Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

No Mother Would Unnecessarily Implicate Her Own Son": Kerala High Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Fratricide, Acquits on Criminal Trespass

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Kerala High Court has confirmed Anilkumar's conviction for the murder of his brother, Sunil Kumar, under IPC Sections 302 and 201, emphasizing the mother's testimony as pivotal. The conviction under Section 449 for criminal trespass was set aside.

The judgment centered on the nuances of Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC in a fratricide context, while also addressing the inapplicability of Section 449 (criminal trespass).

The case involved a lethal dispute between brothers over a rope, leading to Anilkumar stabbing Sunil Kumar. The court grappled with issues around eyewitness credibility and the specific IPC sections relevant to murder, evidence tampering, and criminal trespass.

The High Court's assessment leaned heavily on the testimony of family members, particularly the mother (PW5), whose account was deemed both natural and credible. The dying declaration of the victim was a crucial element, found admissible under the Evidence Act.

Medical and forensic evidence played a corroborative role, aligning with the eyewitnesses' narrative and establishing the fatal nature of the chest injury inflicted. Despite recognizing a motive rooted in a trivial dispute, the court noted the absence of premeditation in the crime.

The court carefully distinguished between culpable homicide and murder, ultimately categorizing the act under "murder" as defined in Section 300 thirdly of the IPC, due to the intentional infliction of a fatal injury.

On the charge under Section 201 of IPC, evidence supported the finding that Anilkumar attempted to erase evidence by cleaning the murder weapon. However, the court acquitted him of the criminal trespass charge under Section 449, as the crime scene was a shared familial space, thus negating unlawful entry.

Decision: The court upheld Anilkumar's conviction for murder and evidence tampering but acquitted him of criminal trespass. The appeal was partially allowed.

Date of Decision: 15th March 2024

Anilkumar vs. State of Kerala

Latest Legal News