BARQLEXUS 1ST National Judgement Writing Competition 2024
Sessions Court, Banglore
Ravi Sharma
v.
State of Karnataka
Date: 26th August 2024
The instant criminal case has been filed against the accused Ravi
Sharma, 32 years, male, before this hon’ble court, charged for
Murder of Anil Kumar on the night of 15th July, 2023, under Section
101, of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
The deceased by the name Anil Kumar, 35 year old software
engineer, and the accused had a history of bickering regarding their
mutual romantic interest in a woman named Muskan. The woman
appeared to be leaning towards Anil, which led to arguments
between the accused and the deceased on several occasions, some
of which even leading to physical altercations.
The unfortunate incident occurred on night of 15th July, 2023,
wherein the accused was seen entering the deceased apartment at 9
pm, which later has been corroborated with CCTV footage and
further confirmed by witnesses who claim to have observed the
accused entering the premises at the approxminately the same time.
Further to confirm the circumstances preceding the commission of
crime, the neighbours of the deceased have reported hearing loud
noised from the apartment of the deceased suggesting that verbal
arguments could have escalated into physical fights given the nature
of history shared between the two. The accused reportedly left the
apartment by 9 : 30 pm.
Shortly thereafter, the police were notified, who instantly noticed
the blunt force trauma caused to the deceased which allegedly could
be the sole reason of death as per the post mortem report. Further,
based on information received, Ravi Kumar was identified as the
primary suspect. Subsequently, the alleged murder weapon, a blood
stained hammer was found in the possession of the accused which
was further concluded as the murder weapon by the forensic report
after matching the fingerprints found on the weapon to the accused
along with the blood of the deceased matching the blood on the
hammer .
Arguments raised by the defense counsel
The accused acknowledges the prosecution's case to the extent that
all the facts alleged did occur between the deceased and the
accused. However, the accused has invoked the plea of self-defense.
The defense counsel states that deceased attacked the accused first,
and the actions taken by the accused later were merely a response
to a situatio, an accident where in the accused was compelled to act
in self-preservation, rather than with any intent to cause harm to the
deceased. It is further contended that the initial act of aggression
originated from the deceased, which subsequently led to the
unfortunate incident.
The defence counsel further emphasized the altercation that
occurred between the deceased and the accused on the day
preceding the commission of the offense, during which the deceased
had threatened the accused, stating, "Stay away from Muskan, or I
shall kill you." The defence argued that the first act of aggression
originated from the deceased suggesting the possibility that the act
of the accused could indeed have been an act of accident arising out
of self defence.
Arguments raised by prosecution
The prosecution has constructed their arguments entirely on
evidences and testimony witnesses strengthening their version of
the case. Firstly, it is established that the accused entered the
apartment of the deceased at 9.00 pm on 15th july. This has been
corroborated by witnesses who have seen him entering at that
approximate time and further substantiated by CCTV footage.
Secondly, the neighbours of the deceased heard loud arguments and
sounds of struggles from the apartment of the deceased raising
further concerns about what transpired inside during that time
frame. The accused was reportedly captured leaving at 9.30 as per
the CCTV footage.
The final and decisive factor in the case was the argument advanced
in relation to the alleged murder weapon, a blood stained hammer
recovered from Ravi’s possession. Forensic analysis and post mortem
report confirmed the blood on the hammer belonged to Anil
whereas, the fingerprints on the murder weapon matched with Ravi.
Thus, the prosecution has successfully linked the circumstantial
evidence to the offence, establishing Ravi's connection to the crime
beyond reasonable doubt.
Reliability of Evidence
Determining factor of this case lies in the circumstantial evidences
obtained as well as the links it establishes. The footage captured by
the CCTV provides clear delineation of the time frame within which
the offence must have occurred i.e 9.00pm to 9.30 pm on the night
of 15th July. The neighbours who served as witnesses have reported
hearing loud arguements as well sounds of struggle during that time
frame clearly indicating that from the time Ravi entered Anils
apartment, there were verbal as physical altercations which took
place between the two indivisuals. The fact that such altercations
took place has not been disputed by the defence counsel.
The recovery of murder weapon from the possession of the accused
suggests that the accused very well used the hammer to cause harm
to the deceased. Again, this fact is not disputed as the accused
admits using the said weapon. The evidence has further been
strenghtened by forensic reports and post mortem reports. All the
evidence in the instant case is thoroughly corroborated to the extent
that the chain of events, culminating that the offence committed by
Ravi, is established beyond reasonable doubt.
Motive and Intent
Motive can be a complex construct in the mind of the accused in
such cases; however, the common love interest provides a clear
direction. According to the prosecution, Ravi's motive was to gain
Muskan's favor. Anil had become an obstacle to achieving this goal,
as reports indicate that Muskan had been leaning towards Anil. This
clearly establishes the motive of the accused to remove the
deceased from his path.
Reference is made to Anbazhagan vs. The State Rep. by The
Inspector of Police on July 20, 2023, (2023 AIR SC 1861) whereinthe
point of intention came into focus,
21. The intention may be proved by res gestae, by acts or events
previous or subsequent to the incident or occurrence, on admission.
Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to
be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case. There are
various relevant circumstances from which the intention can be
gathered. Some relevant considerations are the following:-
1. The nature of the weapon used.
2. The place where the injuries were inflicted.
3. The nature of the injuries caused.
4. The opportunity available which the accused gets.
Now, the question of intent must be examined with meticulous
attention. The use of a hammer is, first and foremost, a questionable
first choice one can make, in a situation demanding self defense. A
reasonable man is expected to understand that striking someone on
the head with such an object carries a significantly higher probability
of causing severe harm compared to other possible methods of
attack.
The time frame of this case is centered between 9:00 and 9:30 p.m.
Despite being threatened with death by the deceased just a day
prior, the accused, fully aware of the nature of the relationship
between himself and the deceased, took the bold step of visiting the
deceased's apartment at late hours of the day. A reasonable man
without clouded intent would think twice before entering premises
of a man who has previously threatened him even if invited. Herein,
the fact that the accused went so willingly raises doubt as to whether
the accused has an ulterior intent which eventually came to light
after attaining the opportunity to cause such harm to the deceased.
Validity of claim of Self defence
It is very well established that the right to private defense is intended
to serve a social purpose and should be encouraged, provided it
remains within the prescribed limits.
To emphasize on the limits of use of private defence, the prosecution
has relied on Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 15 January,
2010 (air 2010 supreme court 1212)
30. When there is real apprehension that the aggressor might cause
death or grievous hurt, in that event the right of private defence of
the defender could even extend to causing of death. A mere
reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defence
into operation, but it is also settled position of law that a right of self-
defence is only right to defend oneself and not to retaliate. It is not a
right to take revenge.
The rule as to the right of private defence has been stated by Russel
on Crime (11th Edn., Vol.1, p.491) thus:
"..... a man is justified in resisting by force anyone who manifestly
intends and endeavours by violence or surprise to commit a known
felony against either his person, habitation or property. In these
cases he is not obliged to retreat, and may not merely resist the
attack where he stands but may indeed pursue his adversary until
the danger is ended, and if in a conflict between them he happens to
kill his attacker, such killing is justifiable."
In the instant case, accused has failed to clarify or substantiate any
harm or apprehension that the deceased intended to inflict before
the accused exercised the right of private defense. Additionally, the
claim that the deceased attacked the accused first remains vague
and lacks clarity, further casting doubt on the legitimacy of the
accused's exercise of the right to private defense.
However, even if we allow for the possibility that the deceased may
have initiated the aggression, the use of a hammer during the
altercation raises significant concerns. A hammer is not an object one
would typically find readily available in the apartment of an ordinary
person, making its presence and use in this situation highly troubling
and difficult to reconcile with a claim of self-defense.
Another important factor questioning the validity of private defence
is the subsequent conduct of the accused after commission of crime.
The murder weapon was found in the possession of the accused
which is very unlikely in any case of private defense Therefore the
plea of self defense taken by defence counsel in the instant case
stands rejected.
Mens rea
The essential ingredient of mens rea cannot be excluded from
consideration when charge in a criminal court consists of homicide.
In this case, evidence such as the premeditated visit to the
deceased's apartment, the use of a hammer—a weapon not typically
found in a common household—, and the established motive, all
point towards a deliberate and intentional act, rather than one
committed in self-defense or under provocation.
The accused when using the murder weapon and making contact
with the deceased is presumed to be aware that the action will most
likely cause injury to the other man however, the detail in this case is
the use of a hammer, blunt force which is aimed straight to the head.
These factors don’t leave any scope for “most likely” for any
reasonable man unless the reasonability of the man is in question
itself. Therefore the guilty intention of the accused is established
beyond reasonable doubt.
Applicability of sec 105 of BNS
The distinction between culpable homicide and murder is subtle and
often challenging to discern. To accurately determine the nature of
the offence, every factor in a case must be carefully considered to
understand where the boundary lies.
In the present case, the intent has been conclusively established
beyond reasonable doubt, leaving no room for any interpretation
other than the intention to commit murder. The act of striking the
deceased's head with a hammer using blunt force clearly
demonstrates the accused's knowledge that such an action would
inevitably result in death, thereby amounting to murder.
