Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a criminal appeal filed by a husband convicted of murdering his pregnant wife by stone pelting, the Division Bench of Vivek Agarwal and Avanindra Kumar Singh*, JJ., partly allowed the appeal, holding that it was not a premeditated murder because if the convict intended to murder his wife, then he would not have informed the police and other people, like the complainant. Thus, it was a case of grave and sudden provocation caused by the wife’s statement that she could keep 1000 husbands like him. Accordingly, the Court convicted him under Section 304-II, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
The Court observed that,
“When a wife refers to her husband that ‘she can keep 1000 husbands like him’ it is an indirect/oblique reference to the worthlessness of the husband, meaning he has no value as a human being or a husband.”
Background
The complainant, the uncle of the deceased, filed a complaint against the convict, claiming that he had murdered his wife, the deceased. As per the prosecution, the convict admitted to the complainant that he killed his wife by hitting her with stones near the Kulbahera River, i.e., Kharra River Ghat, because the deceased allegedly said that she could have 1000 husbands like him. This angered him, and he pelted her with stones, which led to her death.
The convict filed the present appeal against the trial court’s judgment whereby he was convicted under Section 304-I IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹1000.
Analysis and Decision
At the outset, the Court noted that on the night of the incident, the convict called the complainant and stated that he had murdered his wife (the deceased) with stones, then the complainant visited the Kharra River Ghat, where he found her dead body and the convict. The convict claimed that the deceased told him that she could have 1000 husbands like him, and he hit her with a stone.
The Court further noted that the complainant, during cross-examination, stated that the deceased did not regularly live with the convict, and she lived with her mother. He also admitted that the deceased and her mother used to drink liquor. The deceased had previously claimed that the convict used to beat her. He further admitted that where the dead body was lying on the riverbed, there were big stones with sharp edges, and someone could fall on them and get injured.
Furthermore, the Court noted that three cousin brothers supported the prosecution’s case, and one claimed that the deceased was pregnant at the time of death. The deceased’s mother also supported the prosecution’s case and claimed that the convict used to beat the deceased, and she was 7 months pregnant at the time of death. However, no report was made previously about the domestic abuse. The police also corroborated the story that the convict hit the deceased with stones, which led to her death, due to her statement regarding 1000 husbands, and thereafter, called the complainant to tell him about it.
Additionally, as per the medical report, the Court noted that the deceased was pregnant and her cause of death was cardiorespiratory failure due to severe injuries to vital organs. The doctor also confirmed that the injuries could be caused by the stone seized by the police. Other court witnesses also corroborated the convict’s admission of murder.
Considering the overall evidence, the Court found that there was ample evidence to hold that under intoxication, when the deceased taunted the convict that “she could keep 1000 husbands like him”, he threw stones at her, and she was pregnant at the time. After the incident, he made calls to the police and other persons that he had killed his wife.
Accordingly, the Court held that if the convict intended to murder the deceased, then he would not have informed the police and other people, like the complainant. Thus, it was a case of grave and sudden provocation, and the case also did not fall under any other proviso of Section 300 IPC. It was not a premeditated offence as the stone lying nearby was used to cause injury(s) to the deceased, which resulted in her death, and after the incident, he himself informed the police and relatives of the deceased.
Considering the injuries of the deceased, the Court noted that the 2 fatal injuries would be caused by a single blow of a stone, as other injuries would be caused simply by a sharp-edged stone, as reflected from the photographs, which show that multiple stones were lying on the riverbank. Therefore, the Court held that there was no reliable evidence to hold that the convict had again and again thrown the same or different stones on the deceased, as only one stone was sent for a query report by the police.
The Court referred to Nandu Dada Survase v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 275, wherein the accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC. The Division Bench found that the deceased wife had met the convict after parting ways about 4 years ago. On the unfortunate day, she had not just obstructed his way by holding his neck and pulling his shirt, but also had hurled abuses and called him impotent. The Division Bench held that it was quite natural for the man to feel ashamed upon being called impotent. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench convicted him under Section 304-II IPC to the period already undergone in custody.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court remarked, “Similarly, when a wife refers to her husband that ‘she can keep 1000 husbands like him’ it is an indirect/oblique reference to the worthlessness of the husband, meaning he has no value as a human being or a husband.” Therefore, it can be deemed a sudden and grave provocation.
Accordingly, the Court held that the case would not fall under Section 304 Part-I IPC but rather under Section 304 Part-II IPC. The Court partly allowed the appeal and commuted the sentence to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs 1000 fine, and in default of payment of the fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.
[Shiva v. State of M.P., Criminal Appeal No. 1863 of 2024, decided on 18-6-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Jagat Kumar Dehariya
For the respondent: Government Advocate Ajay Shukla
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
