Minor Assault Without Intent Or Knowledge Cannot Amount To Murder Even If Victim Dies Of Heart Condition: Kerala High Court
Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; court holds death due to pre-existing heart disease, accused liable only for causing hurt
The Kerala High Court has held that minor assault resulting in death due to a pre-existing medical condition cannot be treated as murder in the absence of intention or knowledge, and accordingly altered the conviction of eight accused from murder to voluntarily causing hurt.
The Court on evaluating the evidence held that the essential ingredients of culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC were not satisfied. It found that the accused had neither the intention to cause death nor the intention to cause such bodily injury as was likely to result in death. The Court also held that a conviction under Section 304A IPC (causing death by negligence) was impermissible in the absence of a specific charge, as it is not a minor offence included within murder.
The Court further observed that the nature of injuries, absence of weapons, and lack of excessive force indicated, at best, an intention to cause hurt. It also said that the accused could not be attributed with the knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death, particularly in the absence of proof that they were aware of the victim’s heart condition.
Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed, “…apart from the uncorroborated testimony of PW9, there is no independent evidence, such as call detail records or other electronic material, to establish that it was the 1st accused who made the alleged threatening phone call. Even assuming that such a call was made, the same would not be independently sufficient to conclusively establish an intention to kill. As already observed, intention is ordinarily gathered from the overt acts attributed to the accused, the nature of the weapons used, the part of the body where the injury was inflicted, the severity of the injuries inflicted, the force used in inflicting the injuries, the overall conduct of the accused at the crime scene, etc. In the case at hand, admittedly, all the injuries sustained by the deceased are minor in nature. None of the accused inflicted any injury with a weapon. The overt acts attributed to the accused, taken as a whole, indicate at most an intention to cause hurt”.
“…the accused had sufficient opportunity to inflict fatal injuries and could have caused injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, if they had so intended. The non-infliction of fatal injuries, despite the availability of the opportunity, suggests that the accused did not possess the requisite intention either to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to result in death”, the bench further observed.
Advocate S. Rajeev appeared for the petitioners and T.R. Renjith, Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.
The Division Bench thus partly allowed an appeal challenging the trial court’s judgment which had convicted the accused under Sections 143, 147, 342, 352 and 302 read with 149 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. While setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and instead convicted the accused under Section 323 IPC.
In the present matter, the President of Ershadul Muslim Sabha and manager of a local school in Edavanakkad was allegedly murdered. The prosecution alleged that the accused bore a grudge against him, believing that he was instrumental in preventing their induction into the Sabha through a decision of the Waqf Board.
On 03-03-2012, at around 9:00 PM, the accused allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and confronted the deceased near a vegetable shop. The confrontation escalated into a physical altercation, during which the accused surrounded him, wrongfully confined him, and assaulted him using their hands by pushing, fisting, kicking, and holding him by the neck.
Despite attempts by bystanders to intervene, they were allegedly threatened and prevented from assisting. The injured deceased was eventually found inside his car in a motionless state and was later declared dead.
Pursuant to which, during trial, the prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence. However, the post-mortem report revealed that all injuries sustained by the deceased were minor abrasions and contusions, and none were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course.
Thereafter, the doctor who conducted autopsy, opined that the death was caused by cardiac failure due to severe coronary artery disease, though the stress and injuries may have acted as a triggering factor.
The Court noted that the deceased had a seriously diseased heart, including arterial blockages and structural abnormalities. “In the present case, there is no convincing material on record to suggest that the accused had knowledge that the deceased was suffering from a serious heart ailment. In the absence of any specific or peculiar circumstances establishing that the accused were aware of such a pre-existing medical condition, it would be unjustified to bring their act within the ambit of culpable homicide”, the Division Bench observed.
Therefore, rejecting the prosecution’s reliance on prior threats and motive, the Court held that mere animosity or words uttered in anger cannot establish intention to commit murder. It also found that certain improvements made by witnesses during trial, particularly regarding warnings about the deceased’s ill health were unreliable and appeared to be afterthoughts.
Importantly, the Court clarified the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 299 IPC, stating that even if an act accelerates the death of a person suffering from a disease, it does not automatically amount to culpable homicide unless accompanied by the requisite mental element.
Cause Title: Abdul Jaleel & Ors. v. The State of Kerala [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:13793]
Appearances:
Petitioner: S. Rajeev, K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, V. Vinay, D. Feroze, Anand Kalyanakrishnan, Advocates.
Respondent: T.R. Renjith, Public Prosecutor.