Whether self-defence must align with proportionality and necessity?

Facts of the Case

The case revolves around a political rivalry-fueled altercation in Pathaikkara Village, Kerala, on April 11, 2006, between supporters of opposing political fronts. The appellant, Kunhimuhammed, along with two others, attacked the deceased, Subrahmannian, and a witness (PW-1). The appellant, armed with a knife, inflicted multiple stab wounds on the deceased, causing fatal injuries, and also injured PW-1. The incident led to the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder, among other charges, by the Trial Court, later upheld by the High Court. The appellant sought leniency, claiming the act was unintentional and committed in self-defense.

Contentions of the Appellant

The appellant contended that:

1. The act was not premeditated but occurred during a scuffle, lacking intent to commit murder.
2. The stabbing was a defensive response to being overpowered.
3. His advanced age (67 years) and health issues, including partial paralysis, warranted leniency.
4. He sought parity with co-accused, one of whom was acquitted, and another received a reduced sentence.

Contentions of the Respondent

The State argued that:

1. The attack was deliberate, evidenced by the nature and location of injuries inflicted with a lethal weapon.
2. The appellant’s actions were disproportionate, escalating the altercation into a fatal assault.
3. There was no justification for self-defence, as the appellant suffered only minor injuries.
4. The roles and actions of the co-accused were distinct, precluding the appellant’s claim for parity.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant’s act constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
2. Whether the appellant could claim self-defence under Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC.
3. Whether the appellant’s advanced age and health justified a reduced sentence.
4. Whether parity in sentencing with co-accused was applicable.

Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court

1. The appellant’s actions satisfied the criteria for murder under Section 300 IPC. The injuries inflicted were severe, targeted vital organs, and indicated intent to cause death or knowledge of fatal consequences.
2. The appellant’s plea of self-defence was rejected. His minor injuries did not justify the excessive force used, and evidence showed he was the aggressor.
3. Advanced age and health were insufficient grounds for leniency in a case involving deliberate and severe actions.
4. Parity with co-accused was inapplicable due to the appellant’s distinct and more culpable role in the crime.

Principle of the Case

The judgment underscores that deliberate infliction of fatal injuries with knowledge of their consequences constitutes murder under Section 300 IPC. The defense of spontaneity or self-defence must align with proportionality and necessity, failing which it cannot absolve liability.

Final Order

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, and maintained the sentence of life imprisonment, emphasizing the severity of the crime and its implications for public order.

Impact on Public Law and Order

This judgment reinforces the principle that political or factional disputes must not escalate into fatal violence. By rejecting disproportionate use of force and emphasizing individual accountability, it serves as a deterrent against politically motivated crimes, promoting social harmony and respect for the rule of law.

Case Citation

Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Kunhimuhammed @Kunheethu v. The State of Kerala
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4403 of 2023)
Date of Judgment: December 6, 2024