Last Updated on November 2, 2023 by News Desk
Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man accused of the murder of his wife and observed that exception 4 of section 300 IPC will not apply in cases where the accused has taken undue advantage of the situation.
In the present case, it was alleged that the appellant caused unbearable mental and physical harassment to the deceased wife. she poured kerosene upon herself to deter the appellant from causing her further torture and the appellant with the clear intention to kill her took advantage of the situation and lighted the matchstick and threw it on her body uttering “You Die”.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay s Oka and Pankaj Mithal was hearing the appeal filed against the Kerala high court judgement which has convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC. The accused had challenged the conviction, contending that the incident happened in a “sudden fight or quarrel” and thus falls under exception 4 of murder. (exception 4- “Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”)
The bench noted, “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’,”
Therefore, the issue before the court was whether this was a premeditated kill or was it due to grave and sudden provocation which would not amount to murder.
the appellant contended that “he had no premeditated mind to kill the deceased wife and that he had no intention even to kill her. Therefore, the provisions of Section 302, IPC were not applicable and at best he could be charged under Section 304, Part-II of IPC”
however, the court held that culpable homicide must be committed without any premeditated mind and without taking any undue advantage.
It said, “The exception clearly in unequivocal term 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. In the instant case, the appellant 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. The appellant having taken ‘undue advantage’ of the situation cannot be extended the benefit of exception 4 to Section 300, IPC so as to bring the case within the ambit of Part- II of 304, IPC”
thus, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused.
Case title: Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala
Written by Shagun Behal
