Single Blow Aimed at a Vital Part With Dangerous Weapon Constitutes Murder Under Section 302 IPC: Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal upholding the conviction and life sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC (Murder) and Section 447 IPC (Criminal Trespass). The Court found that the accused, Sivarajan, had intentionally inflicted a fatal blow on the victim's neck, causing death.

The conviction arose from a long-standing dispute over the widening of a pathway to the accused's house, culminating in a violent attack on December 2, 2011. The High Court rejected arguments to reduce the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, holding that the nature of the injury and the use of a dangerous weapon demonstrated premeditated intent.

The case revolved around a dispute between the accused and the deceased, neighbors in the Alappuzha district of Kerala, regarding the widening of a pathway leading to the accused's house. On December 2, 2011, the accused trespassed into the victim's courtyard, engaged in a verbal altercation, and stabbed the victim with an iron rod. The single blow pierced the victim's neck, extending into the lungs, resulting in instant death.

The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 IPC and 447 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000, along with three months of rigorous imprisonment for criminal trespass. This judgment was challenged before the Kerala High Court.

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Single Fatal Blow
The primary argument raised by the appellant was that the offense did not amount to murder under Section 302 IPC since it involved a single blow. The defense contended that the act was not premeditated and could only qualify as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.

The High Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the nature of the injury, the weapon used, and the part of the body targeted clearly established intent to cause death.

Observation of the Court: "The accused inflicted a single, forceful blow to a vital part of the body (the neck) with a dangerous weapon (iron rod). The act was deliberate and aimed at causing death. The number of blows inflicted is immaterial when the intention to cause death is evident."

The Court relied on the judgment in Pulicherla Nagaraju Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 444, which held that intention to cause death could be inferred from the part of the body targeted, the force employed, and the absence of provocation.

Criminal Law – Evidence – Sole Testimony of Related Witness
The prosecution's case primarily relied on the testimony of PW9, the deceased's daughter-in-law and an eyewitness to the incident. PW9 vividly described how the accused entered the courtyard, uttered threats, and stabbed the victim with an iron rod.

The defense argued that PW9’s relationship with the deceased made her an "interested witness," and her testimony could not be relied upon. The High Court rejected this contention, citing precedents that allow reliance on the testimony of related witnesses if it is natural, consistent, and credible.

Court's Reasoning: "A close relative who witnesses a crime is often the most natural witness. PW9's testimony was consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and free from contradictions. There is no reason to doubt her credibility solely because she was related to the deceased."

The Court referred to State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Rayappa, (2006) 4 SCC 512, where the Supreme Court held that a related witness is not necessarily an interested witness and can be relied upon if their testimony inspires confidence.

Hostile Witnesses and Corroboration
Two independent witnesses (PW2 and PW3) turned hostile during the trial, claiming they did not witness the incident. However, their testimony partially supported the prosecution’s case, as they confirmed the existence of a land dispute between the accused and the victim.

The High Court noted that even hostile witnesses could provide corroborative evidence when parts of their testimony were reliable. PW3 admitted hearing a commotion and arriving at the scene to find the victim dead with an iron rod protruding from his neck.

Key Observation: "While the entire testimony of a hostile witness need not be discarded, courts can rely on portions of their evidence that are corroborated by other evidence or inspire confidence."

The appellant sought leniency, arguing that the act was not premeditated and was committed in the heat of the moment. The High Court dismissed this plea, emphasizing that the deliberate targeting of a vital body part with a dangerous weapon ruled out any possibility of leniency.

The Court observed that the crime was aggravated by the fact that the accused trespassed into the victim's courtyard with clear intent to harm him. The life sentence was deemed proportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Court’s Conclusion: "The accused’s act falls squarely under Clause 3rdly of Section 300 IPC, which defines murder as an act done with the intention of causing bodily injury likely to result in death. The punishment of life imprisonment is commensurate with the heinous nature of the crime."

Medical Evidence and Postmortem Report
The postmortem report confirmed that the victim suffered a penetrating injury caused by an iron rod that pierced the neck and lungs. The autopsy doctor, PW16, testified that the injury was sufficient to cause instant death.

Excerpt from Medical Testimony:
"The iron rod was thrust with significant force, causing extensive internal damage. The nature and trajectory of the injury indicate deliberate intent to cause death."

The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 IPC and 447 IPC.

The accused’s act constituted murder under Section 302 IPC, as it involved the intentional infliction of a fatal injury on a vital body part.
The testimony of PW9, corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The life sentence and additional imprisonment for trespass were proportionate to the crime and required no reduction.
Key Observation: "The prosecution has successfully established the accused’s guilt. The deliberate targeting of a vital body part, absence of provocation, and premeditated nature of the act leave no room for leniency. The conviction and sentence are upheld."

This judgment underscores critical principles in criminal law:
A single fatal blow can constitute murder if it demonstrates clear intent to cause death.
Testimony from a related witness is admissible if credible and consistent.
Even partial testimony from hostile witnesses can corroborate the prosecution’s case.
The Kerala High Court’s decision reaffirms that intent, rather than the number of injuries inflicted, is the decisive factor in determining culpability under Section 302 IPC.

Decision Date: January 20, 2025