Back
The has ruled that a husband slapping his wife, causing her to fall and sustain fatal head injuries, amounts to under , rather than murder. The decision partially allowed an appeal filed by the husband, Anjaneyalu, who had been convicted by a trial court for the murder of his wife Nandini and sentenced to along with a one-year term for .
A Division Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice B. Pramod upheld the appellant's conviction under for cruelty but substituted the murder conviction under with the lesser charge, sentencing him to 10 years of and a fine of ₹10,000 — effectively reducing his period of incarceration from a life term.
The case arose from an incident on , inside the couple's rented home in Doddaballapura. According to the prosecution, Anjaneyalu and Nandini had a love marriage and two children. Nandini suffered from thyroid problems and had been advised valve replacement. The accused repeatedly pressured her to go to work despite her illness. About 15 days before the death, he allegedly assaulted her, causing bleeding from her nose. On the day of the incident, a quarrel escalated, and the accused slapped his wife. She collapsed, was taken to a hospital, and was declared dead upon arrival.
The trial court convicted Anjaneyalu under Sections 302 and 498A IPC, holding that the death was homicidal and that the multiple injuries indicated an . The appeal challenged this finding.
No Eyewitness but Circumstantial and
The High Court examined the evidence, noting there were no eyewitnesses. However, the couple was alone in the house at the time. The (Ex.P9) revealed a boggy swelling over the left temporo parietal region measuring 6x8 cm, a deep cut wound over the right eyebrow measuring 2x2 cm, and a black eye. The doctor (PW.5) opined that death was due to cardio respiratory arrest from syncope caused by a traumatic impact to the head. He clarified that the injuries could not have been caused by a simple fall, as a fall would typically produce injury only on one side.
The court rejected the defence's argument that Nandini fell due to giddiness from her thyroid or heart condition, observing that the multiple injuries — including the cut over the eyebrow and black eye — pointed to assault rather than an accidental fall. The accused himself had informed a neighbour (PW.2) that he had slapped his wife during the quarrel, after which she fell.
Distinguishing Murder from Culpable Homicide
The critical legal question was whether the act constituted murder under or under Section 304 Part II IPC.
The bench found that while the prosecution proved the accused caused the fatal injuries by slapping his wife, leading to her fall, it failed to establish that the injury was
"
"
— a requirement for murder under
.
"The evidence of PW.5 does not reveal that the said injury was
. However, the accused had the knowledge that the said act committed by him was likely to cause the death,"
the court said.
It further noted:
"The above material on record goes to show that the incident took place in a quarrel and in the said quarrel, the accused slapped the deceased, as a result of which she fell down."
The court concluded that the act fell within the second part of Section 304 IPC, which punishes acts done with the
but without the
or such bodily injury as is
.
Sentencing and Final Orders
The High Court confirmed the sentence of one year already imposed under . For the offence under Section 304 Part II, it sentenced Anjaneyalu to 10 years of with a fine of ₹10,000, with a default period of six months . Both sentences will run concurrently. The court also maintained the trial court's direction that the determine compensation for the victim's family under the .
The result of the appeal is that Anjaneyalu's life sentence under has been set aside, and he will serve a 10-year term, subject to for time already served under The order stands as the final disposition of the High Court.
