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 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 overwhelmingly demonstrates that the force used was excessive and disproportionate – The act of stabbing the deceased multiple times in vital organs such as the chest and heart goes far beyond what is permissible under the right of private defense – In the post-mortem report and corroborated by the testimony of PW-6 (the police surgeon), the injuries inflicted on the deceased were severe and intentional, including a fatal wound to the heart – In light of the above findings, the plea of exceeding the right of private defense under Exception 2 to Section 300, IPC, is not applicable to the appellant’s case. [Paras 26.5, 26.6, 26.7] Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 324 and 326/34 – Appellant- accused no.1 was convicted u/ss.302, 324 and 326/34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Whereas, accused no.2 was found guilty of offences punishable u/s.326 and u/ss.324/34 of IPC and he was sentenced to six years imprisonment u/s.326 and two years rigorous imprisonment u/s.324 of IPC – The third accused was also awarded the same sentence as accused no.2 – The sentences were to run concurrently – All the three accused filed separate appeals before the High Court, which were dismissed – The second and third accused preferred a separate SLP, wherein this Court extended benefit of doubt to accused no.3 whereas accused no.2’s conviction was upheld, however, his sentence u/s.326 for six years was reduced to three years – Whether appellant’s sentence should be reduced on the grounds of parity with his co-accused:
Held: The doctrine of parity ensures fairness in sentencing when co-accused persons are similarly situated and share the same level of culpability – However, parity is not an automatic entitlement; the role, intent, and actions of each accused must be individually assessed to determine their degree of involvement in the crime – In the instant case, the courts have carefully evaluated the evidence against each accused and tailored their sentences accordingly – The appellant’s argument for parity fails to recognize the qualitative differences in their roles and the gravity of their actions – The appellant’s actions were not only more severe but also demonstrated a clear intent to cause death – The fatal injuries inflicted on the deceased, as detailed in the post-mortem report, leave no room for doubt about the appellant-accused no. 1’s culpability – The courts below have correctly observed that the appellant’s role in the crime is incomparable to that of his co-accused – The principle of parity does not apply in the present case, as the appellant’s actions were materially different from those of his co-accused. [Paras 27.2, 27.6, 27.7]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 324 and 326/34 – Appellant convicted u/ss.302, 324 and 326/34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Plea of old age and deteriorating health: Held: A murder committed with the intent to target vital organs, particularly in a group setting, reflects a level of intent and cruelty that demands an appropriate punitive response – To reduce the sentence in such a case would risk undermining the seriousness of the crime and the sanctity of life itself, principles that the judicial system is duty-bound to uphold – While the Court acknowledges the appellant’s advanced age and medical condition, these factors cannot outweigh the need for justice and the imperative to uphold the rule of law – 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 – Therefore, the appellant herein has been granted the minimum sentence for committing the offence of murder. [Paras 28.4, 28.5, 29]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.