Wife's Refusal To Return Home With Husband Provoked Him, Murder Not Premeditated: Telangana High Court Modifies Conviction U/S 302 IPC

The Telangana High Court has modified an order of the trial court convicting a man for murder of his wife to that of Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder holding that 'intent' and 'knowledge' should not be used interchangeably and the court must determine whether the accused intended to take the life of an individual with his/her acts.

"No doubt deceased died due to the injury caused by the accused, but the said injury was caused in a fit of anger and he has no intention to kill the deceased. There is thin line between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and murder and this can falls under Section 304 part-II," the Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and P. Sree Sudha said.

The bench was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the husband convicted under section 302 IPC for allegedly hacking his wife to death with an axe.

The division bench relied on the judgement of Pulicherla Nagaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh that lists down circumstances in which the accused might have had knowledge that his acts would cause death, but did not possess intention to take the life of an individual.

Equating those circumstances to the present case the Court noted that the husband and wife had been quarrelling, which caused the wife/decreased to move back to the house of her parents. The accused wanted the deceased to come back home with him, but when he requested his father in law, he informed the accused that the deceased was unwell and would return with him at a later date.

The Court has noted that the refusal of the wife to go back with the accused suddenly provoked him and in the spur of the moment the accused went inside the house of the deceased, took an axe and ended the life of the deceased.

The Court also noted that it could be concluded that the murder was not premeditated and the accused had no intention to take the life of the deceased, as he had not carried any weapon along with him.

"Deceased was living with her parents, as such, accused along with his brother-in-law approached P.W.1 and requested him to send the deceased. But P.W.1 stated that she is sick and he will send her later. It seems Balamani was not intended to go along with her husband. Hence, in a sudden provocation, in a spur of moment, he went inside the house, picked up an axe and hacked her. As there is no provocation to kill his wife, he did not carry any weapon with him..."

While passing the order, the Court emphasized that when statute has classified 'murder with intention' and 'murder without intention' under different heads, it is upon the Courts to gauge whether the ingredients of section 302 of the IPC have been satisfied.

"Knowledge would be one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining or inferring the requisite intent. Where the evidence would not disclose that there was any intention to cause death of the deceased but it was clear that the accused had knowledge that his acts were likely to cause death, the accused can be held guilty under second part of Section 304 IPC. It is in this that the expression used in Indian Penal Code namely "intention" and "knowledge" has to be seen as there being a thin line of distinction between these two expressions."

Accordingly, the Court modified the charge of the accused from under 302 to 304 of the IPC and considering that he had been languishing in jail for 9 and a half years, modified his sentence to 'time served'.

Case no.: CrLA: 758 of 2014

Counsel for accuser: Venkat Reddy Kodumury

Counsel for State: APP

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment