Bombay High Court: The appellant, who was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5000, for setting his wife on fire, filed an appeal for reduction of the punishment imposed on him under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The Division Bench of Sarang V. Kotwal* and Shyam C. Chandak, JJ., refused to reduce his conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court held that his actions were exceptionally cruel and took undue advantage of his wife and children’s vulnerability. It was held that such cruelty disqualifies him from seeking relief under Exception 4 of the Section 300 IPC.
Background:
The appellant and his wife had been married for 16 years. He was a tailor by profession but was not engaged in any work, addicted to gambling and frequently quarrelled with his wife, who worked in a bidi manufacturing unit to support their family and raise three children. She also repaid the loan of Rs 50,000 that the appellant took from many people. On the night of 10-2-2014, following another quarrel, the appellant poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire. He then locked the house from outside, preventing anyone from assisting her, including their own children.
The wife’s brother eventually arrived upon being called, rescued, and rushed her to the hospital. Despite medical care, she succumbed to her injuries the next day. In her dying declarations she mentioned all the details required to identify appellant as the person responsible for setting her ablaze. Both the dying declarations were duly endorsed and certified by the doctors that the declarant was in a fit mental and physical state to give a statement at the time of its recording.
The appellant’s counsel argued that since the wife had suffered 94 per cent burn injuries, it was not possible for her to give any dying declaration. It was further claimed that there was no pre-mediation and the offence might not fall within the meaning of Section 300 IPC but could be an offence under Section 304(1) IPC.
The counsel for the respondent asserted that the dying declarations were consistent and duly endorsed. Additionally, the appellant’s case would not fall within the Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC because he had acted in a cruel and unusual manner which was sufficient to prove the intention and knowledge required.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that, to seek benefit under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, the offender must not have acted in a cruel or unusual matter. The Court was not satisfied that offence could be the one punishable under Section 304(1) IPC and not punishable under Section 302 IPC.
The Court held that the important incriminating evidence in this case was in the form of dying declarations and direct evidence of the appellant’s daughter. There was no material discrepancy in both the dying declarations and no inconsistency in the statements recorded. Also, there were endorsements of the concerned Doctor on both the dying declarations making them consistent and cogent.
The Court noted the cruelty in the appellant’s actions, where not only he set his wife on fire, but he also deliberately locked the door from outside and obstructed attempts to save her, using the vulnerability of his own wife and children to his advantage. The Court precluded the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, in the appellant’s case.
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the life sentence awarded.
[X v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2016, decided on 12-6-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sarang V. Kotwal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Nasreen Ayubi
For the Respondent: St Sharmila Kaushik, APP.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Very well explained article…Appreciate the efforts of the editor…🙌🏻