'Sudden Provocation As Rs 500 For Daughter Not Given' : Supreme Court Modifies Murder Conviction Of Wife Who Killed Husband

The Supreme Court altered conviction of a woman accused of killing her husband from Section 302 IPC(murder) to Section 304 Part 1 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

"The possibility of the accused causing the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control, due to the provocation on account of the deceased not agreeing to pay Rs.500/- to her daughter cannot be ruled out", the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala observed. The Court held that the case falls under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC (sudden and grave provocation).

The court also observed that the weapon used in the crime is a stick which was lying in the house, and that cannot be called a deadly weapon.

In this case, Nirmala Devi was convicted by the Trial Court for murder of her husband. The Trial Court relied on the testimony by the daughter of the accused and deceased who said that she asked her father to give Rs.500/- as she wanted to take part in the NCC Camp. That, this led to quarrel between her father and mother and that her mother gave blows with a stick on the head and legs of her father, as a result of which the latter died.

"Even after a careful scrutiny of the testimony of Priyanka (PW-1), we find that it will be difficult to sustain conviction under Section 302 of the IPC...t is not in dispute that the relations between the deceased on one hand, and the other members of the family consisting of the appellant, wife of the deceased, his son, the original accused, and Priyanka (PW-1) daughter of the deceased, on the other hand, were not cordial", the bench said.

The court added that the weapon used in the crime is a stick which was lying in the house, and which, by no means, can be called a deadly weapon.

"Therefore, the possibility of the appellant causing the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control, due to the provocation on account of the deceased not agreeing to pay Rs.500/- to PW-1, cannot be ruled out.. We further find that it will also be necessary to take into consideration the background in which the offence took place. There used to be persistent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant. In one of such incidents, the leg of the appellant was fractured by the deceased, and a case was already pending against him for the said offence.", the court said while modifying the conviction.

The Court noted that the wife has already been incarcerated for a period of almost 9 years, and, ordered that the sentence already undergone would serve the ends of justice

Case details

Nirmala Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 585 | 2023 INSC 662

Headnotes

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 302, 304 Part 1 - Conviction altered from S 302 to S 304 Part 1 - he possibility of the appellant causing the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control, due to the provocation on account of the deceased cannot be ruled out - The weapon used in the crime is a stick which was lying in the house, and which, by no means, can be called a deadly weapon - it will also be necessary to take into consideration the background in which the offence took place. There used to be persistent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant.

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment