No Sudden & Grave Provocation If Wife Requests Her Hungry Husband To Wait For A While For Food: Orissa HC Upholds Murder Conviction
The Orissa High Court observed that there is no sudden and grave provocation if a wife requests her hungry husband to wait for a while as the food preparation is under process.
The Court was deciding an Appeal preferred by the accused husband against the Judgment of the Trial Court by which he was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Division Bench comprising Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash elucidated, “Neither there is any quarrel nor fight in this case. A housewife cannot be said to have caused grave and sudden provocation to her hungry husband when she requests her to wait for a while as the preparation of food is under process. It is clear in this case that on the day of the incident nothing had happened to cause sudden provocation which was grave enough to make the appellant lose his balance of mind and assault mercilessly to his helpless wife in front of his minor daughter.”
Advocate Mina Kumari Das appeared on behalf of the Appellant/accused while Addl. Standing Counsel (ASC) Rajesh Tripathy appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case -
As per the prosecution case, in 2008, at about noon, the Appellant/accused returned home from his cultivable land and asked the deceased i.e., his wife to serve him food. His wife told him to wait for some time as the cooking was in process. Hearing this, the accused allegedly became furious, entered inside the house, brought out a ‘Katuri’, and assaulted his wife by dealing successive blows on her face, head, ear, etc., as a result she died at the spot.
Resultantly, an FIR was lodged for the offence of murder. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and the Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Being aggrieved by his conviction, he approached the High Court.
The High Court in the above context of the case, remarked, “The background does not indicate that there was any kind of grave and sudden provocation caused by the deceased to the appellant merely by asking him to wait for some time to serve food as it was under process. The appellant might have been hungry when he returned from the field and it is said in Panchatantra Verse 4.16 that “Bubhuksitah Kim Na Karoti Papam i.e. A hungry person can commit any sin” and Jean de La Fontaine quotes, “A hungry stomach has no ears”, but the manner in which the appellant reacted and brought the ‘katuri’ from inside the house and assaulted the deceased on the vital parts of her body like face, head, neck, ear, etc., and caused as many as nine numbers of extensive cut injuries which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, show his intention to commit the murder.”
The Court noted that the act of the Appellant does not come under any of the exceptions as laid down under Section 300 of IPC and therefore, the submission of the counsel for the Appellant that it would be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is not acceptable.
Furthermore, the Court said that the Trial Court is quite justified in holding the accused guilty under Section 302 of IPC.
“… we find no fault in the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court which is upheld. … The appellant is stated to have remained in custody for about sixteen years. If the appellant is entitled to get any benefit under sections 432 & 433 of Cr.P.C. (sections 473 & 474 of BNSS), the appropriate Government may consider the same in accordance with the principles laid down and the guidelines framed in that respect. It is up to the appropriate Government to consider the same as per rules”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused.
Cause Title- Raikishore Jena v. State of Odisha
