Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ., modified the conviction of a husband who in provocation by wife on being subjected to abuses assaulted wife.
On being convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 the appellant was sentenced and imprisoned for life to pay a fine of Rs 5,000. Aggrieved with the same, the present appeal was filed.
Facts leading to the case
In 2009, Narayan Salunkhe lodged a report alleging that his daughter (deceased) was married to the appellant and due to discordant note, she started residing with her parents. On one occasion she went to visit her sister to another village. On the bus stop the husband of the deceased abused and assaulted her and it was noticed that the deceased had sustained incised wound on her neck due to which she succumbed injuries.
In view of the above, crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860.
Analysis and Discussion
In the present matter, husband and wife were married for almost more than 15 years and the appellant was the father of three grown-up children.
Almost 4 years prior to the said incident, the couple had parted ways and started living independently. On an unfateful day, upon seeing the accused by chance, the deceased had not just obstructed his way by holding his neck, by pulling his shirt but had started hurling abuses and had levelled scathing remarks by which self-esteem of the accused was not only lowered in his own eyes but in public.
High Court expressed that,
The loud allegations made by the deceased were heard by one and all. It was quite natural for the man to feel ashamed upon being referred as impotent.
Stating that the act was not pre-mediated, Bench added that it was true that the incident of the assault was the outcome of a grave and sudden provocation and the accused was deprived of his self-control and hence, he could not have any restraint upon himself while mounting assault.
Since the accused was on his way to work, he was carrying a sickle in his bag. The offence committed by the accused fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 which reads thus:
“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.”
High Court held that the accused was in custody since 2009 and had almost undergone 12 years imprisonment.
In view of the above discussion, the appellant deserved to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) of IPC which would serve the ends of justice.[Nandu Dada Survase v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 275, decided on 3-2-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
Ms Shraddha Sawant, Appointed Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State
