Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Dattatraya - Appellants
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2012
Decided on : 01-02-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 316 – Murder of wife and unborn child – Life sentence – There is sufficient evidence to prove that burn injury was caused to deceased by act done at hands of appellant and it was appellant who had come to his house under influence of liquor and poured kerosene on his wife while she was cooking food – Fact that deceased gave birth to a stillborn child on next day while she was still alive and death was caused by act of appellant, also makes a case under Section 316 of IPC – It is a case where a sudden fight took place between husband and wife – Deceased at that time was carrying a pregnancy of nine months – This act at hands of appellant will be covered under fourth exception given under Section 300 of IPC – Act of appellant is not premeditated, but is a result of sudden fight and quarrel in heat of passion – There was no intention to kill deceased – This is an offence which would come under Part-II not under Part-I of Section 304 of IPC – Conviction under Section 302, IPC converted to one under Section 304 Part II of IPC and 10 years of R.I. awarded. (Paras 19, 20 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises out of final judgment and order dated 23.11.2010 passed by Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2009 whereby conviction of appellant under Sections 302 and 316 of Indian Penal Code was upheld and appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 and 10 years of R.I. under Section 316 of IPC, and was directed to pay fine amount of Rs.5000 and Rs.2000/-, respectively.
Findings of Court:
Under present circumstances it would indeed be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as given in Section 304 Part II in as much as, though accused had knowledge of consequences of act he was committing, yet there was no intention to cause death.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
ORDER :
This appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2009 whereby the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) was upheld and the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 and 10 years of R.I. under Section 316 of IPC, and was directed to pay fine amount of Rs.5000 and Rs.2000/-, respectively.
2. The facts of this case are that the appellant (32 years of age in the year 2007), was married to one, Meenabai Dattatraya Gawali, (who was 30 years of age on the date of the incident). The wife Meenabai (deceased) was having a pregnancy of nine months at that time. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant came home at about 10.00 P.M. on the fateful night of 26.01.2007 in an inebriated state. He then picked a fight with his wife while she was cooking food in the kitchen and poured kerosene on her and as the stove burst, the wife sustained burn injuries, which in hospital were determined as 98%. She was taken to the Civil Hospital, Solapur at about midnight, where the first injury report itself indicates that she sustained burn injuries of about 98%. A statement is then recorded of the deceased at 01.30 AM on 27.01.2007, which states as under:-
| “STATEMENT Solapur Dated-27/01/2007 Time-01.30 AM Saturday after completing Friday Patient is conscious oriental and fit for giving valid statement at present. 1.41 AM – 27.01.2007 – Sd/-Deshpande Smt.Minabai Datta Gavli, age 30 years, R/o. A. Kata Savargaon, Tq.Taljapur, District. Osmanabad gives statement that in the night on Friday 26.01.2007 at 10 PM there was trifle dispute between husband and wife and at the time of cooking Mr. Dattatraya Gavli, age 40 years, service-wireman with the anger of dispute poured rockel on me. At that time stove flared up and I burned up to 98%. My husband is also burned 40%, Mr. Datta Gavli has also burnt. He got burnt while putting out the fire. At that time husband had drunk liquor. He was addicted to liquor. My grandmother admitted in Civil Hospital at night 12 am. Now I am under treatment and giving statement myself. Yours faithfully Thumb Impression Thumb Impression of left hand of Smt. Minabai Dattatraya Gavli Before (M.V.Wagh) Executive Magistrate Office, Solapur. Patient was conscious oriented and fit for giving valid statement. (Exh.33) Sd/- A.P.Deshpande-” |
3. A case is then registered at Tamalwadi Police Station, as Crime No. 12/2007, filed under Section 307 of the IPC against the appellant.
4. As we have already stated above, the deceased at that time was nine months pregnant. She gave birth to a stillborn child on the next day i.e., 28.01.2007 and died on 04.02.2007.
5. The offence which was registered under Section 307 of the IPC was converted into an offence under Section 302 of the IPC and another charge under Section 3161[Section 316. Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide.--Whoever does any act under such circumstances, that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide, and does by such act cause the death of a quick unborn child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.] was added.
6. The police after an investigation filed its chargesheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Tuljapur, which was registered as RCC No.96/2007 and the case was committed to Sessions, where it was ultimately placed before Addl. Sessions Court, Usmanabad, Maharashtra. The appellant faced the Trial Court where he was convicted of offences under Sections 302 and 316 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and 10 years of rigorous imprisonment respectively, along with fine and default stipulation.
7. The matter was taken in an appeal before the Bomba
Unintentional homicide will not come under Section 302 of IPC.
The court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, affirming that the evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite claims of accidental death.
Point of Law : Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence, they call for harsh puni....
The court clarified that actions under intoxication leading to death may constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder, not murder itself.
The court ruled that the appellant committed culpable homicide, not murder, establishing that the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, albeit strong, did not demonstrate premeditation.
The dying declaration and complaint were considered credible evidence, and the absence of a doctor's endorsement on the dying declaration was not considered significant. The court applied Section 106....
Point of Law : Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue adva....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
