Stabbing Husband During Sudden Fight Falls Under Exception To Murder: Telangana High Court Modifies Wife's Sentence To Fine
The Telangana High Court has upheld the conviction of a wife for culpable homicide not amounting to murder who had during a sudden quarrel, in the spur of the moment, stabbed her husband after he allegedly showed up naked, threatened and abused her family members. IPC Section 304 Part II pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murderJustice Tirumala Devi Eada while upholding...
The Telangana High Court has upheld the conviction of a wife for culpable homicide not amounting to murder who had during a sudden quarrel, in the spur of the moment, stabbed her husband after he allegedly showed up naked, threatened and abused her family members.
IPC Section 304 Part II pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada while upholding the conviction under IPC Section 304 Part II, however took a lenient view on sentence and reduced the four-year jail term to fine alone.
The Court observed:
“To hold the conviction under Section 304-II of IPC, knowledge that the said act is likely to cause the death of the deceased is sufficient. In the present case it is proved that the accused No.1 stabbed the deceased with a knife, knowing fully well that the said act could result in an injury to the deceased, but at the said point of time when she acted, she must not have realized that it would go to the extent of causing the death of the deceased, as she acted in a spur of the moment.”
The appellant wife was accused of killing her husband in broad daylight. The prosecution case was that she stabbed him with a knife, causing his death, resulting in a charge sheet under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. After trial, the Sessions Court convicted her not for murder but under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced her to four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500. She challenged that conviction and sentence before the High Court.
Before the High Court, the defence argued that there were no direct eyewitnesses and that the incident occurred in the spur of the moment, when the deceased allegedly appeared naked, abused the family members of the accused in filthy language, and behaved abnormally. It was contended that, in such circumstances, the appellant did not act with the intention or knowledge required to cause death and was entitled to acquittal.
The State, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution had proved the case through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including recovery of the knife, medical evidence, and testimony of the surrounding witnesses.
Examining the evidence, the High Court noted that PW2, a neighbour, heard commotion from the accused's house at around 2 pm and later heard the deceased cry out “Amma” in pain. When he went out, he found the deceased lying with a stab injury on his neck and informed PW1, the mother of the deceased. PW1 and PW3 also spoke about seeing the dead body with the injury. The Court held that the evidence of these witnesses corroborated each other.
The Court also relied on the testimony relating to recovery of the knife. PW6 deposed that the accused confessed and, pursuant to that confession, showed the knife hidden in her house, which was marked as MO6. The Court rejected the defence challenge to the recovery and held that the confession-cum-recovery stood proved.
Medical evidence also strongly supported the prosecution. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem found an incised penetrating wound on the front of the neck extending internally into the muscles, vessels, clavicle, rib and lung, with the cause of death being stab injury into internal organs. The Court found no reason to disbelieve this evidence.
At the same time, the High Court accepted the broader defence case that the incident was not premeditated. It noted that the deceased had gone to the house of the accused's parents, where the accused had been staying, initially carrying dates for the children. According to the Court, some quarrel took place, he left, and then immediately returned in a naked condition and started abusing the accused and her family in filthy language. In those circumstances, the Court held that the accused must have acted “in a spur of anger” during a sudden quarrel.
The Bench therefore held that the case was covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC dealing with acts committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion and without taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner. It accordingly held that the trial court was right in convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC rather than Section 302 IPC.
On sentence, however, the High Court interfered. Noting that Section 304 Part II permits punishment with imprisonment, or fine, or both, and taking into account the circumstances in which the act was committed, Justice Eada converted the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment into a sentence of fine alone. Since the accused had already paid the fine of Rs.500, the custodial sentence was set aside.
Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed: the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC was upheld, but the sentence of four years' imprisonment was set aside and modified to fine of Rs.500 only, with default simple imprisonment of one month.
Case Title: Reshma v. State of A.P.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.1154 of 2011
Appearance: Sri G. Gnana Raghav, Amicus Curiae, for the appellant; Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.