Kerala High Court: Threatening words uttered in frustration don’t prove intent to kill, life sentences set aside

‘Membership, animosity, death’

• A 56-year-old man, who was the President of Ershadul Muslim Sabhawas, was allegedly murdered by the eight accused in the furtherance of the common object of an unlawful assembly formed by them.
• The incident that led to the death of the victim occurred in March 2012 at night.
• It was alleged that the eight accused had a grudge towards the victim, as they were under the impression that he was the person behind obtaining an order from the Waqf Board that new members shall not be inducted in the Ershadul Muslim Sabha.
• The prosecution claimed that the eight accused, with a common object of the said assembly, approached the victim and beat him, resulting in his death.

• The eight accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 25,000 each by the trial court.
• The prosecution claimed before this high court that there is ample evidence to establish that the accused had a strong motive to eliminate the victim and that, even before the occurrence, they had expressed an intention to do away with him.

Observation: Questioning motive, intention to kill

• Motive and intention are states of mind. There are several limitations to exactly deciphering what occurred in the mind of an accused when he committed an offence.
• The existence of prior hostility or even the utterance of a threat does not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the accused intended to carryout such a threat.
• A threatening phone call made to the victim would not be independently sufficient to prove an intention to kill.
• All the injuries sustained by the victim are minor in nature. It is also noted that no injury was inflicted using any weapon, which suggests that the accused persons only intended to cause hurt to the victim at most.
• As per the records, the accused had sufficient opportunity to inflict fatal injuries and could have caused injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the victim if he had such an intention.
• The non-infliction of fatal injuries, despite the availability of the opportunity, suggests that the accused did not have the required intention either to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to result in the death of the victim.

• It was placed on record that the doctor concerned in this case has pointed out that the injuries sustained by the victim were not fatal in nature in the case of a normal person.
• There is absolutely no convincing evidence or circumstance that suggests that the accused was aware that the victim was suffering from any heart disease or bodily infirmity.
• Since there is no evidence placed on record to show that the accused had knowledge of the alleged heart issue of the victim, it cannot be said that the accused acted with the intention or knowledge of accelerating his death.
• In the absence of any peculiar circumstances pointing to the fact 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 conviction of the accused persons is altered from attempt to murder to voluntarily causing simple hurt.
• The accused persons are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000 each for the offence punishable for voluntarily causing simple hurt.

‘Understanding homicide, murder vs culpable homicide

• The high court made some observations clarifying the offences of homicide, murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Homicide, in its generic sense, only denotes the causing of death of a person by another person and does not, in every case, amount to murder or even culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The offence of culpable homicide would not be automatically attracted if the victim died due to a weak and dilated heart, and there was neither any intention on the part of the accused to cause death nor any knowledge of the heart disease from which the victim was suffering.
• Not all homicides can be called as murder or culpable homicide amounting to murder. The circumstances of the case, the intention of the accused, can fall in the category of other offences, such as voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt, or even causing death by rash or negligent act.
• The mere establishment of death and its causal link to the act of the accused is not sufficient to attract liability for culpable homicide.