The Supreme Court has ruled that fulfillment of any one requirement is sufficient for conviction under section 300 of IPC. The appellant’s actions and the severity of the inflicted wound, which was inherently likely to cause death, clearly demonstrate the intent to kill. Hence the order granting bail to the appellant is set aside. The court’s direction is that the appellant is required to appear before the designated court promptly, within three weeks from the date of order.
- This case involves an appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave challenging a lower court decision. The appellant is contesting the Kerala High Court’s dismissal of their appeal in September 2011. Originally, the Sessions Court in Thalassery found the appellant guilty of several offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including murder (Section 302), rioting (Sections 143, 147, 148), and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine.
- According to the prosecution, the victim was part of a group advocating against alcohol consumption. The defendant (appellant) and other accomplices, motivated by a disagreement and aiming to silence this movement, confronted the victim. They then attacked him, knocking him down and stabbing him with a dagger.
- The appellant contested the veracity of the prosecution’s witnesses. However, the court dismissed this challenge. Recognizing the large number of individuals involved approximately 15 in the unlawful assembly, the court acknowledged the potential for inconsistencies in witness testimony. Despite these minor discrepancies, the court maintained its faith in the overall credibility of the witnesses. Furthermore, the court identified the attackers’ motive as the silencing of the victim.
“In its final judgment, the Court unequivocally held that the prosecution had successfully established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant was the individual who inflicted the fatal stab wound upon the victim during the assault by the accused persons.”
- The Court emphasized that satisfying just one element of Section 300 of the IPC is sufficient to convict the appellant of murder under Section 302. However, in this case, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes not one, but two elements, solidifying the murder charge against the appellant. Consequently, the court revoked his bail and granted him three weeks to surrender.
After careful consideration, the Supreme Court concurs with the High Court’s decision upholding the conviction. The court find no reason to overturn the judgment in question impugned judgment. Therefore, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
CASE NAME: JOY DEVARAJ v. STATE OF KERALA., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2013
NAME : J. RANI SANGAMITHRA,BALLB(HONS), SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE IN LAW(TAMILNADU DR AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY), INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
