Meghalaya High Court In a criminal appeal challenging the decision of the Trial Court, whereby the convict was convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code (‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment, the Division Bench of S. Vaidyanathan., CJ.*, and W. Diengdoh., JJ., partly allowed the appeal and modified the offence to fall within the ambit of the Exception 2 of Section 300 of the IPC. The convict was sentenced to three years imprisonment.
Background
On 16-05-2002, the son of the deceased filed a complaint alleging that his father was murdered by the convict. According to the prosecution, the convict saw the deceased, who was the ex-husband of his wife, in his house and killed him with an axe. After commission of the crime, the convict surrendered himself to the police.
Upon completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The Trial Court found the convict guilty and convicted him for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000.
The convict’s case was that offence was committed under grave and sudden provocation and the case squarely fell under first exception to Section 300 of the IPC and he ought not to have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. It was also contended that except the evidence of his wife, there were no direct eyewitnesses produced by the Police to prove that the convict had killed the deceased and that he was implicated in this case based on his own confession statement.
Analysis and Decision
After considering arguments and evidence, the Court perused the convict’s confession statement. The Court on perusal of the wife’s statement, whereby it was stated that her ex-husband (deceased) visited her house and she offered him tea and as soon as convict returned from the paddy field there was a quarrel between him and the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased was attacked with an axe. Subsequently, the convict attempted to murder her, but she ran away from the spot and had hidden in a jungle. The Court also perused the statements of the wife’s sisters which fortified the wife’s statement. Further, the Court on perusal of the statements of the Doctors, who undertook the post-mortem of the deceased, said that coupled with the confession statement of the convict that he attacked the deceased with dao (axe) were duly proved / corroborated with the medical evidence.
Hence, the Court held that the prosecution had sufficiently proven the convict’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding the question that whether the life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Trial Court was justified or not, the Court noted several contradictions between the statement of wife and her deposition before the Court. The Court noted that she had confessed in her statement that her husband/ convict had seen her and deceased/ ex-husband in compromising position and the deceased took out his pistol and pointed it towards the convict and convict ran away, however the deceased did not shoot. Hence, the Court said that such confession had created a suspicion, however, it was clear that wife had an illicit relationship with the deceased, raising the possibility of provocation for the accused and that there is every possibility for a prudent man to lose his temper / self-control, when he sees his wife with some other person in a naked and compromising position.
Hence, the Court was satisfied that the matter squarely fell under the provisions of Exception 2 of Section 300 of the IPC.
Referring to legal precedent, the Court applied Exception 2 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of sudden provocation.
The Court compared marriage to a bicycle with two wheels representing husband and wife, emphasizing the impact of marital issues on the family. The Court on referring to Bhanwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 657, wherein, it was held that in order to bring the case within this ambit, there is every necessity to establish that the accused, in the garb of self-defence against the accused caused the death of the person, said that the convict, on noticing the presence of the deceased in his house caused the death of the deceased in order to safeguard his right over person (wife) without any premeditation or intention.
Thus, the Court held that the matter at hand fell within the ambit of Exception 2 to Section 300 of the IPC on the ground of it being unintentional and consequently, it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Therefore, the Court modified the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and was sentenced under Section 304 of the IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The appeal was partially allowed and the convict was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 months.
[Phot Khaii v. State of Meghalaya, 2024 SCC OnLine Megh 441, Decided on: 24-05-2024]
Judgment Authored by: Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Appellant: Advocate Philemon Nongbri, Additional Advocate General N.D. Chullao, Advocate W.G.R Mihsil
Counsel for Respondent: AAG N.D.Chullai, GA R.Colney
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
