THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.342 OF 2015 JUDGMENT: (per The Hon'ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER)

The appellant/accused was convicted for murder under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

2. According to the prosecution case, the deceased woman and the appellant were staying together. One Raju is the husband of the deceased. However, she developed intimacy with the appellant and started live-in relationship with him.

3. On the date of the incident i.e. on 25.01.2014 around 11:00 p.m. the accused quarrelled with the deceased and went away. Around 1:00 p.m., on the same night he returned home and again he quarrelled with the deceased. Both the deceased and the appellant were drunk according to PW.3. In the said quarrel, the deceased doused herself with Kerosene and threatened the accused. The quarrel continued and the appellant threw a lighted match stick at her. Since she was doused in Kerosene, she caught fire immediately. PWs.1 to 3 rescued her by putting off flames and was taken to the hospital.

4. On the basis of the complaint filed regarding the incident, Police investigated the case and charge sheet was laid against the appellant.

5. The counsel appearing for the appellant argued that admitting the version of the prosecution witnesses that both the appellant and the deceased were in drunken condition and were fighting with each other and during prolonged fight in the night, when the deceased herself poured Kerosene on to herself and threatened the appellant and accused threw a cigarette butt, it does not reflect any intention to commit murder. As such, it cannot be said that any of the 4 clauses under Section 300 of Cr.P.C. are attracted. In fact, the case is one under Section 304-

part-I, of the Indian Penal Code.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that though there was a fight between the deceased and the appellant, it is to everyone’s knowledge that a person who is doused in Kerosene, if lighted with a match stick or cigarette butt, would result in flames. The knowledge of causing death is apparent. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge has to be upheld.

7. The Honourable Supreme Court in Mohd.Rafiq alias Kallu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [(2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706] held as follows;

“Held:

The question of whether in a given case, a homicide is murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide of either description, punishable under Section 304 IPC, has engaged the attention of courts in India for over one- and-a-half century, since the enactment of the IPC. A welter of case law, on the aforesaid aspect exists, including perhaps several hundred rulings by the Supreme Court. The use of the term “likely” in several places in respect of culpable homicide, highlights the element of uncertainty that the act of the accused may or may not have killed the person, Section 300 IPC which defines “murder”, however refrains from the use of the term likely, which reveals absence of ambiguity left on behalf of the accused. The accused is for sure that his act will definitely cause death. It is often difficult to distinguish between culpable homicide and murder as both involve death. Yet, there is a subtle distinction of intention and knowledge involved in both the crimes. Such difference lies in the degree of the act. There is a very wide variance of degree of intention and knowledge among both the crimes.”

8. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and another “21. From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is “murder” or “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, on

2 (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 382

the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has