Single Grievous Blow on Leg, Though Fatal, Does Not Establish Intention to Kill: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 326 IPC in Murder Trial

“When the injury is confined to the leg, albeit grievous and ultimately fatal, the intention to cause death cannot be readily inferred” — Kerala High Court refuses to convert conviction to Section 302 IPC. Kerala High Court, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar, delivered a significant ruling in the case of Joemon & Others v. State of Kerala, rejecting an appeal by the de facto complainant seeking the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC for murder. Instead, the Court upheld the trial court's decision to convict the accused under Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt) in light of the evidence, while emphasizing that the fatal leg injury did not demonstrate the requisite intent to cause death under Section 302 IPC.

The judgment reaffirms the principle that conviction for murder cannot be based solely on the consequence (death) but must satisfy the mental element (intention or knowledge) as outlined in Section 300 IPC.

Family Property Dispute Turns Deadly – But Was There a Murder?

The dispute arose from a long-standing animosity between two branches of a family, culminating in a violent altercation on 10 October 2010. The accused—Joemon, Johnson, Thomas, and one other (Accused Nos.1 to 4)—allegedly trespassed onto the property of PW1 and the deceased Varghese, damaging the gate and engaging in a violent confrontation. Joemon was said to have inflicted a deep, avulsed injury to Varghese’s right leg with a chopper (MO-1).

Though Varghese was rushed to two hospitals, he succumbed to excessive bleeding, with the autopsy confirming death due to hemorrhage from a cut to the anterior tibial artery. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 326, 427, and 447 IPC, but acquitted them under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, triggering an appeal from the victim's family for a murder conviction.

“Only One Injury, and That Too on the Leg”: No Evidence of Common Intention to Kill, Rules Court

The High Court meticulously evaluated the facts and upheld the trial court’s reasoning, agreeing that the presence of deadly weapons alone does not automatically establish intention to kill, especially where the actual injury was confined to the leg and not to any vital part of the body such as the head or chest.

“In the instant case, the only injury inflicted is on the leg, even though all the assailants carried weapons with them. Therefore, the trial court rightly held that the assailants have no intention to cause the death of the victim or to cause such bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.” [Para 47]

“Even though all the appellants were armed with deadly weapons, only one injury was inflicted by them.” [Para 55]

The Court further found that the evidence from key witnesses (PWs 1, 2, and 6)—who were close relatives of the deceased—was not sufficient to establish intentional murder, particularly in light of their inconsistencies and contradictions, as well as the existence of a prior civil dispute over a pond, which cast doubt on their neutrality.

Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Justified Even Without Framing Specific Charge, Holds Court

One of the most significant legal findings in this judgment was the application of Section 222 CrPC, which permits conviction for a lesser offence if the facts support it, even in the absence of a specific charge.

“Section 222 Cr.P.C. permits the court to convict a person of a minor or lesser offence, if the facts proved in Court are insufficient to prove the charged major offence, but sufficient to establish a minor one.” [Para 52]

The Court drew support from established precedents:

• Kesani Murahari Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1160

• State of U.P. v. Ram Kishun, (2021) 9 SCC 651

It emphasized that Section 326 IPC, though not a minor offence in abstract, becomes “minor” in the contextual sense when a charge under Section 302 fails but the facts support grievous hurt.

“The conviction under Section 326 IPC is sustainable even though there is no specific charge under that Section. The appellants were charged with a more serious offence that is under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, no prejudice could be caused to the appellants.” [Para 55]

Eyewitness Testimonies Scrutinized: Related and Inimical Witnesses Must Be Carefully Evaluated

In a further critical observation, the High Court reiterated the well-established principle that testimony from related or inimical witnesses must be approached with caution.

Citing Harbeer Singh v. Sheephal, 2017 Cri LJ 169, the Court noted that PWs 1, 2, and 6, being close relatives of the deceased and having civil litigation with the accused, had motives that required careful scrutiny.

“The trial court found that the material witnesses have considerably improved and embellished their version by giving substantive evidence… When they realised that injury No.1… could not be caused by a sword, they changed their version and deposed that the injury was inflicted with MO-1 chopper.” [Para 42]

This careful judicial analysis led the Court to endorse the trial court's approach in separating “the grain from the chaff.”

Outcome: Both Appeals Dismissed – Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Sustained

The Kerala High Court concluded that neither the appeal by the convicted accused nor the appeal by the de facto complainant had merit.

The Court affirmed the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC, along with additional punishments for mischief and criminal trespass under Sections 427 and 447 IPC.

“The trial court rightly appreciated the evidence on record and separated the grain from the chaff and arrived at a proper conclusion, in our view.” [Para 56]

Date of Decision: 16 October 2025