Man Sets Woman Ablaze Upon Her Refusal To Serve Food: MP High Court Converts Murder Conviction To S.304 IPC, Says Act Committed On "Sudden Impulse"

Even though the Appellant had not raised the argument regarding the act being committed on sudden impulse, the division bench comprising Justices Sujoy Paul and Prakash Chandra Gupta took up the question while examining the question of conviction and sentence:

This Court being an Appellate Court thought it proper to examine the question of conviction and sentence for committing offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. The evidence so led and discussed herein above shows that there was no iota of premeditation in putting the deceased ablaze by the present appellant. The incident had taken place suddenly and because of sudden impulse, the appellant poured kerosene on Suman Bai and set her on fire…If the factual matrix of present case is examined on the anvil of principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it will be crystal clear that appellant cannot be held guilty for committing offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Indeed, he can be held guilty for committing offence under Section 304 (Part-I) of the I.P.C. for which, in our opinion, adequate sentence would be rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

Facts of the case were that the Appellant and the deceased were living together. On the day of the incident, the Appellant asked the deceased to serve him food. When she refused, he got furious and poured kerosene all over her and set her ablaze. She tried to leave the place to save herself, but the Appellant forcibly held her back who also suffered burn injuries in the process.

The deceased was taken to the hospital where she gave her statement in the form of dying declaration to the Executive Magistrate. Eventually, she succumbed to her injury at the hospital. The Appellant was tried and later convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved, he preferred an appeal before the Court.

The Appellant challenged his conviction by solely questioning the validity of the dying declaration given by the deceased. He submitted before the Court that the deceased had not mentioned his name correctly. Thus, it was contended that the dying declaration was not reliable and hence could not form the sole basis for his conviction.

Per contra, the State argued that the dying declaration of the deceased was wholly consistent and the same could not be doubted. It was further pointed out that the Appellant had failed to provide an explanation regarding his own burn injuries. Thus, it was submitted that the Prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstances, thereby proving the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Examining the submissions of parties and trial court record, the Court concurred with the submission of the State regarding the authenticity of the dying declaration of the deceased. The Court noted that the deceased was declared fit by her doctor to give her statement to the Executive Magistrate. Further, the deceased had categorically mentioned the name and address of the Appellant.

"Dr. mentioned the name of appellant as Prakash Kumar Mawari. The word 'Mawari' and 'Newari' when pronounced, to a great extent sounds similar. The deceased was in an injured condition and she was a domestic servant. Her pronunciation may not be perfect like an educated person. Thus, in our view, this argument was rightly disbelieved by the Court below."

Therefore, the Court held that the said dying declaration could be made basis for the conviction of the Appellant.

While upholding the guilty verdict, the Court found it fit to convert the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 to Section 304 IPC after observing that considering the factual matrix, it was clear that he had committed the act in sudden impulse. Accordingly, the conviction of the Appellant was modified.