Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court

"A Single Stab in the Heat of Passion During a Sudden Quarrel Without Premeditation Does Not Attract Section 302 IPC" – Kerala High Court delivered a significant verdict altering a conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian held that the act committed by the accused — a single stab inflicted during a sudden altercation with his brother — lacked the necessary intention to attract the charge of murder, though the accused had knowledge that the act was likely to cause death.

The judgment reflects a careful legal distinction between culpable homicide and murder, especially in cases of familial disputes escalating into fatal violence, and reiterates judicial precedents governing the applicability of Section 300 IPC and its exceptions.

Fratricidal Quarrel Over Tying a Goat Escalated Into Tragedy: No Premeditation or Prior Enmity, Rules Court

The appeal arose from a conviction by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, where the appellant, Ammed, was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and one year under Section 324 IPC. The incident occurred on 3 May 2017 and involved the appellant stabbing his brother Subair during a quarrel at their ancestral home, triggered by a dispute over tying a goat in the verandah.

The High Court noted that the relationship between the brothers was generally cordial and the fight that led to the incident was sudden and arose out of a trivial issue. Justice Sebastian, delivering the judgment, observed:

“The evidence shows that immediately before the unfortunate incident, a sudden quarrel arose between the accused and the deceased over a trivial matter, and in the heat of the moment, without any prior enmity or premeditation, the accused inflicted a stab injury on the deceased.”

The Bench concluded that this fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and aligned with the third limb of Section 299 IPC — making out an offence under Section 304 Part II.

A Domestic Dispute Turned Fatal

The prosecution’s case was that the deceased, Subair, tied an injured goat in the verandah of their shared home after one of his goats had been killed in a dog attack. The accused, Ammed, objected to the goat being kept in the verandah. When Subair refused to remove it, an argument ensued. The appellant briefly entered the house, returned with a knife tucked in his loin, and when Subair picked up a rafter, Ammed snatched it, hit him on the head, and then stabbed him in the chest.

Subair succumbed to his injuries en route to the hospital. The prosecution relied primarily on the testimonies of PW1 (Subair’s wife) and PW4 (his minor son), who witnessed the incident.

Related Witnesses Are Natural Witnesses — Their Evidence Cannot Be Rejected Merely Due to Proximity

The defence argued that PW1 and PW4 were “interested witnesses” whose testimonies should be treated with suspicion. The High Court firmly rejected this contention, reaffirming established law that related witnesses are not necessarily untrustworthy if their evidence is consistent and credible. Citing State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Rayappa, the Court held:

“A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused convicted either because of animosity or some other reasons.”

The Court praised the testimonies of PW1 and PW4 as mutually corroborative, free from material contradictions, and supported by medical and forensic evidence.

Medical Evidence and Cause of Death: Single Penetrating Wound to the Heart

The post-mortem examination, conducted by PW16, revealed that the fatal stab wound penetrated the sternum and the heart, damaging the right atrium and coronary artery. Though the doctor did not explicitly state that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the Court relied on precedents such as Sannappa Rayappa Jadge v. State of Karnataka and Joy Devaraj v. State of Kerala to hold that such explicit opinion is not always mandatory.

Justice Sebastian wrote:

“Even in the absence of a specific deposition by the doctor stating that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the Court can independently assess whether the injury was likely to result in death by examining the nature, location, and severity of the wound.”

The Bench concluded that the death was conclusively homicidal, and the medical evidence fully supported the prosecution's version of events.

Applicability of Section 304 Part II IPC

A key legal issue addressed by the Court was whether the circumstances of the case justified a conviction for murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court applied the reasoning from Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, and Hem Raj v. Delhi Administration, among others.

The Bench observed that:

“The act of the accused does not fall under the fourth limb of Section 300 IPC. At the same time, the accused can be attributed with the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death.”

Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was found unsustainable, and the Court altered it to Section 304 Part II.

Life Term Set Aside, 7-Year Rigorous Imprisonment Imposed

The High Court reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. The sentence under Section 324 IPC (for the head injury inflicted with the rafter) was left undisturbed. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The Court upheld the direction of the Sessions Court to pay ₹50,000/- as compensation to the wife of the deceased under Section 357(1) CrPC, along with the recommendation under Section 357-A CrPC for further victim compensation.

This judgment is a meticulous illustration of the fine distinctions in criminal law between murder and culpable homicide, especially in cases arising from spontaneous domestic disputes. By altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II, the Kerala High Court reaffirmed the principle that absence of premeditation, existence of a sudden quarrel, and a single fatal injury inflicted in the heat of passion may not suffice to sustain a charge of murder.

The decision aligns with long-standing precedents that recognize the nuanced human emotions involved in familial altercations and balances the scales of justice by tailoring punishment to fit the true culpability of the offender.

Date of Decision: 22 January 2026