'Continuous Provocation From Tobacco-Addicted Brother Led To Break Point': Bombay HC Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide

The Bombay High Court recently commuted a man's life imprisonment for murdering his own brother to 10 year imprisonment under culpable homicide not amounting to murder after noting that he murdered the brother, because he had vices like consuming tobacco and gutka and often quarrelled and even assaulted him (convict) and their aged mother whenever they advised him against the vices.

A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Shyam Chandak modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Hemant Devrukhkar (40), who killed his brother Sainath by crushing his head and face with a heavy cement block. The murder was committed after Sainath, on the relevant day, assaulted Hemant, who was suffering then from jaundice.

Hemant was assaulted because he asked Sainath to eat food instead of consuming tobacco, however, the latter, after consuming tobacco and gutka started spitting in the house and then, when Hemant objected to this, he assaulted him. Therefore, in the dead of the night, when Sainath and his mother were sleeping, Hemant crushed his brother's head and face with a huge cement block and when his mother woke up due to the sudden noise, he told her that he has 'put an end to the daily disputes.'

"We hold that the prosecution has established that Sainath was addicted to tobacco and gutkha; although he was given an understanding by the mother and the Appellant, he was not improving. On that count, there used to be quarrels between Sainath and the Appellant. In the previous night Sainath had consumed tobacco and he was spitting inside the room making an irritating noise. At that time, the Appellant was unwell and he had told Sainath to give up that addition. On that count a quarrel had occurred between the brothers and during that dispute, Sainath had assaulted the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant had assaulted Sainath on the head by means of the paver block and caused him the fatal injuries leading to his death and immediately, he went away," the judges recorded in the March 10, order.

The bench refused to accept Hemant's contention that his mother's testimony against her cannot be relied upon because she turned hostile before the trial court. The judges agreed with Additional Public Prosecutor Ashish Satpute to the extent that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be entirely dismissed rather portions of the testimony that supports the prosecution case can be relied upon.

The judges said that there was no reason for the mother to lodge a false case against her own son. And therefore, held that the present case falls within the ambit of the Explanation 1 of section 300, which recognises that when a reasonable person is tormented continuously, he may, at one point of time, erupt and reach a break point whereby losing self control, going astray and committing the offence.

Applying the provisions of the law to the facts of the case, the bench through the testimony of the mother, underlined that Sainath's behaviour was "unbearable."

"The mother and the Appellant were fed up due to his vices. This was quite natural because Sainath used to beat them even though they used to persuade him to give up his addictions and improve. Sainath further created hardship by spitting tobacco inside the room and keeping it unhygienic. The family had poor financial background. At the time of the last quarrel, Sainath had assaulted the Appellant, though he was unwell, had not eaten and not at fault. On the contrary, he wanted Sainath to give up his additions and improve. In this background, we are of the view that the cumulative and continued abusive behaviour of Sainath towards the Appellant and their mother over a period of time coupled with the provocative assault to the Appellant by Sainath during their last quarrel resulted in continuing the stress by provocation, which ultimately led to the unfortunate homicidal death of Sainath. Therefore, the present case is covered with Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC," the judges held.

In this view, the bench quashed Hemant's conviction from section 302 to section 304 (Part I) of the IPC.

While quashing the life imprisonment, the bench ordered, "Instead the Appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs 5,000in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months."

With these observations, the bench allowed the appeal modifying the October 2024 judgment of the Mumbai Sessions Court.

Appearance:

Advocates Nitesh Nevshe and Shweta Nevshe were appointed through Legal Aid for the Appellant.

Additional Public Prosecutor Ashish Satpute represented the State.

Case Title: Hemant Vasant Devrukhkar vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal 537 of 2025)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 102

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment