Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu State Of Kerala 2024 INSC 937 - S 300 IPC - Right Of Private Defense

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 304 - To bring the accused'sact under section 304, IPC in light of the offence being committed in exercise of private defense and thereby exceeding the power given under the law, that is under exception 2 to section 300, IPC – the ingredients therein must be proved. The ingredients for this exception are: 1. The accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter; 2. There must be an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm, either real or apparent; 3. Injuries received by the accused; 4. The injuries caused by the accused-5.he accused did not have time or opportunity to take recourse to public authorities. (Para 26.1) - The number of injuries on the accused side by itself may not be sufficient to establish right of private defense -An overall view of the case has to be taken to check whether a case for private defense is made out from the evidence on record. (Para 26.5)

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 300 - An intention to cause such injuries that are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death qualifies as murder, and even if ingredients other than intention to cause murder are proved, mere knowledge of the result of fatal actions is enough to ascribe culpability to the accused person. (Para 25.8) - The act of causing injuries with knife to vital parts is reflective of the knowledge that causing such injuries is likely to cause death in the ordinary course. (Para 25.16) - Intent can be inferred from the nature and severity of injuries, as well as the choice of weapon and the manner of its use. The use of a lethal weapon and the deliberate targeting of vital parts of the body are strong indicators of such intent. (Para 25.17)

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Accused's plea for leniency on account of old age and a medical condition- These factors alone cannot absolve or mitigate the responsibility for a crime of this magnitude. A murder committed with the intent to target vital organs, particularly in a group setting, reflects a level of intent and cruelty that demands an appropriate punitive response. To reduce the sentence in such a case would risk undermining the seriousness of the crime and the sanctity of life itself, principles that the judicial system is duty-bound to uphold. (Para 28.4) The doctrine of parity ensures fairness in sentencing when co-accused persons are similarly situated and share the same level of culpability. However, parity is not an automatic entitlement; the role, intent, and actions of each accused must be individually assessed to determine their degree of involvement in the crime. (Para 27.2)