New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of a man and sentenced life term for the murder of his wife, saying that the man upon seeing the deceased drenched in kerosene clearly took advantage of the situation and lighted a matchstick and threw it upon her so that she could be burnt.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal observed that the accused lighted a matchstick and threw it upon her by saying “you die" after she poured kerosene upon herself to deter him from assaulting her. “The First Information Report and the dying declarations on record clearly contain the statement of the deceased that when she had poured kerosene upon herself to deter the appellant from fighting and assaulting, he lighted a matchstick and with the intention to kill her, threw it upon her by saying ‘you die’”, said the bench.
The bench said the evidence clinches the issue and establishes beyond doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder and is not entitled to benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
The bench noted that the appellant side has argued that he is not guilty of murder as he had no premeditated mind and that the action of the appellant arose out of a sudden fight. The bench noted that the accused and his deceased wife had a past history of quarrel and that they had been quarrelling on the fateful day also since before the actual incident, and during the quarrel, a neighbour visited their house, however, he left saying that he would come later on.
“It was thereafter that the incident of pouring kerosene and burning took place. So, there was sufficient time in between the two acts and it cannot be said that there was a sudden quarrel and provocation leading to burning. The appellant saw the deceased wife drenched in kerosene and was conscious that if lighted, she would be burnt to death even then....This shows a premeditated mind to kill her”, said the bench.
The apex court rejected a contention of appellant Anil Kumar that he can at best be convicted of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder since he neither had the intention to kill and also did not act with a pre-meditated mind. "The exception clearly in unequivocal terms states that it would be applicable where culpable homicide is committed not only without premeditated mind in a sudden fight or quarrel but also without the offender taking ‘undue advantage’ of the situation," the bench said.
The apex court said the appellant cannot take advantage of the 4th Exception (to murder under Section 300 of IPC) only on the pretext that it was not on account of premeditated mind or out of a sudden fight or that his intentions were not bad as he tried his best to douse the fire and to save her life.
The accused, who was convicted for the murder of his wife, moved the apex court challenging the Kerala High Court order.
Dismissing the appeal, the apex court said: “we are of the opinion that the courts below have not committed any error of fact or law in convicting and sentencing him to a maximum punishment of life imprisonment”.
However, the apex court said the accused is at liberty to apply for remission in accordance with the prevailing policy of the state. The incident occurred on September 26, 2010, and had taken place at 9:00 AM at the house of the appellant. The wife of the accused succumbed to burn injuries at the hospital.
The marriage between the two was solemnized about 11 years before the date of the incident and from the wedlock, they had a boy and a girl. At the time of the incident, their children were playing in the courtyard and the boy, though of a tender age, had deposed that appellant was in the habit of beating his wife and there used to be frequent quarrels between his parents.
