Penal Code, 1860 – s.300 Fourthly & Exception 4 to s.300; ss. 302 & 304 Part II – Appellant-accused killed his wife by setting her ablaze – Convicted u/s.302 – Issue limited as to alteration of conviction from s.302 to s.304 Part II – Held: Appellant poured the kerosene on the deceased when she was trying to run out of the house to save herself and was trying to open the latch of the door of the house, the appellant threw the match-stick on her person and set her ablaze – Nothing is on record that the appellant was in inebriated stage –Even looking to the conversation between the deceased and the appellant, as stated in the dying declaration given by the her, it can safely be said that the appellant was in very much conscious condition when the incident took place – He was very much in senses and was conscious about what he was doing –He was fully conscious of the fact that if kerosene is poured and matchstick is lit and put on the body, a person might die due to burns – Death of the deceased was culpable homicide amounting to murder and s.300 fourthly shall be applicable and not Exception 4 to s.300, as contended by the appellant – In complete agreement with the view taken by the Trial Court and the High Court convicting the appellant for the offence punishable u/s.302.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: In the present case, the appellant-accused poured the kerosene on the deceased when she was trying to run out of the house to save herself and was trying to open the latch of the door of the house, the accused threw the match-stick on her person and set her ablaze. Nothing is on record that the accused was in a highly inebriated stage. Even looking to the conversation which took place between the deceased and the accused, so stated in the dying declaration given by the deceased, it can safely be said that the accused was in very much conscious condition when the incident took place. He was very much in the senses and was conscious about what he was doing. Therefore, the accused was fully conscious of the fact that if kerosene is poured and matchstick is lit and put on the body, a person might die due to burns. Therefore, the case would fall under Section 300 fourthly and Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shall not be applicable. [Paras 5.1][88-C-E]
2. The manner in which the accused poured the kerosene on the deceased and thereafter when she was trying to run away from the room to save her, the accused came from behind and threw a match-stick and set her ablaze, the death of the deceased was a culpable homicide amounting to murder and Section 300 fourthly shall be applicable and not Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC as submitted on behalf of the accused. In complete agreement with the view taken by the Trial Court as well as the High Court convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section
302 of the IPC. [Para 7][92-B-C]
Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2000) 10 SCC 324 – referred to.
Santosh v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 7 SCC 641 : [2015] 4 SCR 962 ; Bhagwan Tukaram Dange v. State of Maharasthra (2014) 4 SCC 270 : [2014] 3 SCR
753 – 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.