Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 665

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Nirmala Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2232 of 2023, SLP (Crl.) No. 9777 of 2022
Decided On : 01-8-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Aditya Dhawan, Adv. Mrs. Kiran Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Bhuwan Raj, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Karan Kapur, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Gauta, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Murder of husband and disappearance of evidence – Life sentence – Relations between deceased on one hand and other members of family on other hand, were not cordial – There used to be persistent quarrels between deceased and appellant – Weapon used in crime is a stick which was lying in house and which cannot be called a deadly weapon – Possibility of appellant causing death of deceased while being deprived of power of self-control, due to provocation on account of deceased not agreeing to pay Rs.500/- to his daughter, cannot be ruled out – Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt, inasmuch as offence committed shall fall under Exception I of Section 300 IPC – Conviction of appellant altered from Section 302 of IPC to Part-I of Section 304 of IPC – Appellant has already been incarcerated for a period of almost 9 years – Sentence already undergone would serve ends of justice. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 23rd May 2022 passed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2018, thereby upholding judgment and order dated 1st December 2017 passed by Trial Court vide which present appellant – accused was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Short question that falls for consideration is as to whether conviction under Section 302 of IPC would be required to be maintained, or whether case would fall under a lesser offence.
Findings of Court:
Possibility of appellant causing the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control, due to the provocation on account of the deceased not agreeing to pay Rs.500/- to PW-1, cannot be ruled out.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 23rd May 2022 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2018, thereby upholding the judgment and order dated 1st December 2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) vide which the present appellant-accused Nirmala Devi was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. When the matter first came up before us, we had issued notice vide order dated 7th November 2022, for the limited issue of converting the sentence from Section 302 IPC to either part I or II of Section 304 IPC. Vide the same order, we had directed the appellant-accused to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

4. As such, the short issue before us is as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence imposed upon the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC can be converted into part I or II of Section 304 of IPC.

5. The facts as may be necessary to answer the aforesaid issue, shorn of unnecessary details are as follows:

5.1 On 26th May 2015 at about 10:30 AM, the appellant-accused telephonically informed the police that her husband Mast Ram, the deceased, had been missing from the previous night. On the same day at 7:00 o’clock in the morning, the appellant-accused had found her husband lying in the courtyard of the house stained with blood. Thereafter, she along with her children, daughter Priyanka (PW-1) and son Vinod-accused No. 2, took his body to a room in the house, where he died at about 10:00 A.M.

5.2 After the said phone call, a police party reached the spot, examined the scene of the incident, took photographs, and transported the body of the deceased to hospital for medical examination and post-mortem.

5.3 On the very same day, one Ghungriya Ram, nephew of the deceased, who was working in the Home Guard and was on official leave, received a phone call at about 1:30 PM informing him that his maternal uncle Mast Ram had died in the morning and his dead body was at Civil Hospital, Arki. He rushed to the hospital whereupon he saw the dead body of his uncle in the mortuary. He noticed injury marks on the head, arms and legs of the body.

5.4 Thereafter, he filed a complaint on the same day, stating therein that his aunt, i.e. the appellant-accused and her son Vinod had strained relations with the deceased, and they often used to quarrel. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR No. 36 of 2015 was registered at Police Station Arki, Dist. Solan (H.P). The post-mortem was conducted on 27th May 2015, and on the same day, both the accused, i.e. Nirmala Devi and Vinod were arrested.

5.5 During their interrogation, both the accused revealed that their relations with the deceased were poor, and that the deceased Mast Ram was of a quarrelsome nature and used to beat them regularly. On account of such behavior of the deceased, they were residing in separate houses. On the fateful day, Priyanka, the deceased’s daughter, had demanded some money from her father to enable her to attend a National Cadet Corps Camp, but on the refusal of the deceased to provide the money, an altercation had ensued between the appellant-accused and deceased. During the course of the quarrel, the appellant-accused gave several blows with the stick to the deceased. As a result, Mast Ram died.

5.6 It was also disclosed during interrogation that both the accused had taken off their clothes after the incident and concealed them in a carry bag under the bed box. Thereafter, appellant-accused led the police to the bed box in her house from where the carry box was recovered containing a lady shirt Ext. P-10, salwar Ext. P-11, a male lower Ext. P-12 and vest Ext. P-13, which were taken into possession in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document