'Had No Intention To Kill': MP High Court Converts Murder Conviction Of Man Who Assaulted Wife With Brick To Culpable Homicide
Image by: Shubha Patidar
The Madhya Pradesh High Court modified a man's murder conviction–who was accused of assaulting his wife with a brick pursuant to which she died–to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, observing that he did not have the intention to kill the deceased.
The case pertained to the death of a woman allegedly caused by her husband during a domestic altercation.
The husband (the appellant) of the woman approached the high court challenging the judgment passed by the Trial Court convicting him of murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine of INR 1,000.
The bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Prem Narayan Singh in its order observed:
"Now, the question remains as to whether the appellant has caused injury by brick with intention or knowledge to cause her death and the offence committed by the appellant shall be under the purview of Section 302 of IPC or section 304-II of IPC. Bare perusal of the aforesaid FIR lodged by son of the deceased and appellant, and Court Statement of PW-2, manifest that there was a sudden scuffle between the appellant and the deceased due to non-fulfilment of demand of the appellant by the deceased and in the heated spur of moment, the incident had happened...As per their statements, the incident had admittedly happened all of a sudden and in a furious moment. Brick has been pelted on head of deceased with full force in a heated moment. Thus, in committing so, the appellant was certainly having the knowledge of death, but not the intention".
Per the FIR, a quarrel broke out between the appellant and his wife over a demand for money and when the wife refused to pay, the appellant started assaulting her by punching and kicking her. Their child, a 17-year-old boy, tried to intervene, but the appellant continued assaulting his wife and dragged her outside the house. A relative also tried to intervene, but the appellant threw a brick at him. The appellant then locked his child in a room. The next morning, when the sister of his wife arrived, she found the wife lying dead with a head injury.
During the investigation, the police recovered blood-stained items, recorded the statements of the witnesses and filed a chargesheet. The trial court framed charges under Sections 342 and 302 of the IPC.
Advocate Manohar Singh Chouhan, representing the appellant, argued that the incident occurred suddenly during a family quarrel, without any intention to kill and therefore, the offence should fall under Section 304 Part II of the IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC.
The State, represented by Deputy Advocate General Shrey Raj Saxena, opposed the appeal stating that the trial court rightly convicted the appellant based on medical evidence and witnesses testimonies. The prosecution highlighted that the appellant had a scuffle with the wife (the victim), indicating a serious and deliberate act. Thus, no leniency should be shown.
The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including family members and the medical officer. However, most witnesses, including the son and other relatives of the couple, turned hostile during the trial and did not fully support the prosecution's case.
Despite the hostile testimonies, the court relied on certain witnesses. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem deposed that the deceased suffered a fatal head injury caused by a hard and blunt object, leading to massive blood loss.
A witness, who was a relative of the couple, stated that the night of the incident, he saw the appellant holding a brick and pulling his wife by her hair. Though he later claimed ignorance about the cause of death, his earlier statement before the magistrate under Section 164 CrPC was considered significant. Additionally, the forensic report confirmed the presence of human blood recovered at the instance of the appellant.
"Nevertheless, the statement of PW- 2 is relevant to some extent that when he reached on the spot, the appellant was having brick in his hand and he was holding the hairs of the deceased", the court noted.
The court noted that the incident occurred suddenly during a quarrel between the couple. There was no premeditation or clear intent to kill. The altercation appeared to have escalated in the heat of the moment, resulting in fatal injury.
Considering the absence of eyewitnesses to the actual act, the hostile stance of most prosecution witnesses, and the lack of motive beyond a domestic dispute, the court concluded that the accused had the knowledge that his act could likely cause death but lacked the intention to commit murder.
Accordingly, the court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC, recognising that the act was done with knowledge but not with the specific intent to kill.
For Appellant: Advocate Manohar Singh Chouhan
For Respondent: Deputy Advocate General Shrey Raj Saxena with Government Advocate H.S. Rathore
Case Title: X v State of MP