Subash @ Achu v. State of Kerala

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 452 – Section 307 – Consistent victim testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, prevailed over minor discrepancies in initial statement. Intent under Section 307 inferred from weapon’s nature and act, despite absence of fatal injury. Sentence modified considering offence severity and accused’s plea for leniency. Appeal partly allowed; convictions under Sections 452 and 307 confirmed; sentence revised.

2025 KER 45998 : 2025 (6) KLR 251
High Court of Kerala
A. Badharudeen, J.
Crl. Appeal No. 97 of 2014; June 25, 2025

Facts: The appellant, accused of house trespass and attempt to murder, challenged his conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pala, in S.C. No. 378/2012. On May 20, 2012, at 5:30 p.m., the accused allegedly trespassed into a house, abused the victim (PW3), and attempted to murder her by inflicting injuries on her neck and palm using a folding knife. The trial court convicted him under Sections 452 and 307 IPC, sentencing him to two years’ simple imprisonment and four years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively, along with fines. The accused appealed, citing delay in FIR registration, absence of independent witnesses, lack of blood stains on the weapon, and discrepancies in the victim’s statement.

Issues:

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder)?
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused under Section 452 IPC (house trespass)?
Whether the judgment required any interference?
What order should be passed?

Held:

Conviction Upheld: The High Court confirmed the trial court’s findings. The victim’s (PW3) testimony, corroborated by medical evidence (Ext.P21 wound certificate) and the recovery of the weapon (M.O1 knife), established that the accused trespassed into the house with intent to intimidate and assaulted the victim with a knife, intending to cause death. The absence of blood stains on the knife, recovered 41 days later, was deemed natural. The delay in FIR registration was explained by the victim’s hospitalization and trauma, and the lack of independent witnesses was justified as the incident occurred inside a house with no bystanders.
Ingredients of Offences: The court analyzed Sections 441, 442, and 452 IPC to confirm house trespass, noting the accused’s unauthorized entry with intent to intimidate. For Section 307 IPC, the court relied on precedents (e.g., State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554) to hold that grievous injury is not necessary if intent to cause death is evident from the act, weapon, and circumstances.
Sentence Modified: The appeal was partly allowed by modifying the sentence. For Section 307 IPC, the sentence was reduced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000 (default: one month rigorous imprisonment). For Section 452 IPC, the sentence was reduced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000 (default: 15 days rigorous imprisonment). The substantive sentences were to run concurrently, with default sentences separately.

Key Observations:

The victim’s consistent testimony, supported by medical evidence, outweighed minor discrepancies in her initial statement.
The court emphasized that intent under Section 307 IPC can be inferred from the nature of the weapon and the act, even without fatal injury.
The modified sentence balanced the severity of the offences with the accused’s plea for leniency.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction under Sections 452 and 307 IPC confirmed; sentence modified.

For Appellant : Advs. Divya C. Balan, P.D. Subramanian Nampoothiri, K.N. Sugathan, Sidharth Bimal

For Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Adv. Renjit George