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

Persistent Misbehavior and Pre-Planning Negate Claim of Sudden Provocation and Self-Defense: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction In Murder Case

11 October 2024 12:48 PM

By: sayum


Kerala High Court, in Ashokan v. State of Kerala, upheld the conviction and life sentence of Ashokan, who was found guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court dismissed the appellant's claim that the fatal incident was a result of sudden provocation and a mutual fight, ruling instead that Ashokan's actions were premeditated.

The appellant, Ashokan, was charged with the murder of his neighbor, Soman, following a long-standing dispute. According to the prosecution, on May 14, 2006, Ashokan entered the courtyard of Soman’s house, where a confrontation occurred. Ashokan slapped and kicked Soman's wife, Geetha (PW2). When Soman intervened, a physical altercation ensued, during which Ashokan went back to his house, armed himself with a knife, and returned to fatally stab Soman multiple times.

Ashokan was convicted of murder by the Additional Sessions Judge of Thiruvananthapuram and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed against this judgment, arguing that the incident was the result of a sudden provocation and not a premeditated act.

Testimony of Key Witnesses: The court placed significant weight on the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 (Soman's family) and independent witnesses (PWs 5 and 10). Despite minor contradictions, their accounts were consistent and corroborated by medical evidence.

Evidence of Premeditation: The court noted that Ashokan, after the initial altercation, went home, changed his clothes, armed himself with a knife, and returned to the scene, demonstrating a clear intention to kill. This contradicted his claim of acting under sudden provocation or in self-defense.

Medical Evidence: The post-mortem report confirmed multiple stab wounds, including a fatal injury to the chest. The court concluded that the nature and location of the wounds indicated Ashokan’s intent to cause death.

Rejection of Self-Defense and Provocation Claims: The court rejected Ashokan's argument that he acted in self-defense or under sudden provocation. It emphasized that Ashokan’s actions, particularly his decision to arm himself and return to the scene, nullified any claim of acting in a fit of rage or without premeditation.

The Kerala High Court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the prosecution had successfully proven Ashokan's guilt. The appeal was dismissed, and the life sentence was upheld.

This judgment reaffirms the principle that claims of self-defense or provocation cannot be sustained when there is clear evidence of premeditation. The court’s decision emphasizes that an accused who arms themselves and returns to the scene of an altercation cannot claim the protection of exceptions under Section 300 IPC.

Date of Decision: October 8, 2024

Ashokan v. State of Kerala​.

Latest Legal News