"Some Sudden Quarrel Had Flared Up": SC Sets Aside Murder Conviction Of Man Accused Of Killing 'Second Wife'; Convicts Him U/S 304 Part II IPC
|The Supreme Court modified the conviction of a man accused of killing his wife from Section 302 IPC to Part II of Section 304 IPC.
The Court found that the accused husband had knowledge that the injury inflicted was likely to cause death, but there was no intention to cause death.
The Bench did not impose any fine upon the accused considering that he had already undergone a sentence of about 17 years and released him from custody.
The Supreme Court noted that although the accused was seen chasing down the wife by the eyewitnesses, “the genesis behind the incident was not divulged by any of the prosecution witnesses.” The Court stated that it was “apparent” that the accused had no motive to hurt the wife and some sudden quarrel that “flared up” between the couple led to the incident.
Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “The cause of death was opined as shock due to internal bleeding. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, can be it accepted that the accused had the intention to cause injury/injuries to the victim with the intention or knowledge that the same would result into her death…The act of the accused is not covered by any of the four clauses contained in Section 300 IPC.”
Sr. Advocate Vijay Hansaria represented the appellant, while AAG Archana Pathak Dave appeared for the respondent.
The Apex Court condoned the delay of 2461 days in filing the special leave petition, which was attributed to the lack of awareness and guidance about the legal procedures while the accused was incarcerated.
The accused in 1999 had assaulted his wife with fists and stones, leading to her death. Eyewitnesses testified to the dispute between the couple, culminating in the accused allegedly hitting the wife with a stone. However, the accused argued that a single injury inflicted during a sudden quarrel without acting cruelly could not travel beyond Section 304 Part II of IPC.
The Court considered eyewitness testimony, which revealed that the accused chased his wife unarmed. Only after she fell did he pick up a nearby stone and gave a blow. Even an eyewitness had admitted in her cross-examination that the wife had first fallen on the road with boulders and sustained injuries due to the fall.
“The accused can at best be attributed with the knowledge that the injury of the nature which he inflicted upon Dasmet Bai(deceased) was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. Thus, the act of the accused is covered under Part II of Section 304 IPC,” the Court held.
Even the medical officer did not opine that a single injury caused to the wife was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the Bench added.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Kariman v. State of Chhatisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 335)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Advocate Vijay Hansaria; AOR Pahlad Singh Sharma; Advocates Sushil Kumar Sharma, Kavya Jawhar, Virendra Kumar, Nadini Rai, and Ankhi Sarkar
Respondent: A.A.G. Archana Pathak Dave; AOR Apoorv Shukla; Advocates Prabhleen A. Shukla and Parmod Kumar Vishnoi