MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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,

Latest Legal News