No Premeditation: Bombay High Court Quashes Attempt To Murder Charge Against Man Booked For Pouring Rat Poison In Wife's Mouth During Quarrel

The Bombay High Court has acquitted a man from charges of attempt to murder holding that his act of pouring poison in the mouth of his wife during a quarrel was not 'premeditated' and thus can be punished under charges of attempt to culpable homicide.

Single-judge Justice Sarang Kotwal while acquitting one Namdeo Chormule noted that he was convicted by a court in Solapur for pouring rat poison in his wife's mouth. However, the judge opined that instead of convicting Chormule under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the trial court could have convicted him for a lesser offence of attempt to culpable homicide (section 308 of IPC).

"The evidence shows that the quarrel had started at 9:00 AM and during that quarrel the appellant had poured poison in the informant's mouth. Therefore, there was no premeditation, no pre-planning and no design on the part of the Appellant. In such a case, if that act had led to the death of the victim, it would not have been murder, but only the culpable homicide, not amounting to murder," Justice Kotwal observed.

The medical evidence, the judge noted, showed that the victim had suffered from poisoning and she had to be treated in the hospital for four days. The bench further noted that the victim wife has accepted in her statements that when she gained consciousness, the appellant and her sister were present in the hospital. It also noted from the statements of the victim's sister, who was declared hostile, that the appellant along with others had taken the victim to the hospital.

"There is no reason for the victim's sister to support the Appellant. Therefore, though, the Appellant had full opportunity to cause further damage, he had not done so and in fact, he had tried to take the victim to the hospital. Therefore, there is scope to believe that the Appellant did not have intention to commit murder of the victim," the judge held.

Accordingly, the bench quashed and set aside the conviction of the Appellant under section 307 of the IPC. It also quashed his 10 years rigorous imprisonment punishment. However, the judge convicted him under section 308 and noted that the Appellant has already undergone more than five years in jail while the maximum sentence under section 308 is seven years. Therefore he ordered the immediate release of the Appellant.

"The Appellant is in custody. Since the maximum sentence imposed on him is for the period which he has already undergone and since the sentences are directed to run concurrently, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in other case," the judge ordered.

Appearance:

Advocates Abhishek R. Avachat (appointed Advocate), Siddhant Deshpande and Mahesh Sadaphal appeared for the Appellant.

Assistant Public Prosecutor Ranjana Humane represented the State.

Case Title: Namdeo Chormule vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal/430/2021)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment