In A Sacred Relationship Husband Is Property Of Wife & Vice-Versa: Meghalaya HC Modifies Conviction Of Husband Accused Of Killing Wife's Paramour

The Meghalaya High Court has recently modified the murder conviction of a man who allegedly caused the death of the ex-husband of his wife, after discovering both of them in a 'compromising position' in the bedroom.

While terming the act of the appellant as a reaction to “safeguard his right over his wife” without any premeditation or intention, the Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh observed –

“Even in the great epic Ramayanam, it was stated that Sita was tested by Rama to prove her chastity by jumping into the fire. In a sacred relationship, the husband is the property of the wife and vice versa and if one betrays the other, this type of incident will take place due to sudden provocation/emotion.”

Brief Facts

The appellant discovered his wife in the company of the deceased, who happened to be the ex-husband of his wife, in a compromising position inside her bedroom. Being enraged by such acts of the deceased, he attacked him with an axe and caused his death.

After committing the aforesaid offence, he voluntarily surrendered before the police and confessed his guilt. The investigation was carried out and upon its completion, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the commission of murder of the deceased.

The appellant also confessed before the Magistrate to have committed the offence. The trial Court also took into account the evidence adduced by the wife of the appellant as well as her sisters and after analysing all the evidence on record, it came to the conclusion that the appellant in fact committed murder of the deceased.

Contentions of the Parties

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction is entirely based on the statement of the wife of the appellant and the rest of the witnesses are hearsay. Even the wife herself stated that when the appellant came to the house, the deceased was present there and upon seeing him, the appellant committed the murder out of a sudden burst of anger.

He further argued that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant, as he lost his temper on account of the act of his wife, who was seen in a compromising position with the deceased in her bedroom.

It was further contended that though the occurrence took place in 2002, the witnesses were examined very late after a lapse of almost ten years and by that time, their memory would have faded away and there is every chance that they introduced some new versions or embellished the stories.

The counsel, thus, argued that the appellant committed the overt act under grave and sudden provocation and therefore, he deserves to be convicted under first exception to Section 300 (punishable under Section 304, IPC) and not under Section 302, IPC.

On the other side, the Additional Advocate General for the State argued that the appellant had confessed that due to previous enmity and to wreak vengeance, he committed the murder of the deceased. He also submitted that his confessional statement is further fortified by the evidence of other witnesses and hence, the order of the trial Court is justified.

Court's Observations

The Court noted that except the wife of the appellant, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. It compared the Section 164, CrPC statement of the wife with her version in cross-examination. After a thorough examination, the Court was of the view that there were severe contradictions in both statements.

The wife though in her Section 164 statement stated that the appellant, upon seeing the deceased with her, became angry and suddenly hacked the deceased to death but in her cross-examination, she stated that the appellant saw both the deceased and herself in a compromising position. She further stated that the deceased pointed his pistol towards the appellant and the appellant ran away.

From the above contradictions, the Court became apprehensive as to who caused the murder of the deceased. However, it was convinced that the wife admitted to having maintained an illicit relationship with her ex-husband (the deceased).

“In such an event, there is every possibility for a prudent man to lose his temper / self-control, when he sees his wife with some other person in a naked and compromising position, which, though morally justified, but looking at the legal perspective, is not sustained. Therefore, we are satisfied that the commission of the offence by the appellant squarely falls under the provisions of Exception 2 of Section 300,” it held.

The Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhanwar Singh & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it was held that in order to bring the case within the ambit of Exception 2 to Section 300, IPC, there is every necessity to establish that the accused, in the garb of self-defence, caused the death of the deceased.

“If we apply this proposition to the case on hand, the accused, on noticing the presence of the deceased in his house caused the death of the deceased in order to safeguard his right over person (wife) without any premeditation or intention,” it added.

The Bench, speaking through Chief Justice Vaidyanathan, then likened the life of the married couples to that of a bicycle and observed –

“Human life may be compared to a bicycle, which has two wheels and the front wheel is a husband and the back wheel is a wife. If there is any problem with one of the wheels, the cycle (in a sense 'family') cannot run smoothly. In this case, because of the extra marital affairs of the wife, which has been accepted by her in her evidence, the entire family, much less children got affected.”

In this case, the Court held, the wife betrayed the trust of her husband, as she was in a compromising position with her ex-husband as per her own deposition. It stressed that merely because the deceased is the ex-husband of the wife of the appellant, it does not give her license to maintain illicit relationship even after her separation from him.

The Chief Justice also wrote that in a sacred relationship, the husband is the property of the wife and vice versa and if one betrays the other, this type of incident (murder) is likely to take place due to sudden provocation/emotion.

The Bench further placed reliance upon a recent judgment in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, wherein the top Court held that marriage is not an event for 'song and dance' and 'wining and dining' or an occasion to demand and exchange dowry rather it is a solemn foundational event celebrated so as to establish a relationship between a man and a woman who acquired the status of a husband and wife for an evolving family in future which is a basic unit of Indian society.

Considering all the surrounding circumstances, the Court was of the opinion that the overt act of the appellant squarely falls under Exception 2 to Section 300 and thus, he was held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder instead of murder. Accordingly, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.

Case Title: Shri Phot Khaii v. The State of Meghalaya & Ors.

Case No: Crl.A.No.3/2024 with Crl.M.C.No.11/2024

Date of Judgment: May 24, 2024

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Philemon Nongbri, Advocate with Mr. W.G.R. Mihsil, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. N.D. Chullai, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. R. Colney, Govt. Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order