Inside Court 14 on a slightly cold December morning, the Supreme Court refused to budge from what it called the “clear and brutal” facts of the case against Surender Kumar. His bid to have his murder conviction reduced-something his lawyers pushed hard for-was dismissed after a brief but tense hearing where the Bench repeatedly pressed for evidence supporting the claim of a sudden fight.
Background
Kumar had been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for fatally stabbing a man in Himachal Pradesh. The High Court had already upheld the conviction, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Flags Faulty Trap Procedures While Granting Bail to Labour Officer Accused
A limited notice had been issued earlier this year to explore whether his act could possibly fall under a lesser offence-essentially whether the killing, despite the violence, occurred in circumstances that the law recognises as less blameworthy, such as sudden provocation or self-defence.
His counsel leaned heavily on the argument that the deceased was allegedly a drug addict and that loud shouts were heard just before the incident. “This shows there was a quarrel… it wasn’t a planned act,” counsel submitted earnestly.
But as the hearing progressed, the Bench began signalling that this line of reasoning might not travel very far.
Read also:- Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court order in sensitive POCSO matter, questions absence
Court’s Observations
The autopsy report turned out to be the anchor of the court’s reasoning. It recorded four knife blows, all on vital parts, and noted that major arteries-the common carotid and subclavian-were cut. “These injuries, in the ordinary course, would result in death,” the Bench observed, flipping through the typed pages before them.
The judges also pointed out that Kumar had not produced any defence evidence, nor did his statement under Section 313 CrPC mention even once that he was attacked or had to defend himself.
On the plea of self-defence, Justice Manoj Misra was direct: “There is no material to show the deceased was armed or had assaulted the accused. Exception 2 cannot come to your rescue.”
Read also:- Delhi High Court Grills Centre Over Indigo Flight Chaos, Demands Clear Accountability and Swift
When counsel attempted to rely on the argument of a sudden fight, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan interjected gently but firmly, noting that the law requires a “mutual exchange of blows.” The Bench remarked, “A fight is bilateral. Here, there is no evidence of any such exchange.”
They also referenced earlier precedents, including Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade, reinforcing that where the accused is armed and the victim unarmed, courts are slow to apply exceptions meant for spontaneous street scuffles.
As for the claim of grave and sudden provocation, the court was unconvinced. “There is simply nothing on record to show the provocation was so intense that the accused lost self-control,” the order stated bluntly.
In fact, the judges described the act-four deep blows with a knife to an unarmed man-as cruel, a word that hung in the courtroom with noticeable weight.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of ₹37.8 Crore After Buyer Misses Deadline in Surana Industries
Decision
With every argument closed off by the Bench’s reasoning, the outcome became almost inevitable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no mitigating circumstances existed to reduce the conviction from murder to a lesser offence.
And with that, Justice Misra read out the final line: “The appeal is dismissed.”
All pending applications, the court added, stood disposed of.
Case Title: Surender Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. /2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5532/2025)
Case Type: Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 302 IPC
Decision Date: 09 December 2025
