Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred Intent Coupled with Trespass Constitutes Full Offence: Supreme Court Mere Possession of Bribe Money Insufficient Without Proof of Demand and Acceptance: Supreme Court Right to Promotion is Not a Fundamental Right; Retrospective Benefits Without Service Cannot Be Granted: Supreme Court of India Oral Gift Validity in Mohammedan Law: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Constructive Possession and Injunction Unauthorized Construction on Government Irrigation Land Must Be Demolished: Calcutta High Court Directs Sub-Divisional Officer High Court Upholds Dismissal of Petition Over Road Obstruction Due to Non-Prosecution Victim of Rape Has Right to Bodily Integrity and Reproductive Choice: Gujarat High Court Permits Termination of 24-Week Pregnancy Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards

No Provocation or Threat from Deceased Justified Appellants' Brutal Attack: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Murder Under Section 302 IPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, on 10th April 2024, upheld the life imprisonment sentences of three individuals convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, following a violent family dispute that resulted in a homicide. The apex court dismissed the criminal appeal, stating that there was no provocation or threat from the deceased that could justify the brutal attack by the appellants.

The core legal issue addressed by the court was the applicability of Section 302 IPC in the context of intentional murder without justification such as self-defense. The appellants were also convicted under Sections 324 and 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt, which the High Court of Karnataka had previously upheld.

The incident leading to the legal battle occurred on February 18, 2009, when a family feud over the blocking of a pathway escalated into a fatal attack. The appellants, Subhash @ Subanna and others, were accused of violently assaulting Mahadevappa, resulting in his death. The appellants contested the charges, arguing that there was provocation from the deceased, and they were merely exercising their right to private defense.

The Supreme Court meticulously reviewed the evidence, including medical reports and eyewitness accounts. Key observations included:

Homicidal Death Established: The prosecution successfully demonstrated the homicidal nature of Mahadevappa's death through medical evidence and eyewitness testimony, despite the majority of neighbors turning hostile.

Rejection of Private Defense: The court found the appellants' claim of private defense untenable, noting the excessive force used without any immediate threat or provocation from the deceased.

Intention to Kill: Evidence suggested that the appellants had a clear intention to cause death or grievous injury, fulfilling the elements required for murder under Section 300 IPC.

The court heavily relied on precedents, including the principles outlined in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, to establish that the appellants' actions were disproportionate and exceeded the bounds of private defense.

Decision of the Judgment The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The appellants were directed to surrender and their bail was revoked.

Date of Decision: 10th April 2024

Subhash @ Subanna & Ors. Versus State of Karnataka,

Similar News