1. Husband set wife ablaze following a dispute over ornaments while intoxicated — Conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 771
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : K.T.Thomas
Kalu Ram
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
Case No. : 17 of 1998
Date of Decision : 7/28/99
The court held that an accused's immediate effort to save a victim after inflicting injuries indicates a lack of intent to kill, justifying the reduction of a conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC).
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 Part II - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161 - Murder vs. Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Reliability of dying declarations - Where witnesses' testimonies in court are contradicted by their earlier statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, the courts are justified in declining reliance on such testimonies and acting upon the dying declarations of the deceased. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Intent to kill - Conduct of the accused - If the accused makes a frantic effort to save the victim from death immediately after the act of setting them ablaze, such conduct cannot be viewed in isolation - Such action indicates that the accused likely did not anticipate the fatal outcome or intend to cause death, but rather intended to frighten the victim or inflict burns - In such circumstances, the offence is reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, while in a highly inebriated state, demanded ornaments from his wife to raise money for liquor. Upon her refusal, he doused her with kerosene and set her on fire. However, as soon as the flames rose, he frantically attempted to save her by pouring water. The victim succumbed to her injuries after providing dying declarations. The trial court and High Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
The court found the dying declarations reliable as the testimonies of witnesses who claimed the act was suicidal were discredited by their previous statements to the police. However, the court observed that the appellant's immediate effort to rescue the victim from the flames indicated a lack of intention to cause death.
Issues: Whether the act of the appellant, given his subsequent conduct of attempting to save the victim, constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the act of frantically bringing water to save the victim is inconsistent with an intention to kill. The lack of premeditation and the subsequent rescue attempt suggest that the accused intended only to frighten the victim or inflict burns, and the situation escalated beyond his control. Therefore, the offence is downgraded to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Result: Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC; sentence imposed as seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dying declarations contradicted by witness testimonies — Claim that the deceased committed the act of self-immolation. (Para 5 )
3. Dying declarations held reliable over discredited witness testimonies — Attempt to rescue victim indicates lack of intent to cause death. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Immediate efforts to rescue the victim after inflicting injury negate intent to kill — Offence reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 7 )
5. Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC — Sentence imposed as seven years rigorous imprisonment. (Para 8 )
6. How does the court treat dying declarations when they are contradicted by witness testimonies in court?
The court may rely on dying declarations if the witness testimonies are discredited by their own prior statements recorded by investigating officers under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. Does an attempt to rescue a victim immediately after causing injury affect the classification of the offence?
Yes. If the accused makes a frantic effort to save the victim from death immediately after the act, it suggests a lack of intent to kill, potentially reducing the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 7 )
8. How does the court evaluate intent when the accused is in a highly inebriated state?
The court considers the totality of circumstances, including the state of intoxication and subsequent conduct, to determine if the accused intended to cause death or merely intended to frighten or inflict lesser injuries. (Para 7 )
(1) APPELLANT Kalu Ram had taken the risk of keeping two wives at the same time and later realised that it was costly for him and one of the wives (Vimla) had died of bum injuries. The appellant was charge-sheeted for the murder of Vimla and the trial court as well as the High Court found him guilty of the said offence and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal by special leave.
(2) THE first wife of the appellant is Baby who was put up in his own house situated at a different place. Subsequently he came across deceased Vimla who herself was a widow having a daughter by name Pooja (PW 6) from her first marriage. Then the appellant married Vimla and they were living together in a house different from the house where the first wife Baby was residing.
(3) IT all happened without any premeditation when the appellant set ablaze Vimla on the evening of 23-3-1993. According to the prosecution version, he asked Vimla to spare her ornaments presumably for raising some more money for buying liquor. He was then also drunk. But Vimla refused to part with her ornaments and that infuriated the appellant. He doused her with kerosene and wanted her to die and supplied a box of matchsticks to her. As she failed to ignite the matchstick the appellant collected the matchbox and lit one matchstick and set her ablaze. When the flames were up he brought water in a frantic effort to save her from death. She was later removed to the hospital. A statement was recorded from her by the police which became the basis for the FIR. Subsequently the Munsif Magistrate (PW 7) recorded her dying declaration. Later she succumbed to her burn injuries.
(4) BOTH the trial court and the High Court relied on the two dying declarations proved in this case and came to the conclusion that it was the appellant who set her ablaze and caused her death. He was therefore convicted under Section 302 IPC.
(5) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the contents in the dying declaration are contrary to the testimony of all the witnesses who rushed to the scene on hearing the wailing of the dying lady. It is true that all those witnesses have said that the deceased told her that she herself committed the act of lighting the matchstick but all those witnesses were confronted with their earlier version recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The version of those witnesses in court stands discredited by such earlier statements and the two courts below have rightly declined to place any reliance on the testimony of those witnesses. Out of those witnesses PW 5 Indu was not declared hostile formally. But that does not matter because she too was confronted with her first version recorded by the police and thereby her testimony in court was contradicted by the prosecution.
(6) WE find no good reason to discard the two dying declarations given by the deceased regarding the actual occurrence. The courts below have rightly acted on such dying declarations.
(7) BUT then, what is the nature of the offence proved against him? It is an admitted case that the appellant was in a highly inebriated stage when he approached the deceased when the demand for sparing her ornaments was made by him. When she refused to oblige he poured kerosene on her and wanted her to light the matchstick. When she failed to do so he collected the matchbox and ignited one matchstick but when the flames were up he suddenly and frantically poured water to save her from the tongues of flames. This conduct cannot be seen divorced from the totality of the circumstances. Very probably he would not have anticipated that the act done by him would have escalated to such a proportion that she might die. If he had ever intended her to die he would not have alerted his senses to bring water in an effort to rescue her. We are inclined to think that all that the accused thought of was to inflict
