23 Yrs On, Gujarat High Court Finds Man Guilty Of Wife's Murder; Says Stereotype Of Community Men Having 'Inflated Ego' Can't Explain Killing

The Gujarat High Court set aside a 2002 trial court order convicting a man for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (IPC Section 304 part 1) in a case concerning the death of his wife. 

The high court instead convicted the accused for murder of his wife, observing that the trial court's reasoning on evidence–the involvement of accused, the nature of injuries inflicted and the consequent death of the deceased amounting offence of Section 300 (murder) was palatable however its reasoning invoking offence under Section 304 part 1 was not acceptable. 

A division bench of Justice Aniruddha P Mayee and Justice JL Odera said:

"...Trial Court, after discussing the evidence in detail has concluded, and rightly so that the offence under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. However, the Court at Paragraphs no.44 and 45 of the judgement has come up with an alternative theory that it was owing to the sudden flare of temper that the accused had ended up committing the crime. In this respect, the trial Court has categorically indicated that no such defence has been taken up by the accused during the trial. However, the Trial Court has held, despite no such defence having been taken up by the accused before the trial Court, that it is its duty to see if indeed such defence is available in law to the accused"

The bench noted that the trial court had on certain assumptions and presumptions, observed that individuals of "Thakore community are prone to have inflated ego" and likely to be offended if the wife of such an individual went to her maternal house "without informing the husband" and by not following dictates of her husband when he insists that the wife accompany him back to his house.

It was alleged that the accused had an argument with his wife asking her to come back to her matrimonial house, to which the deceased said that she would come, not on the same day, but the day after. When she was returning from agricultural field along with her mother to her parental house, the accused sneaked behind her and stabbed her several times. 

"It was the Trial Court's opinion that in such circumstances it is likely that the husband would loose his temper and he may start the quarrel and that in such quarrel, the victim has been stabbed and that, therefore, the case would fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Now, in so far as, the Trial Court's finding that the evidence pertaining to the crime, namely the involvement of accused, the nature of injuries inflicted and the consequent death of the deceased amounting to an offence under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, is palatable. Even the accused has not challenged this part of the evidence, accepting his involvement in the crime. However, it is the invocation of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which raises concern. The said line of reasoning, in the view of this Court, is totally unsustainable," the bench said. 

The court observed that for exception 4 to Section 300 to apply, as per the Supreme Court, there has to be mutual provocation and aggravation and it would be difficult to apportion share of blame which attaches to such fighter. 

It said that in the present case the parameters were not satisfied. It observed that the element of premeditation was there as the accused had brought a knife with himself to the agricultural field, where he lures the victim by sending the a message through the victim's mother that he wished to clarify the version of the victim, namely that she had indeed came with the accused's consent by confrontation in person.

"Again, there was no fight, much less a sudden fight. In fact, when the victim is called at the agricultural field, she does not start any fight. At the highest, one can say that she may have replied rudely to the accused or that she may have insisted that she would only come to her maternal house the next day, as against the insistence of the accused for her to return to her matrimonial house on the same day," the court added.

The court observed that the  accused had clearly taking undue advantage of the situation by inflicting as many as 08 to 09 blows of knife, that too, on vital parts of the body, he acted in a "cruel and unusual manner". 

Setting aside the trial court's conviction the court said, "The conviction of the accused under Section 304 Part-I is set aside and we convict the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code".

On the question of sentence the court has listed the matter on December 10 directing the presence of the accused. 

Case title: STATE OF GUJARAT v/s  ISHWARJI SURSANJI THAKOR

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 205