'Bolting Door After Setting Pregnant Wife Ablaze Shows Intent To Kill': Allahabad HC Affirms Murder Conviction; Fixes Jail Term To 20 Yrs

In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that an accused cannot escape a murder conviction merely because the victim died of septicemia several days after receiving intentional injuries which are likely to cause death or are imminently dangerous to life. The Court added that the accused's act would squarely fall under Section 300 IPC, provided that the other requirements, such as knowledge and intent on the part of the accused, are satisfied. "If it is proved that the injuries by themselves are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and if it is established that those injuries were the intended injuries, though the death occurred after septicaemia had supervened, the act of the accused would squarely fall under the third limb of Section 300 I.P.C. and the accused is therefore liable to be punished under Section 302 of IPC", a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held. With this observation, the bench confirmed the conviction of a man who set his 8-month pregnant wife on fire, which resulted in the death of the unborn child and the subsequent death of the wife due to the burn injuries. However, invoking the reformative theory of justice, the bench commuted the life sentence awarded by the trial court to a fixed term of 20 years' rigorous imprisonment. Case in brief Briefly put, on November 28, 2010, the victim (20-year-old Ruchi), carrying an 8-month pregnancy, was admitted to the District Hospital in Sitapur with extensive burn injuries. In her dying declaration, recorded by an Executive Magistrate after medical certification, she revealed a harrowing sequence of events that the Court later described as a "barbaric act". The victim stated that when she asked her husband-appellant (Manish) for money to treat her 1.5-year-old son's mouth sores, she was assaulted by the appellant. He threw a bowl of lentils at her and threatened that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, her face would be disfigured by pouring acid. Thereafter, he took the deceased to the inner portion of the house, poured kerosene oil over her head and body, lit a matchstick and threw it upon her from a distance, as a result of which she caught fire. The appellant did not stop even here; rather, to ensure her death, he bolted the door from outside. She succumbed to her injuries 23 days later on December 21, 2010, due to septicemia, and her unborn child also died. Arguments before the HC In his appeal against the trial court judgment to convict him and award him life imprisonment, the convict's counsel extensively argued that the death had occurred due to septicemia and the burn injuries were merely a remote cause. It was contended that since the victim survived the initial trauma and died 23 days later from a secondary infection (septicemia), the offence should be downgraded from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC). The State, on the other hand, opposed these arguments as it was contended that the appellant's conduct of burning his wife, a young lady carrying an advanced pregnancy, needs to be dealt with iron hands through stern punishment, and no interference/indulgence may be granted. High Court's observations Considering and analysing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the bench noted that the case had been brought within the purview of culpable homicide in terms of Section 299 of the IPC and the only question which remained was whether such culpable homicide is to be put under the category of murder (Section 300 IPC) or if it remains as culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 299). Having considered the facts, the Court held that the accused had a "definite intention to kill" and therefore, the act of the accused would fall under the first limb of Section 299 IPC and so under the first limb of Section 300 IPC It also found that the act of the appellant does not fall under any of the special exceptions appended to Section 300 IPC. Thereafter, the Court dealt with the arguments of the appellant that burn injuries were a remote cause of death. The division bench observed that the primary cause of death was the intentional burn injury, and the resulting septicemia was merely a secondary, inevitable complication. "If it is proved that the injury is fatal and the intention was to cause the death, though the death occurred after several days after septicaemia had supervened, it is undoubtedly a murder as it falls within the first limb of Section 300 IPC… If it is proved that the injuries are imminently dangerous to life, though the death had occurred after septicemia had supervened, then the act of the accused would squarely fall under the fourth limb of Section 300 I.P.C., provided the other requirements like knowledge on the part of the accused etc., are satisfied...

'Bolting Door After Setting Pregnant Wife Ablaze Shows Intent To Kill': Allahabad HC Affirms Murder Conviction; Fixes Jail Term To 20 Yrs

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Death by Septicemia days later is still 'Murder' If it stems from intentional injuries sufficient to cause death, says Allahabad HC

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

'Bolting Door After Setting Pregnant Wife Ablaze Shows Intent To Kill': Allahabad HC Affirms Murder Conviction; Fixes Jail Term To 20 Yrs

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Death by Septicemia days later is still 'Murder' If it stems from intentional injuries sufficient to cause death, says Allahabad HC

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers