Latest News
Back
Document:
Person cannot be held guilty of murder if intention is not proved: Kerala HC
A. Hariprasad and A.Anil Kumar, JJ headed a division bench as they released the appellant on grounds that no intention to commit murder was established. The appellant also had already served more detention than the actual term of punishment prescribed by law.
The prosecution alleged that the deceased and the convicted appellant were in the practice of sleeping in a closed veranda or bus sheds. They were also addicted to drinking. The convicted appellant having harbored hatred towards the deceased viciously attacked him with the intention of killing the person. The deceased was declared dead at the nearby hospital upon arrival.
Learned counsel Renjith B. Marar represented the appellant and stated that the name of the deceased was only recorded at the hospital. Due to a “botched up investigation” it is not entirely improbable that the assailant may have been someone else. The fact also stands that the injuries inflicted upon the deceased according to the post-mortem report was made with weapons that the appellant did not carry. The counsel held that even if the prosecution case were to be accepted, the Section 300 of the Penal Code could not be held against the appellant as the opposite counsel could not establish the mens rea on the part of the appellant that caused the death of the deceased.
The counsel of the respondent headed by Alex H. Thombra argued that the appellant had been involved in a fight with the deceased and was forced to apologize for his conduct to the deceased on the night previous to the death of the deceased. PW1 presented before the court confirmed the assault of the accused appellant on the deceased.
The HC upon examination found out that the accused was aware of the frail physical conditions of the deceased and was well aware that incessant hits would be the cause of death of the accused. This made the motive of murder nonexistent. However the HC found the appellant guilty under Section 299 of Penal Code and liable under Section 304 of the Penal Code. The Court pronounced him rigorous imprisonment of 7 years but found that his detention was on the tenth year. Upon considering this the HC ordered to release him.
Document:
