to Murder (When Culpable Homicide is Not Murder) 
    • Grave and Sudden Provocation 
      • Offender deprived of self-control. 
      • Death caused to provoker or by mistake. 
    • Limitations: 
      • Provocation not sought/voluntarily provoked. 
      • Not applicable if provocation given: 
        • In obedience to law. 
        • By public servant in lawful duty. 
        • In lawful exercise of private defense. 
    • Private Defense 
      • Death caused in exercise of right of private defense. 
    • Public Servant's Act 
      • Death caused by public servant. 
      • Acting in good faith. 
    • Sudden Fight 
      • Without premeditation. 
      • In a heat of passion. 
      • Upon sudden quarrel. 
    • Consent 
      • Deceased above 18 years. 
      • Death caused with victim's consent. 
      • Risk taken voluntarily by victim. 
• Section 103: Punishment for Murder: 
  • Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. 
  • When a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground each member of such group shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.