When Can the Private Defense Exception Be Used in a Murder Case? The Supreme Court Clarifies.

The Supreme Court recently clarified the elements of the private defense exception in a murder case. The Court was reviewing a Criminal Appeal against a Judgment that convicted the accused under Sections 302, 324, 326, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The two-Judge Bench, made up of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, stated that to classify the accused’s actions under Section 304 IPC as an act of private defense that went beyond legal limits, as outlined in Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC, certain elements must be established. The Court identified the necessary elements for this exception –

1. The person charged should not be responsible for starting the situation.
2. There must be a serious threat to life or significant injury, whether it is real or seems real.
3. The accused suffered injuries.
4. The accused caused injuries to others.
5. The accused had no chance to seek help from the authorities.

Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel represented the Appellant/accused, while Senior Advocate P.V. Dinesh represented the Respondent/State. According to the prosecution, in 2006, supporters of the United Democratic Front (UDF) and the Left Democratic Front (LDF) clashed over a dispute about their election symbol near a library in Kunnappalli, Pathaikkara Village. A criminal case with non-bailable charges was filed against UDF supporters related to this incident. The Appellant, along with other accused who were supporters of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), waited at Mukkilaplavu Junction with the intent to kill the deceased due to ongoing enmity. At around 08:45 PM, when the deceased and another person arrived, the first accused allegedly tried to hit the deceased on the head with a tamarind stick.

The deceased defended himself from the attack, took the stick from the first accused, and began hitting him on the forehead and back with it. At this moment, the first accused pulled out a knife from his hip and stabbed the deceased in the left side of the chest, the back of the head, and the left shoulder. Another person was also hurt during this altercation. A case was then filed against the accused. The Trial Court found the Appellant guilty of murder. Three appeals were made to the High Court, but they were all rejected. The Supreme Court stated that the act of stabbing vital areas, along with the force used, shows that the appellant was aware of the possible fatal outcomes of his actions. According to Section 300 IPC, intending to inflict injuries that could lead to death is considered murder. Even if other elements besides the intention to kill are present, just knowing that the actions could be fatal is enough to hold the accused responsible.

The Bench noted that even if we assume the accused did not intend to cause injury, using a knife on vital areas shows an understanding that such actions could likely result in death. “Courts have repeatedly stated that intent can be inferred from the type and severity of injuries, the weapon used, and how it was used. The choice of a deadly weapon and the intentional targeting of vital body parts strongly suggest such intent,” it emphasized.

The Court noted that even if the Appellant claimed self-defense, the evidence clearly shows that the force used was too much and not justified. Stabbing the victim multiple times in critical areas like the chest and heart exceeds what is allowed in self-defense.

As a result, the Court determined that since the conviction under Section 302 of IPC is upheld by all Courts, the minimum punishment is life imprisonment as stated in the law. There are no valid reasons for a lighter sentence. The Court mentioned that since life imprisonment is the minimum, factors like equality, mercy, age, or health issues do not help the accused in reducing the sentence. Therefore, the Appellant received the minimum sentence for murder. The Apex Court dismissed the Appeal for a lighter sentence and confirmed the conviction.

Cause Title: Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 937)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, AOR Radha Shyam Jena, Advocates Haris Beeran, Azhar Assees, and Anand B. Menon.
Respondent: Senior Advocate P.V. Dinesh, AOR Nishe Rajen Shonker, Advocates Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Anna Oommen, and Urvashi Chauhan.