The Bombay High Court acquitted a man of attempted murder charges (Section 307 IPC) for forcibly pouring rat poison into his wife's mouth during a quarrel.

The Court instead convicted him under Section 308 IPC for attempt to commit culpable homicide.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal found that the lack of premeditation and intent to kill warranted a lesser charge under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

"The evidence shows that the quarrel had started at 9:00 a.m., and during that quarrel the appellant had poured poison in the informant’s mouth. Therefore, there was no premeditation, no pre-planning and no design on the part of the Appellant. In such a case, if that act had led to the death of the victim, it would not have been murder, but only the culpable homicide, not amounting to murder; as referred to Exception 4 to Section 300 of the I.P.C," the Court said.

"....the conviction and sentence U/S. 307 of the I.P.C. will have to be set aside. The Appellant will have to be convicted U/s.308 of the I.P.C., instead," the Court further said.

The incident took place on August 2, 2015, when the appellant, Chormule, who was reportedly under the influence of alcohol, engaged in a heated argument with his wife, Rani, and subsequently poured rat poison into her mouth. Medical evidence confirmed the presence of poison in the victim's stomach wash, and the bottle of rat poison was recovered.

The prosecution also informed the Court of a previous incident in which Chormule allegedly attempted to pour kerosene on his wife, a charge from which he was acquitted. Despite the prosecution's request for a conviction under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder), the Court found that Chormule's actions during the quarrel lacked the necessary premeditation for an attempted murder conviction.

Chormule was initially convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to ten years in prison. However, on appeal, the High Court reduced the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The Court also took into account Chormule's immediate actions in taking his wife to the hospital, which suggested a lack of intent to kill. Having already served five years and six months in custody, Chormule was sentenced to time served and ordered to be released immediately, provided he is not required in any other cases.

While partly allowing the Appeal. the Court ordered:

i) The conviction and sentence U/S. 307 of the I.P.C. imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Sessions Case No.267 of 2018, against the present Appellant are set aside.

ii) Instead, the Appellant is convicted for commission of the offence punishable U/S. 308 of the I.P.C., and the Appellant is sentenced to suffer R.I. for the period which he has undergone.

iii) The conviction and sentence imposed U/S. 504 of the I.P.C. are maintained.

iv) Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

v) The Appellant is granted set off U/S.428 of the CrPC.

vii) The Appellant is in custody. Since the maximum sentence imposed on him is for the period which he has already undergone and since the sentences are directed to run concurrently, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in other case.

Accoringly, the Court disposed of the Appeal.

Cause Title: Namdeo Ramchandra Chormule v. State of Maharashtra [Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:29583]

Appearance:-

Appellant: Advocate Abhishek R. Avachat

Respondent: APP Ranjana D. Humane

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Sarang V KotwalBombay High Court

Sukriti Mishra