Bombay High Court Quashes Murder Conviction Of Woman For Killing Rapist Who Harassed Her To Withdraw Her Complaint

The Bombay High Court recently commuted a woman's conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder after she allegedly killed a man who kept harassing her to withdraw her rape compliant against him.

A division bench of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh Deshpande, sitting at the Nagpur seat, quashed and set aside a December 21, 2005 judgment of an Additional Sessions Court in Washim, which convicted the woman for murder of one Madhao Gote.

The judges noted that the appellant woman had lodged a rape case against Gote, who maintained sexual relations with her on promise of marriage but later refused to marry her. He however, kept harassing her to withdraw her complaint and on June 22, 2004, he went to the appellant's house and against insisted her to withdraw her plaint. 

Frustrate, the woman, slit his throat with a razor and then hit him with a Pestle (Khalbatta) on his head, which led to his death, the bench noted, while further taking note of the fact that the trial court heavily relied on the woman's extra judicial confession to a neighbourhood man that she killed Madhao because he was insisting her to withdraw the case. 

In its October 17 judgment, the bench noted the 'exception 1' to section 300, which states that an act cannot be considered as murder if an injury results into death of the person, when the offender has lost his self control due to the grave and sudden provocation.

"Provocation is an external stimulus which can result into loss of self control. Such provocation and the resulting reaction needs to be measured from the surrounding circumstances. The provocation must be such as will upset not merely a hasty and hot-tempered or hypersensitive person, but also a person with calm nature and ordinary sense," the bench said in the order. 

The prosecution case is also rested upon the fact that as deceased was insisting to withdraw the complaint and on the fateful night also he had been to her house for insisting her to withdraw the compliant, and therefore, he did not returned back and his dead body was found. Therefore, there is substance in the contention that the case would fall under exception 1 to section 300.

"As deceased was repeatedly insisting her to withdraw the complaint due to which she fed up and on the fateful night also deceased visited her house and insisted her to withdraw the complaint, therefore she lost her control and committed the murder of the deceased with the weapons which were available in her house. Admittedly, there was no intention on her part and she has not exceeded the act by causing various injuries to the deceased. From the evidence it can be inferred that, the accused due to the act of the deceased lost her control and caused the death of the deceased. It was because she was subjected for sexual assault by the deceased on the promise of marriage and subsequently shown his inability to perform the marriage and insisting her to withdraw the complaint," the judges opined.

Further, the judges held, "Admittedly the act of the accused would cover under exception 1 of section 300 of IPC that the death of the deceased is caused by her under the grave and sudden provocation without having an intention to commit the murder, therefore the said act would cover under Section 304-II of IPC."

With these observations, the judges commuted the woman's conviction from murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 

Appearance:

Senior Advocate RL Khapre along with Advocate Mandar Deshpande appeared for the Appellant.

Additional Public Prosecutor MJ Khan represented the State. 

Case Title: PUT vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal 86 of 2006)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment