MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme 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

Similar News