Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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