Supreme Court Upholds Conviction and Life Sentence in a Case of Political Rivalry

In an appeal before the Supreme Court, in case of Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu Vs The State Of Kerala, challenging the High Court of Kerala's decision the apex court upheld the conviction of the appellant, Kunhimuhammed, for murder (Section 302 of the IPC).

The case arose from a violent clash between the workers of two rival political groups, United Democratic Front (UDF) and Left Democratic Front (LDF), in 2006. One Subrahmannian died, and Vasudevan Ramachandra (PW1) was injured in that incident, and both were affiliated with the CPI(M) party.

Evidence of Intent to Commit Murder: The Supreme Court emphasized that the intention to commit murder could be inferred from the circumstances of the act, including the nature and location of the injuries, the weapon used, and the appellant's actions. The Court noted that while the initial altercation might have involved sticks, the appellant’s decision to escalate the violence by drawing and using a knife was a deliberate and unilateral act that set him apart from the other accused. The deliberate targeting of the victim’s vital organs, such as the chest and ribs, with a knife indicated, at the very least, the formation of the intent to cause death during the incident.

Assessment of Medical and Forensic Evidence: The Court observed that the medical evidence, particularly the post-mortem report, which showed eight incised wounds on the deceased and also the injuries to the chest, heart, and lungs were fatal. The medical expert confirmed that these injuries were consistent with the knife recovered from the appellant and that the fatal wounds were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court also considered the recovery of the knife, based on the appellant's disclosure statement and forensic analysis linking it to the appellant.

Reliance on Eyewitness Testimony: The Court relied heavily on the testimony of PW1, who provided a detailed account of the incident and identified the appellant as the primary assailant. The Court found his testimony to be consistent with the injuries sustained by the deceased and PW1 himself, as corroborated by the medical reports. The Court also noted that the testimony of PW2, another witness, corroborated PW1's account.

Rejection of Private Defense Claim: The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the act was committed in self-defense. The Court observed that the injuries sustained by the appellant were minor and did not pose a threat to his life. Additionally, the Court held that even if the appellant had acted in self-defense, the force used was excessive and disproportionate, exceeding the bounds of lawful defense. the Court while relying on Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab(Click to Download) and observed the following 26.2 This Court in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, held that the law provides for the right of private defense to citizens to enable them to protect themselves when confronted with imminent danger or unlawful aggression. But such protection must not be misused or extend beyond the necessities of the case. Thus, the Court held that the multiple stab wounds inflicted on the deceased were far beyond what would be considered a reasonable response to the perceived threat.

Distinguishing Appellant's Role from Co-accused: The Supreme Court in its observation distinguished the appellant's role from that of the co-accused who were found guilty of lesser offenses. The Court highlighted that while the co-accused used sticks, causing non-fatal injuries, the appellant alone used a knife, leading to the deceased’s death. The Court also noted that there was no evidence to suggest the co-accused were aware of the knife or the appellant's intention to use it.

Minimum Sentence for Murder: The Supreme Court underscored that once a conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) is confirmed, the minimum sentence is life imprisonment. Therefore, factors like parity with co-accused, leniency, old age, and health concerns cannot be considered for reducing the sentence the Court held "29. Lastly, 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. Thus, no ground or reason for granting a lesser sentence arises. When the minimum sentence itself is life imprisonment, then grounds like parity, leniency, old age, health concerns, etc. shall not be of any aid to the accused while seeking reduction of sentence."

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellant for the murder of Subrahmannian. The Court found that the evidence presented during the trial, including eyewitness accounts, medical reports, and forensic findings, overwhelmingly proved the appellant's guilt. The Court rejected the appellant's arguments concerning self-defense, lack of intent, and parity with co-accused, finding them to be without merit.

Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.
Between: Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu Vs The State Of Kerala.
Date of Judgement: 06-12-2024