Judgement of the Day-Stalin v. State represented by the Inspector of Police.

Stalin v. State represented by the Inspector of Police



The accused-murder convict had relied on two decisions viz Kunhayippu v. State of Kerala (2000) 10 SCC 307 and Musumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 3 SCC 557 to contend that for causing a single stab injury, Section 302 IPC shall not be attracted. It was contended that the occurrence had taken place out of a sudden and grave provocation and therefore the offence would fall under Exception I to Section 300 and therefore, the appellant has to be convicted for the lesser offence than section 302 IPC. On behalf of the state it was submitted that there is no absolute proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in any of the decisions that in case of a single blow, section 302 shall not be attracted.


The three judge bench of SC held that is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC would not be attracted. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature of injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. The absence of motive does not disperse a prosecution case if the prosecution succeeds in proving the same. The motive is always in the mind of person authoring the incident. Motive not being apparent or not being proved only requires deeper scrutiny of the evidence by the courts while coming to a conclusion. When there are definite evidence proving an incident and eyewitness account prove the role of 19 accused, absence in proving of the motive by prosecution does not affect the prosecution case"

Recent Posts

See All