SC: Reducing Sentence In Murder Case Undermines Sanctity Of Life, Cruelty Demands Punitive Response

The Supreme Court emphasised that reducing murder sentences undermines justice, highlighting political rivalries' broader consequences, including social unrest and weakening public confidence in the law.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court has said that to reduce the sentence in a murder case would risk undermining the seriousness of the crime and the sanctity of life itself, and 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. The apex court emphasised that crimes rooted in political rivalry often have far-reaching consequences, beyond the immediate loss of life, and they contribute to social unrest and weakening public confidence in the rule of law.

A bench comprising justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale, in a verdict delivered on December 6, upheld conviction and sentence of life term imposed on a UDF sympathiser for killing a rival LDF worker in 2006. On April 10, 2006, the sympathisers of the United Democratic Front (UDF) and Left Democratic Front (LDF) fought against each other in connection with the dispute regarding the drawing of their election symbol at a place near a library in Kunnappalli, Pathaikkara village.

Justice Nath, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, refused the contention of the appellant that there was no deliberate intent to commit murder, and the offence happened in private defence.

Justice Nath noted that the deliberate act of stabbing vital parts of the body, coupled with the force used, indicates that the appellant must have been aware of the likely fatal consequences of his actions.

“Under the provisions of Section 300 IPC, 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 the intention to cause murder are proved, mere knowledge of the result of fatal actions is enough to ascribe culpability to the accused person”, said the bench.

The apex court dismissed an appeal filed by Kunhimuhammed alias Kunheethu, 67 years old, an IUML sympathiser in the case related to the murder of Subramanian on April 11, 2006.

Justice Nath said the offence occurred in the context of political rivalry, a factor that exacerbates its gravity. “Crimes rooted in such motives often have far-reaching consequences beyond the immediate loss of life, contributing to social unrest and weakening public confidence in the rule of law”, said the bench.

Justice Nath said 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”, he said.

The bench said the court must therefore ensure that its decisions reinforce the principle of accountability and deter the recurrence of such violent acts, particularly those that disrupt public order.

The apex court pointed out that when the minimum sentence itself is life imprisonment, then grounds like parity, leniency, old age, health concerns, etc would not be of any aid to the accused while seeking reduction of sentence.

The deceased was attacked with a tamarind stick but he snatched the stick and started beating the main accused. The main accused took out a knife and stabbed the deceased on the left side of the chest, the back of the head and the left shoulder, resulting in his death.

The apex court did not find merit in the appellant’s plea for leniency on the grounds of spontaneity and lack of premeditation, private defence, and old age.

"The injuries were concentrated on the vital parts of the deceased’s body, such as the chest and ribs, which house critical organs like the heart and lungs. The deliberate targeting of these areas indicates a clear intent to cause harm that could lead to death," said the bench.

On the appellant’s claim for applying parity with co-accused, Justice Nath said the doctrine ensures fairness in sentencing when other 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”, said the bench.

The apex court upheld the Kerala High Court's September 18, 2018 judgment, which dismissed his appeal against the trial court's judgment holding him guilty of offences under Sections 302, 324 and 326 of the IPC.