Back
2026 Supreme(MP) 369
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Vivek Agarwal, Avanindra Kumar Singh, JJ.
Shiva – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1863 of 2024
Decided On : 18-06-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his pregnant wife by the trial court under Section 304-I of the IPC, receiving a life sentence. The prosecution case relied on extra-judicial confessions made by the accused to police and relatives, stating he acted in anger after the deceased taunted him by claiming she could have thousands of husbands like him. The defense contended that the prosecution evidence was unreliable and that the death may have been accidental due to the presence of sharp stones at the riverbank where the body was found.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the appellant himself informed the police and relatives immediately after the incident, which negated the possibility of pre-meditation. The court found that the victim's taunt amounted to grave and sudden provocation, triggering a loss of self-control. Relying on legal precedents concerning similar provocations, the court concluded that the act falls under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC rather than Part-I.
Issues: Whether the appellant's act of killing his wife constitutes murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Exception 1 of Section 300, and whether the quantum of sentence requires modification.
Ratio Decidendi: A wife's derogatory taunt toward her husband, specifically questioning his worth, can constitute grave and sudden provocation sufficient to deprive an offender of self-control, thereby mitigating the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction modified to Section 304 Part-II with a sentence of seven years RI.
For the Appellant :Shri Jagat Kumar Dehariya, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Ajay Shukla, Government Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts and prosecution's case regarding the homicide. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. analysis of prosecution and defense evidence presented during trial. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 3. application of grave and sudden provocation exception (section 300). (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. reduction of sentence based on judicial precedent and provocation principles. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
Avanindra Kumar Singh, J.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.No.6791 of 2024, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.
2. Accordingly, I.A No.6791 of 2024 is dismissed as withdrawn.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.
4. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved of the judgment dated 20/06/2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chaurai District Chhindwara (MP) in ST No.07/2022 (State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Chand vs. Shiva), whereby learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 304-I of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment additional RI for 1 year.
5. As per the accused/appellant, he is innocent and he has been wrongly convicted for the offence as stated by the prosecution in the night of 18-19/07/2021 for causing death of his wife Kiran by assaulting her with stone(s) in the bed of kulbaheri river Kharra ghat.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that uncle of the deceased Kiran, Shivram Kahar (PW-1) gave information to the Investigation Officer (PW-11) and therefore, police registered the Dehati Marg Intimation (Ex.P/1) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/2). It is the prosecution story that when accused informed the complainant about causing death of his wife Kiran by hitting her with a stone and on asking why he did so, accused stated that they were together near the river, the deceased said to accused that she can have thousands of husband like him, therefore he got angry and pelted her with the stone(s) causing her death.
7. It is submitted that prosecution evidence is not reliable and contradictory. It is further submitted that in Para-5 of the judgment, it is mentioned that Shivram Kahar (PW-1) has stated that he did not lodge the FIR against the appellant. Therefore, prayer is made to set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and appellant be acquitted.
8. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate supports the impugned judgment and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The prosecution has produced the following prosecution witnesses :- Shivram Kahar (PW-1), Balram Kahar (PW-2), Ram Kahar (PW-3), Nishikant Kahar (PW-4), Kavita Kahar (PW-5) Bhojraj Singh Varma Patwari (PW-6), P.L. Dehariya. S.I. (PW-7), Dr. Anukriti Pandey (PW-8), Rajesh Kumar Sanodiya Constable (PW-9), Nitin Singh (PW-10) and Deepak Dehariya S.I. (PW-11) and Court Witness No.1 Shyam Sundar Baghel, Suryoday Singh Baghel (CW-2), Durga Varma (CW-3), Ghanshyam Sahu (CW-4), Chandrashekhar Sahu (CW-5), Devendra Singh Parihar (CW-6), Nitin Singh (CW-7) and Rani Banvari (CW-8) and during trial 39 documents have been exhibited by prosecution. Accused has produced defence witness Ashok Kahar(DW-1).
11. Shivram Kahar (PW-1) has stated that deceased Kiran was the wife of Shiva Kahar (accused). On the relevant date at about 12:30 in the night, accused called him and stated that he (accused) has murdered his (PW-1-Shivram's) daughter-Kiran with a stone then he (PW-1) went to Kharra river ghat and found that Kiran was lying there as dead. Accused was present there and told him that Kiran had told him ^^ rsjs tSls gtkj ifr dj ywaxh** therefore he had hit Kiran with the stone. This witness further stated that police recorded Dehati merg intimation (Ex.P/1) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/2). In cross-examination, this wit
