Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC Not Applicable Where Accused Takes Undue Advantage By Inflicting A Fatal Injury On An Unarmed Victim: Kerala High Court.

Kerala High Court addressing the culpability of the accused in a case of murder arising from a sudden quarrel. The Court upheld the conviction of the first accused under Section 302 IPC for the fatal stabbing of the deceased, Peethambaran, while acquitting the second accused due to lack of evidence establishing common intention.

The incident, which began as an altercation, escalated into a violent confrontation in which the first accused inflicted a fatal stab wound on the unarmed victim using a budding knife. The appeal challenged the conviction under Sections 302, 323, and 34 IPC. While rejecting the plea to reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the Court meticulously analyzed the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and the role of the second accused in the crime.

Fatal Stabbing and the Question of Common Intention
The case arose from an incident on June 12, 2006, when Peethambaran, the deceased, was involved in a quarrel with Sundaresan. The appellants, Thankappan (Accused 1) and Manoj (Accused 2, now deceased), were alleged to have joined the fray. While the second accused allegedly assaulted the deceased during the initial scuffle, the first accused stabbed Peethambaran in the neck, leading to his death.

The trial court convicted both appellants under Section 302 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the first accused while setting aside the conviction of the second accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC.

The Court emphasized, “There is no evidence to suggest that the second accused actively facilitated or participated in the crime committed by the first accused.”

Culpable Homicide vs. Murder: Applicability of Exception 4
The first accused argued that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel and that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC should apply, reducing the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, the Court found no merit in this contention.

The evidence, including the testimony of eyewitnesses PW2 (wife of the deceased) and PW3, revealed that the deceased was unarmed and offered no resistance. The first accused followed the deceased, inflicted a stab wound on his neck with a sharp budding knife, and ignored the pleas of PW2 to stop. The Court noted that the injury, which caused damage to the internal jugular vein and the apex of the right lung, was inflicted with undue advantage and in a cruel manner.

Quoting the Supreme Court in Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, the Court observed:

"Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC cannot apply when the accused takes undue advantage of the situation by using a deadly weapon against an unarmed victim."

The Court held:
"The fight was entirely one-sided, with the deceased neither retaliating nor raising his hand. The act of inflicting a fatal injury with a sharp weapon precludes the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC."

Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony and Forensic Evidence
The Court placed significant reliance on the testimonies of PW2 and PW3, who provided a consistent and vivid account of the incident. Despite being related to the deceased, their evidence was deemed credible, as it was corroborated by forensic evidence and the medical report.

The autopsy report confirmed that the fatal injury was a deep stab wound to the neck, which cut through vital areas, including the internal jugular vein and the apex of the right lung. The forensic analysis further revealed that the bloodstains on the knife and soil from the scene matched the blood group of the deceased.

The Court rejected the argument that the witnesses’ familial ties to the deceased rendered their testimonies unreliable, stating:

"The evidence of related witnesses does not suffer from inherent infirmity and must be scrutinized with care. Once it is found credible, it can be relied upon without corroboration."

Role of the Second Accused: Acquittal Due to Lack of Evidence
The second accused was initially convicted under Section 302 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC, for allegedly sharing a common intention with the first accused to commit murder. However, the High Court found no reliable evidence to support this conclusion.

PW2 and PW3 provided no consistent account of the second accused's role in the crime. The Court noted that while the second accused was present at the scene, there was no evidence that he actively participated in or facilitated the stabbing.

The Court observed:
"The second accused merely accompanied the first accused and did not partake in the actual commission of the crime. There is no evidence to prove that he shared a common intention to commit murder."

Accordingly, the conviction of the second accused under Section 302 IPC was set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges.

The Kerala High Court’s decision strikes a balance between upholding the law and ensuring justice based on evidence. The Court’s reasoning highlights the importance of carefully evaluating the evidence to distinguish between the roles of co-accused and determining the applicability of exceptions to murder under Section 300 IPC.

Decision: For the first accused (Thankappan): Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld. Sentence of life imprisonment and fine of ₹50,000 confirmed.
For the second accused (Manoj, deceased): Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside. Acquitted of all charges due to lack of evidence establishing common intention.
Date of Decision: January 15, 2025