Bombay HC Says Man Who Killed Wife In 'Sudden Quarrel' Over Improperly Cooked Meat Not Guilty Of Murder, Reduces Life Sentence

The court held that this was a case of sudden quarrel without any premeditation. Therefore, the court convicted him under section 304 Part I (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC and reduced his sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

"Admittedly, the accused had not prepared for the assault. When he saw that the deceased had not prepared the food, he abused and assaulted her. The weapon used in the present case is a lethal weapon like stick. In this view of the matter, we find that the appellant had knowledge that injuries could cause death of the deceased. There was an intention on the part of the accused to cause injuries. However, the accused had not taken undue advantage or has not acted in a cruel or unusual manner.…. the act of the accused would cover under exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the case of the accused would cover under Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code."

Justice Rohit B Deo and Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke of the Nagpur bench were dealing with a criminal appeal against the man's conviction under section 302 (punishment for murder) of the IPC. He was originally sentenced to life imprisonment.

The court said that this incident is covered under the exception 4 of section 300 (murder) of the IPC which provides that culpable homicide would not be murder if it is committed without premeditation upon a sudden quarrel.

The court cited psychiatrist Sydeny Brandon's book 'Violence in Family' in which he wrote, "Statistically it is safer to be on streets after dark with a stranger than at home in the bosom of one's family, for it is there that accident, murder and violence are likely to occur".

The present case is one more example of such type of violence in the house, the court said.

The prosecution's case was that the accused, who drank habitually, used to beat his wife. A neighbour and relative of the appellant saw him quarrelling with his wife and assaulting her with kicks and fists because she did not cook meat properly and burnt it. Later, the said neighbour saw the appellant's wife lying dead and approached the police.

During the trial, four prosecution witnesses including the appellant's daughter turned hostile. The informant supported the prosecution's case only to some extent. The appellant was found guilty. Hence the present appeal.

The medical evidence showed several external injuries on the face and chest of the victim as well as internal injuries on the lungs, ribs, heart, pancreas and spleen. The cause of death was "Cardiogenic Shock" due to injury to vital organ.

The appellant denied the offence. His defence was that his wife was suffering from epilepsy. She had a stroke on the day of the incident and fell on the ground sustaining injuries.

The court noted the there is no eye-witness and the entire case of the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence. The court reiterated that circumstantial evidence should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.

The clothes of the accused were found to be stained with human blood. However, no opportunity was given to the accused to explain this. Therefore, the court ignored this evidence.

The court from the witness testimonies noted that the neighbours saw the deceased and the appellant together prior to her death. The appellant was seen abusing and assaulting his wife because she had not prepared the meat properly. Subsequently, she was found dead and the appellant did not offer any explanation. A stick was found at the spot of the incident. A witness also saw burnt utensils containing meat curry.

The defence of the accused that the disease fell on the ground due to epilepsy stroke was ruled out by the medical evidence, the court said.

The evidence sufficiently shows that the death was homicidal and was caused in the appellant's house due to his assault on her for not preparing the food properly, the court concluded.

The court noted that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant. The injuries were not on vital parts of the wife's body. The court said that the evidence does not show that the appellant acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Therefore, the court set aside the murder conviction and convicted him for culpable homicide.

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2019

Case title – Suresh Madhukar Shendre v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 484