Wife Asking Hungry Husband To Wait For Preparation Of Food Not 'Grave & Sudden Provocation': Orissa High Court Upholds Murder Conviction
The Orissa High Court has recently held that a wife asking her husband to wait for some time to have food, as preparation of food was underway, is not grave and sudden provocation which would lead him to cause injuries to her and take away her life.While upholding the conviction of the appellant-husband for murder of his wife, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and...
The Orissa High Court has recently held that a wife asking her husband to wait for some time to have food, as preparation of food was underway, is not grave and sudden provocation which would lead him to cause injuries to her and take away her life.
While upholding the conviction of the appellant-husband for murder of his wife, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash held –
“Neither there is any quarrel nor fight in this case. A housewife cannot be said to have caused grave and sudden provocation to her hungry husband when she requests her to wait for a while as the preparation of food is under process.”
Factual Background
On the noon of 25.09.2008, the appellant-Raikishore Jena returned home from his cultivable land and asked his wife (the deceased) to serve him food. As the food was yet to be completely prepared, the deceased-wife asked the appellant to wait for some time.
Being enraged by such response, the appellant went inside their house and brought a katuri (a sharp edged weapon) and assaulted the deceased repeatedly on vital organs like head, face, neck, ear etc. by means of such weapon. As a result of such brutal assault, the deceased succumbed at the spot.
Subsequently, an FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of the offence of murder.
Basing upon the evidence of minor daughter of the appellant and the deceased, the post-mortem report and testimony of the medical officer, the trial Court came to the definite conclusion that the appellant is guilty for the commission of murder.
High Court's Observations
At the outset, the Court examined as to whether the deceased died a homicidal death. For that purpose, it perused the post-mortem examination. The cause of death was opined to be 'hypovolemic shock' caused by extensive cut injuries to the head, face and neck by heavy sharp cutting weapon. Further, this evidence was also corroborated by the inquest report. Therefore, the Bench came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.
The Court found the minor daughter of the appellant and the deceased to be the star witness for the prosecution. She deposed that her appellant-father returned from the cultivable land and asked her deceased-mother to serve him food but when the deceased asked him to wait for a while as the food was not completely prepared by then, he got enraged and fatally assaulted the deceased with a sharp edged weapon, i.e. katuri.
The said witness also stated that nobody except herself was present at the spot at the time of incident but many other persons came to that place after she raised hulla. The Court was of the view that the minor witness had no reason to falsely implicate her father for murder of her mother.
“The evidence of P.W.12 having not been shaken in the cross-examination and more particularly when her evidence is getting corroboration from the finding of the dead body of the deceased in the courtyard and seizure of blood stained earth and blood stained katuri and the medical evidence adduced by the doctor (P.W.9) and the chemical examination report (Ext.8) … we are of the view that the learned trial Court is quite justified in accepting her evidence and holding the appellant is the author of the crime,” it held.
Lastly, the Court considered the argument on behalf of the appellant that his act comes under the purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Considering the factual scenario, the Court observed that no grave or sudden provocation was caused to the appellant by the deceased by merely asking him to wait for food as the same was yet to be fully cooked.
“The appellant might have been hungry when he returned from the field and it is said in Panchatantra Verse 4.16 that 'Bubhuksitah Kim Na Karoti Papam i.e. a hungry person can commit any sin' and Jean de La Fontaine quotes, 'a hungry stomach has no ears', but the manner in which the appellant reacted and brought the 'katuri' from inside the house and assaulted the deceased on the vital parts of ger body like face, head, neck, ear etc., and caused as many as nine numbers of extensive cut injuries which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, show his intention to commit the murder,” it added.
The Court emphasised that there was no quarrel or fight between the appellant and the deceased in this case and therefore, a wife cannot be said to have caused grave and sudden provocation to her hungry husband by merely requesting him to wait for some time to have food.
Accordingly, it was held the act of the appellant cannot be covered under any of the exceptions under Section 300 of the IPC and the same amounts to commission of murder punishable under Section 302. Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Raikishore Jena v. State of Odisha
Case No: JCRLA No. 74 of 2010
Date of Judgment: October 28, 2024
Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. Mina Kumari Das, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Rajesh Tripathy, Addl. Standing Counsel
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 89