RATHEESHKUMAR @ BABU v. THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1049 OF 2018

FACTS:

In this case, the incident occurred on April 6, 2007, involving a property boundary dispute between neighbours. The deceased, Narayanan, was erecting a fence along his property's boundary when the second accused objected, leading to a quarrel. Subsequently, the first accused, Ratheeshkumar @ Babu, intervened and inflicted fatal stab wounds on Narayanan. Eyewitnesses, including workers and neighbours present at the scene, testified to the sequence of events. The trial court convicted the first accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder, while the second accused was acquitted due to insufficient evidence of shared intent. The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the first accused's actions exceeded any claim of self-defence, as the force used was disproportionate to the threat posed. This appeal challenges the Kerala High Court's judgment dated 05.01.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 779 of 2013, which upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC imposed by the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad, in Session Case No. 490 of 2008.

ISSUE:

The primary issue in the present case was whether the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder was justified and to evaluate the plea of self-defence by the appellant. Another issue was whether the trial court had properly evaluated the evidence, particularly the testimonies of eyewitnesses and the intent behind the accused's actions. 

JUDEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Apex court dismissed the writ petition by the appellant along with stating that, he shall now surrender before the jail authorities to serve his remaining sentence within a period of four weeks from today and the bail bond which was entered into by him is cancelled.

The Court reasoned that the act of the appellant went beyond the realm of self-defence or a mere altercation. The use of excessive and disproportionate force was deemed to be the decisive factor in the case. Despite the appellant's claim of self-defence, the Court found that there was no imminent danger or threat that justified the violent actions taken. The High Court held that the appellant had acted with premeditated intent, and the fatal stabbing was a result of an unlawful attack.

The judgment emphasized that the evidence, including eyewitness testimonies, clearly established that the appellant's conduct was not a reaction to immediate provocation but a deliberate act of violence. As such, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, affirming the applicability of Section 302 in this case.

ANALYSIS:

In this case, the Court's decision cantered on the nature of the appellant’s actions and whether they justified a claim of self-defence. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Narayanan during a property dispute. The key issue was whether the act should be classified as murder or a lesser charge, such as culpable homicide. The Court found that the appellant’s use of excessive force, particularly the fatal stabbing, was disproportionate to any threat or provocation. This led the Court to conclude that the violence was not in self-defence but an unlawful act of intent.

The High Court rejected the self-defence argument, emphasizing that the force used must be reasonable and proportional to the threat faced. Since there was no immediate danger to the appellant, the violent response was deemed unnecessary. The Court relied heavily on eyewitness testimony, which supported the prosecution’s case that the appellant acted without provocation and with intent. This reinforced the application of Section 302 for murder. The decision underscores the principle that excessive force in response to a minor threat or provocation constitutes murder and emphasizes the strict standards for self-defence under the law.