Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 6 – The term ‘transaction” used in Section 6 must be interpreted broadly and flexibly to encompass not merely a single act, but the entire sequence of closely connected acts that collectively constitute the occurrence. (Para 22)
2025 KER 42853 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2144
High Court of Kerala
P.B. Suresh Kumar & Jobin Sebastian, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2024; 18.06.2025
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 449, 392, 397, 307, and 302
Facts: The appellant, a resident of West Bengal, trespassed into the house of Thambi on 30.07.2018 with the intent to rob a gold chain from Mariyamma, Thambi’s mother. When Nimisha, Thambi’s daughter, intervened, the appellant slit her throat with a kitchen knife, causing her death. Elias, Thambi’s brother, was stabbed multiple times by the appellant while attempting to overpower him, sustaining serious injuries. The appellant fled with a piece of the gold chain but was apprehended shortly thereafter. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 449 (house-trespass to commit offence), 392 (robbery), 397 (robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 307 (attempt to murder), and 302 (murder) IPC, sentencing him, inter alia, to life imprisonment. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence, contending insufficient evidence to prove his guilt for Nimisha’s death and Elias’s injuries, and alternatively, that the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC were not made out.
Held:
-
Sufficiency of Evidence: The prosecution established the appellant’s guilt through consistent testimonies of key witnesses (PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5, PW6), forensic evidence (Ext.P60) confirming the presence of Nimisha’s blood on the appellant’s clothes, knives, and nail clippings, and the recovery of the stolen gold chain piece. The absence of direct evidence for Nimisha’s fatal injury was offset by circumstantial evidence forming a complete chain, proving beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused her death during the same transaction in which Elias was injured.
-
Section 302 IPC (Murder): The appellant’s act of slitting Nimisha’s throat to a depth of 3.5 cm with a kitchen knife demonstrated intent to cause death, inferred from the nature, location, and severity of the injury. The contention that the act lacked premeditation or was committed in a sudden quarrel (Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC) was rejected, as no sudden fight or heat of passion was established, and the act was deemed cruel and disproportionate.
-
Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder): The appellant’s repeated stabs aimed at Elias’s abdomen with a 17.5 cm knife, though landing on his left hand, indicated intent to cause death, supported by the weapon’s nature, force of blows, and prior act of killing Nimisha. The offence was upheld despite injuries being non-fatal.
-
Sections 449, 392, and 397 IPC: No challenge was raised against convictions for house-trespass, robbery, and robbery with attempt to cause death, which were affirmed based on evidence of trespass and forcible snatching of the gold chain.
-
Admissibility of Evidence: The disclosure leading to the recovery of the second knife (MO4) was inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act due to improper recording and lack of translator testimony. However, the appellant’s act of handing over the knife was admissible under Section 8 as subsequent conduct. Mariyamma’s utterance, heard by PW1, was admissible as res gestae under Section 6, forming part of the same transaction.
Judgment: The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences under Sections 449, 392, 397, 307, and 302 IPC were upheld.
Key Observations:
-
Circumstantial evidence, when forming a complete chain, can sustain a conviction for murder absent direct evidence.
-
Intent for murder or attempt to murder is inferred from the nature of the weapon, injury, and circumstances, not merely the outcome.
-
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC requires all four ingredients (no premeditation, sudden fight, heat of passion, no undue advantage) to be satisfied, which were absent here.
Counsel:
For Appellant:
Adv. P. Mohamed Sabah |
 Adv. Libin Stanley K/250/2015 9895722338 |
Adv. Saipooja |
Adv. Sadik Ismayil |
Adv. R. Gayathri |
Adv. M. Mahin Hamza |
Adv. Rayees P. |
Adv. Alwin Joseph |
For Respondent :
Adv. Ambika Devi S. |
Keywords: Murder, Attempt to Murder, Robbery, Circumstantial Evidence, Res Gestae, Forensic Evidence, Indian Penal Code, Exception 4 to Section 300.
