'Not Murder, But Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder' : Supreme Court Reduces Sentence Of Husband Who Burnt Wife Alive In Sudden Quarrel

The Supreme Court recently converted the conviction of a husband, who killed his pregnant wife by setting fire on her after pouring kerosine oil, for the offence of murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code to the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Part-II of Section 304 IPC30.

The Bench Comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale stated that when the act of the accused is not premeditated but is a result of a sudden fight and quarrel in the heat of passion, then such an act of the accused would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Part-II of Section 304 of the IPC.

“From every available evidence, which was placed by the prosecution, it is a case where a sudden fight took place between the husband and wife. The deceased at that time was carrying a pregnancy of nine months and it was the act of pouring kerosene on the deceased that resulted in the fire and the subsequent burn injuries and the ultimate death of the deceased. In our considered opinion, this act at the hands of the appellant will be covered under the fourth exception given under Section 300 of the IPC, i.e., “Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”, the Supreme Court observed.

Although the accused knew that the act can cause the death, the Court held that it  was done without  intention to cause the death of the deceased.

“The act of the appellant is not premeditated but is a result of sudden fight and quarrel in the heat of passion. Therefore, we convert the findings of Section 302 to that of 304 Part-II, as we are of the opinion that though the appellant had knowledge that such an act can result in the death of the deceased, but there was no intention to kill the deceased. Therefore, this is an offence which would come under Part-II not under Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC.”, the Supreme Court records.

The Supreme Court has referred to its earlier Judgment of Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan, where also similar facts and issues arose, i.e., the accused who in an inebriated state was pressurizing his wife to part with some ornaments so that he could buy some more liquor. On her refusal, he poured kerosene on her and set her on fire by lighting a matchstick. But then he also tried to pour water on her to save her.

In Kalu Ram, the Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC after finding that the accused didn't intend to inflict the injuries on the deceased wife sustained on account of his act.

While agreeing to the Appellant's/accused arguments that the offence committed by him would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the Supreme Court while converting the findings of Section 302 to that of Section 304 Part II of IPC modified the findings given by the trial court and High Court.

“To this extent, the findings given by the trial court and High Court will stand modified. We have also been informed that the appellant has already undergone incarceration for more than 10 years. Therefore, he shall be released forthwith from the jail, unless he is required in some other offence.”, the court concluded.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. Sudhanshu S . Choudhari, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rucha Pande, Adv. Mr. M Veera Ragavan, Adv. Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Raavi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.

Case Title: DATTATRAYA VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 215

Click Here To Read/Download The Order