SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 845

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
K. Ravi Kumar – Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2494 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 2307 of 2012)
Decided On: 28-11-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Death occurring during sudden quarrel without pre-meditation and without pore-determined motive is murder. Accused may be entitled to benefit of exception 4 to section 300 IPC.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 and 300 Exception 4 – No premeditation in the commission of crime – No conclusive evidence of pre-determined motive or enmity – Incident occurring due to sudden quarrel – No conclusive evidence to prove any kind of constant quarrel in the last 9 long years – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Appellant entitled to benefit of Exception 4 to section 300. (Para 14, 15)

       (1989) 2 SCC 217; (2003) 3 SCC 528; (2002) 3 SCC 327; (1996) 10 SCC 668; (2013) 6 SCC 770 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Appellant was convicted u/s 302 IPC for murder of his wife. He has also been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 498-A of the IPC.

       The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.

       Finding of the Court:

       Appellant is entitled to benefit of exception 4 to section 300 IPC.

       Result: Appeal disposed of.

       

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby Criminal Appeal No. 689/2006 filed by the appellant herein arising out of judgment and order dated 01.02.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C. No. 306/2004 has been dismissed thereby upholding the appellant's conviction for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and the sentence of imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/-awarded to him. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of two months. Substantive sentence for both the offences are directed to run concurrently.

3. The factual matrix in which the appellant came to be prosecuted and convicted has been set out in detail by the trial Court as also the High Court in the orders passed by them. Therefore, we need not recapitulate the same all over again except to the extent it is necessary to do so for the disposal of this appeal.

4. Briefly stated, the incident that eventually culminated into the death of the appellant's wife, Padma and the consequent prosecution of the appellant/husband are as follows:

(a) On 22.5.1995, Padma, the daughter of Lakshmi, PW-2 (complainant) was married to the appellant. At the time of marriage, the appellant was a trainee constable in KSRP at Bangalore. On completion of the training, the appellant was posted at Bangalore and started living with his in-laws. In 1996, the couple was blessed with their first child, a son named ‘Nandan’. The appellant with his wife and son (Nandan) shifted to his parental house at Mandya, a nearby village and started living with his parents. After sometime, the appellant sent his wife to her parents’ house for delivery where she gave birth to their second child, a son named ‘Keerthan’. In the meantime, the appellant was transferred to Mysore, therefore, he shifted with his family (wife Padma and two sons) to a place called Kurubarahalli and started living there in house bearing No. 1326/A I St. Cross.

(b) On 11.8.2004, around 10.30-11.00 p.m., the appellant got a message that his old father, who was living at Mandya, was seriously ill. The appellant asked Padma to accompany him to leave for Mandya immediately to see his father's condition. However, Padma did not agree to leave immediately but said that they can go the next day. This issue led to heated exchange between them and eventually resulted in appellant loosing his mental balance to the extent that he first alleged to have stabbed Padma with knife and then poured Kerosene and set her on fire. The appellant then took his two minor sons and locked the house by leaving Padma in the house in injured condition and left for Mandya to see his ailing father. He gave Rs.20/-and Rs.10/-to his sons and told them not to disclose the incident to anyone, which they had noticed. After two days, the appellant with his sons returned from Mandya and, in an effort to make everyone believe that Padma was alone in the house, called the neighbours to open the door. The door lock was then opened with the help of skilled labour. The neighbours, Jvaramma and others, who lived near the house, entered the house with the appellant and found the burnt dead body of Padma. Someone informed the appellant's brother-in-law at Bangalore, that Padma has been taken to K.R. Hospital for treatment for the injuries sustained by her. On receiving the information, PW-2 (Lakshmi) -mother of Padma, rushed to Kurubarahalli along with her son, R






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top