Penal Code, 1860: ss. 300 exception 4, 302 – Murder – Husband-appellant strangulated his wife with saria and caused her death – Testimony of the eye witness-son of the victim, oral evidence of prosecution witness whose statement was further corroborated, prosecution witness who had last seen the appellant leaving the place of incident and two more prosecution witness who confirmed the presence of the appellant – Conviction of the appellant for offence u/s. 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment by the courts below – On appeal, held: Since the incident occurred in sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation, the act was committed in a heat of passion, and having regard to nature and manner of incident, the act of the victim was not of extreme cruelty, thus, the act of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 – Conviction of the appellant modified to one u/s.304 Part II and sentence of 10 years’ simple imprisonment imposed.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required :there must be a sudden fight; there was no premeditation; the act was committed in a heat of passion; and the offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. By applying the above tests, the High Court found that two of the ingredients were absent so as to bring the case of the appellant under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The High Court found that the act of picking up a ‘saria’ and compressing forcefully the neck of his wife by the appellant, can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be an act committed in a heat of passion. Further it is held that, the manner in which the appellant compressed his wife’s neck also depicts an act of extreme cruelty. From the evidence on record it is clear that incident occurred in a sudden fight and there was no pre-meditation. Even the primary witness PW-7, the son of the accused and deceased, deposed that he had seen the appellant strangulating his mother with the ‘saria’ when she had taken out some money from the appellant’s wallet. It is not as if ‘saria’ was brought in a pre-planned way to murder the wife of the appellant. The iron rod (saria) was picked up at the spur of the moment at the time of incident and used to compress the neck forcefully. In that view of the matter it was nothing but an act committed by the appellant in a heat of passion. Having regard to nature and manner of incident, it cannot be said that act of the appellant was extremely cruel. Unless it is barbaric, torturous and brutal, strangulation of the appellant’s wife cannot be said to be an act of extreme cruelty for denying the benefit of Exception
4 to Section 300 IPC. [Para 13] [168-F-H; 169-A-D]
1.2 The case of the appellant falls within Exception 4 to Section 300. Having regard to evidence on record, all the four ingredients which are required to extend the benefit of Exception
4 to Section 300, apply to the facts of the case on hand. Since the occurrence in sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation, the act of the appellant-accused would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300. As such, the conviction recorded against the appellant u/s 302 is set aside and the conviction of the appellantaccused u/s. 302 IPC is modified, as the one u/s. 304 Part II and a sentence of 10 years’ simple imprisonment is imposed. [Para 14] [169-E-H; 170-A]
Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (1989)
2 SCC 217 : [1989] 1 SCR 941 - relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.