Research Results Based on the Query
ACT
ARG
SCJ
HCJ
Query: Fight between husband and wife was not sudden as they had a past history of quarrels. During their quarrel, neighbor had visited their house and wife had shown some injuries to her. Thereafter, incident of pouring kerosene and burning took place. There was sufficient time in between two acts and it cannot be said that there was a sudden quarrel and provocation leading to husband burning wife. Husband saw wife drenched in kerosene and had knowledge that if match stick was lighted, she would burn to death. His later action of throwing match stick at wife showed premeditated mind to kill her. Husband had thus taken undue advantage of situation. I am representing Union of India on behalf of wife.
Revised Query: The fight between the husband and wife was not sudden, as they had a history of past quarrels. During their argument, a neighbor visited their house, and the wife showed some injuries to them. Subsequently, the incident of pouring kerosene and burning occurred. There was sufficient time between the two acts, and it cannot be said that there was a sudden quarrel and provocation leading to the husband burning the wife. The husband saw the wife drenched in kerosene and knew that if a matchstick was lit, she would burn to death. His later action of throwing the matchstick at his wife showed a premeditated intent to kill her. The husband thus took undue advantage of the situation. I am representing the Union of India on behalf of the wife.
Revised Query: The fight between the husband and wife was not sudden, as they had a history of past quarrels. During their argument, a neighbor visited their house, and the wife showed some injuries to them. Subsequently, the incident of pouring kerosene and burning occurred. There was sufficient time between the two acts, and it cannot be said that there was a sudden quarrel and provocation leading to the husband burning the wife. The husband saw the wife drenched in kerosene and knew that if a matchstick was lit, she would burn to death. His later action of throwing the matchstick at his wife showed a premeditated intent to kill her. The husband thus took undue advantage of the situation. I am representing the Union of India on behalf of the wife.
Related Articles and Sections
Legal Analysis of the Case
In the case presented, the husband's actions of throwing a matchstick at his wife, who was drenched in kerosene, resulting in her burning to death, raise serious legal implications. It is crucial to analyze the sequence of events, the intent behind the husband's actions, and the legal provisions applicable in this scenario.
Sequence of Events
1. History of Past Quarrels: The fact that the husband and wife had a history of past quarrels indicates a strained relationship between them. This history may be relevant in understanding the context of the subsequent events.
2. Neighbor's Visit and Wife's Injuries: The wife showing injuries to a neighbor during the argument suggests that there was a physical altercation between the husband and wife prior to the burning incident. This may be indicative of a volatile situation.
3. Pouring Kerosene and Burning: The critical moment in the case is when the husband, after seeing his wife drenched in kerosene, threw a matchstick at her, leading to her burning to death. The key question is whether this act was premeditated or a result of sudden provocation.
Legal Analysis
1. Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Section 300 of the IPC deals with the offense of murder. It categorizes murder into different types based on the intention and knowledge of the accused. In this case, the husband's act of throwing the matchstick at his wife, knowing that she would burn to death, raises the question of whether it falls under the category of murder.
2. Premeditated Intent: The crucial aspect to consider is whether the husband's act of throwing the matchstick was premeditated. Premeditation implies a deliberate intent to commit the act. In this case, the husband's knowledge of the consequences of his actions, as evidenced by his awareness of the wife being drenched in kerosene, suggests a premeditated intent to kill her.
3. Undue Advantage: The concept of taking undue advantage of a situation is relevant in determining the culpability of the accused. If the husband exploited the circumstances to commit the crime, it may aggravate his liability. In this case, the husband's deliberate act of throwing the matchstick at his wife, knowing the imminent danger, indicates that he took undue advantage of the situation.
4. Section 302 of the IPC: Section 302 of the IPC deals with punishment for murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life. Considering the circumstances of the case, where the husband's actions resulted in the wife's death, the provisions of Section 302 may be applicable.
5. Section 304B of the IPC: Section 304B of the IPC deals with dowry death. While the case may not directly involve dowry, the provisions related to unnatural deaths of married women within seven years of marriage due to burns or bodily injuries may be relevant in establishing the gravity of the offense.
Constitutional Perspective
1. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. In this case, the wife's right to life was violated by the husband's actions, leading to her death. The constitutional protection of life is paramount and must be upheld in the legal proceedings.
2. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution: Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The legal proceedings must ensure that both parties are treated fairly and that justice is served in accordance with the law.
Legal Strategy
1. Charge Framing: Based on the analysis of the case and relevant legal provisions, the legal strategy should focus on framing charges against the husband for the offense of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The premeditated intent and undue advantage taken by the husband should be highlighted in the charge framing process.
2. Evidence Collection: Gathering evidence to establish the sequence of events, the husband's knowledge of the wife being drenched in kerosene, and his subsequent actions leading to her death is crucial. Witness statements, forensic evidence, and any other relevant documentation should be collected to strengthen the case.
3. Legal Representation: As the representative of the Union of India on behalf of the wife, it is essential to ensure effective legal representation in court. Presenting a strong case based on the facts and legal provisions, and advocating for justice for the deceased wife, should be the primary focus.
4. Trial Strategy: During the trial, the legal strategy should emphasize the husband's culpability for the offense of murder, highlighting the gravity of his actions and the violation of the wife's right to life. The prosecution should present a compelling case supported by evidence and legal arguments.
In conclusion, the case presents a complex legal scenario involving the husband's deliberate act resulting in the wife's death. By carefully analyzing the sequence of events, the intent behind the husband's actions, and the applicable legal provisions, a comprehensive legal strategy can be formulated to seek justice for the deceased wife and uphold the rule of law.
In the case presented, the husband's actions of throwing a matchstick at his wife, who was drenched in kerosene, resulting in her burning to death, raise serious legal implications. It is crucial to analyze the sequence of events, the intent behind the husband's actions, and the legal provisions applicable in this scenario.
Sequence of Events
1. History of Past Quarrels: The fact that the husband and wife had a history of past quarrels indicates a strained relationship between them. This history may be relevant in understanding the context of the subsequent events.
2. Neighbor's Visit and Wife's Injuries: The wife showing injuries to a neighbor during the argument suggests that there was a physical altercation between the husband and wife prior to the burning incident. This may be indicative of a volatile situation.
3. Pouring Kerosene and Burning: The critical moment in the case is when the husband, after seeing his wife drenched in kerosene, threw a matchstick at her, leading to her burning to death. The key question is whether this act was premeditated or a result of sudden provocation.
Legal Analysis
1. Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Section 300 of the IPC deals with the offense of murder. It categorizes murder into different types based on the intention and knowledge of the accused. In this case, the husband's act of throwing the matchstick at his wife, knowing that she would burn to death, raises the question of whether it falls under the category of murder.
2. Premeditated Intent: The crucial aspect to consider is whether the husband's act of throwing the matchstick was premeditated. Premeditation implies a deliberate intent to commit the act. In this case, the husband's knowledge of the consequences of his actions, as evidenced by his awareness of the wife being drenched in kerosene, suggests a premeditated intent to kill her.
3. Undue Advantage: The concept of taking undue advantage of a situation is relevant in determining the culpability of the accused. If the husband exploited the circumstances to commit the crime, it may aggravate his liability. In this case, the husband's deliberate act of throwing the matchstick at his wife, knowing the imminent danger, indicates that he took undue advantage of the situation.
4. Section 302 of the IPC: Section 302 of the IPC deals with punishment for murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life. Considering the circumstances of the case, where the husband's actions resulted in the wife's death, the provisions of Section 302 may be applicable.
5. Section 304B of the IPC: Section 304B of the IPC deals with dowry death. While the case may not directly involve dowry, the provisions related to unnatural deaths of married women within seven years of marriage due to burns or bodily injuries may be relevant in establishing the gravity of the offense.
Constitutional Perspective
1. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. In this case, the wife's right to life was violated by the husband's actions, leading to her death. The constitutional protection of life is paramount and must be upheld in the legal proceedings.
2. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution: Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The legal proceedings must ensure that both parties are treated fairly and that justice is served in accordance with the law.
Legal Strategy
1. Charge Framing: Based on the analysis of the case and relevant legal provisions, the legal strategy should focus on framing charges against the husband for the offense of murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The premeditated intent and undue advantage taken by the husband should be highlighted in the charge framing process.
2. Evidence Collection: Gathering evidence to establish the sequence of events, the husband's knowledge of the wife being drenched in kerosene, and his subsequent actions leading to her death is crucial. Witness statements, forensic evidence, and any other relevant documentation should be collected to strengthen the case.
3. Legal Representation: As the representative of the Union of India on behalf of the wife, it is essential to ensure effective legal representation in court. Presenting a strong case based on the facts and legal provisions, and advocating for justice for the deceased wife, should be the primary focus.
4. Trial Strategy: During the trial, the legal strategy should emphasize the husband's culpability for the offense of murder, highlighting the gravity of his actions and the violation of the wife's right to life. The prosecution should present a compelling case supported by evidence and legal arguments.
In conclusion, the case presents a complex legal scenario involving the husband's deliberate act resulting in the wife's death. By carefully analyzing the sequence of events, the intent behind the husband's actions, and the applicable legal provisions, a comprehensive legal strategy can be formulated to seek justice for the deceased wife and uphold the rule of law.
Likely Arguments
Potential Arguments by Opposing Counsel
1. Claim of Sudden Provocation: The opposing counsel may argue that the husband's actions were a result of sudden provocation during the argument with his wife. They may contend that the pouring of kerosene and subsequent burning were impulsive acts in the heat of the moment, rather than premeditated.
2. Defense of Lack of Intent: Opposing counsel may argue that the husband did not have the requisite intent to kill his wife. They may claim that the act of throwing the matchstick was reckless or negligent, rather than a deliberate attempt to cause her death.
3. Challenge to Premeditation: The opposing counsel may challenge the assertion of premeditation in the husband's actions. They may argue that there was no evidence of planning or premeditated intent to kill the wife, and that the act was a spontaneous reaction to the situation.
4. Questioning of Undue Advantage: Opposing counsel may question the assertion that the husband took undue advantage of the situation. They may argue that the circumstances were chaotic and that the husband's actions were not calculated but rather a response to the immediate situation.
Counterarguments and Legal Strategies
1. Section 300 Exception 4 of the IPC: Counter the claim of sudden provocation by invoking Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, which states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed in the heat of passion upon sudden provocation. However, emphasize that the pouring of kerosene and subsequent burning were separate acts from the argument, indicating a calculated and deliberate course of action.
2. Section 299 of the IPC: Argue that even if the husband did not have a specific intent to kill, his actions fall under Section 299 of the IPC, which defines culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Highlight that the act of throwing the matchstick at the wife, knowing she was drenched in kerosene, demonstrates a reckless disregard for her life, which resulted in her death.
3. Section 304 of the IPC: Challenge the opposing counsel's argument on premeditation by invoking Section 304 of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Assert that even if premeditation is not established, the husband's actions still amount to culpable homicide due to his reckless behavior leading to the wife's death.
4. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Emphasize the violation of the wife's right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Argue that regardless of the husband's intent or lack thereof, his actions resulted in the deprivation of the wife's fundamental right to life, warranting legal consequences.
Optimal Defense Strategy
1. Charge Framing: Focus on framing charges under Section 299 or Section 304 of the IPC, highlighting the husband's reckless behavior and disregard for the wife's life, rather than solely relying on premeditation for murder charges.
2. Evidence Presentation: Present strong evidence, including witness statements and forensic analysis, to establish the sequence of events and the husband's knowledge of the imminent danger to the wife. Emphasize the deliberate nature of the husband's actions and their fatal consequences.
3. Legal Arguments: Articulate legal arguments based on relevant sections of the IPC and constitutional provisions to support the case for culpable homicide. Highlight the gravity of the offense and the need for justice in upholding the wife's right to life.
4. Trial Strategy: During the trial, maintain a consistent narrative focusing on the husband's culpability for the wife's death, while effectively countering any arguments of sudden provocation or lack of intent. Present a compelling case supported by legal provisions and evidence to secure a favorable outcome for the Union of India and the deceased wife.
By strategically countering potential arguments, presenting a strong legal case, and advocating for justice on behalf of the deceased wife, the optimal defense strategy aims to ensure accountability for the husband's actions and uphold the rule of law in seeking justice for the victim.
1. Claim of Sudden Provocation: The opposing counsel may argue that the husband's actions were a result of sudden provocation during the argument with his wife. They may contend that the pouring of kerosene and subsequent burning were impulsive acts in the heat of the moment, rather than premeditated.
2. Defense of Lack of Intent: Opposing counsel may argue that the husband did not have the requisite intent to kill his wife. They may claim that the act of throwing the matchstick was reckless or negligent, rather than a deliberate attempt to cause her death.
3. Challenge to Premeditation: The opposing counsel may challenge the assertion of premeditation in the husband's actions. They may argue that there was no evidence of planning or premeditated intent to kill the wife, and that the act was a spontaneous reaction to the situation.
4. Questioning of Undue Advantage: Opposing counsel may question the assertion that the husband took undue advantage of the situation. They may argue that the circumstances were chaotic and that the husband's actions were not calculated but rather a response to the immediate situation.
Counterarguments and Legal Strategies
1. Section 300 Exception 4 of the IPC: Counter the claim of sudden provocation by invoking Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC, which states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed in the heat of passion upon sudden provocation. However, emphasize that the pouring of kerosene and subsequent burning were separate acts from the argument, indicating a calculated and deliberate course of action.
2. Section 299 of the IPC: Argue that even if the husband did not have a specific intent to kill, his actions fall under Section 299 of the IPC, which defines culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Highlight that the act of throwing the matchstick at the wife, knowing she was drenched in kerosene, demonstrates a reckless disregard for her life, which resulted in her death.
3. Section 304 of the IPC: Challenge the opposing counsel's argument on premeditation by invoking Section 304 of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Assert that even if premeditation is not established, the husband's actions still amount to culpable homicide due to his reckless behavior leading to the wife's death.
4. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Emphasize the violation of the wife's right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Argue that regardless of the husband's intent or lack thereof, his actions resulted in the deprivation of the wife's fundamental right to life, warranting legal consequences.
Optimal Defense Strategy
1. Charge Framing: Focus on framing charges under Section 299 or Section 304 of the IPC, highlighting the husband's reckless behavior and disregard for the wife's life, rather than solely relying on premeditation for murder charges.
2. Evidence Presentation: Present strong evidence, including witness statements and forensic analysis, to establish the sequence of events and the husband's knowledge of the imminent danger to the wife. Emphasize the deliberate nature of the husband's actions and their fatal consequences.
3. Legal Arguments: Articulate legal arguments based on relevant sections of the IPC and constitutional provisions to support the case for culpable homicide. Highlight the gravity of the offense and the need for justice in upholding the wife's right to life.
4. Trial Strategy: During the trial, maintain a consistent narrative focusing on the husband's culpability for the wife's death, while effectively countering any arguments of sudden provocation or lack of intent. Present a compelling case supported by legal provisions and evidence to secure a favorable outcome for the Union of India and the deceased wife.
By strategically countering potential arguments, presenting a strong legal case, and advocating for justice on behalf of the deceased wife, the optimal defense strategy aims to ensure accountability for the husband's actions and uphold the rule of law in seeking justice for the victim.
Relevant Supreme Court Judgments
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Pankaj Mithal, Abhay S. Oka
Date of Judgment: 01 Nov 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
The appellant had simply tried to douse the fire by pouring water from the bucket. 7. The defence so set up by the appellant was not accepted by either of the courts below in view of the overwhelming evidence on record regarding their frequent quarrel and the harassment meted out to the deceased wife. The ocular evidence of the witnesses clearly proved that on the date of the incident, there was again a quarrel between both of them though on a petty matter but the deceased wife, in order to avoid torture at the Page 4 | 14 Criminal Appeal No.2697 of 2023 hands of the appellant and to deter him, went inside the kitchen and poured kerosene on herself. Thereafter, the appellant took advantage of the situation and set her on fire. 8. We had heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant had argued that the appellant 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 are not applicable and at best he can be charged under Section 304 PartII of IPC. 10. The above submission has been strongly opposed on the ground that the appellant had burnt the deceased wife with a matchstick fully knowing that she was drenched in kerosene oil and that lightning of matchstick and throwing it upon her would certainly cause her death. Page 5 | 14 Criminal Appeal No.2697 of 2023 11. In the case at hand, admittedly, there are multiple dying declarations on record. The first dying declaration is in the form of the statement Ext.P1. This statement of the deceased wife before her death was made before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, i.e. PW5. The said statement clearly reveals the cause and circumstances of the death of the deceased wife. 12. The other statement which can be read as a dying declaration is Ext.P10 recorded by PW16, Head Constable, Kuruppampady Police at General hospital, Ernakulam, wherein also the deceased wife repeated the same narration as in Ext.P1 in relation to the incident of her death. 13. Both the above statements, if read together, would reveal that on the fateful day, the appellant had assaulted the deceased wife under the influence of alcohol. He even struck a blow on her chest and pushed her. At the time of the said incident, the Page 6 | 14 Criminal Appeal No.2697 of 2023 children were playing in the courtyard. When the assault of the appellant became unbearable, she took the cane of kerosene from kitchen and poured it on her body whereupon her husband lighted a matchstick and burnt her. 14. The Magistrate (PW5), before whom one of the dying declarations was recorded, proves the correctness of the statement and that when the statement of the deceased was recorded, she was coherent and oriented. He also accepted that there was no reason for him to believe that the deceased was not in a position to make the statement or that the statement made by her stands vitiated for any reason.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Dipak Misra, B.S. Chauhan
Date of Judgment: 22 May 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
Severe damage to the extent of blistering of the tongue and the upper respiratory tract, can follow due to the inhalation of smoke. (See: Modi’s Medical Jursprudence and Toxicology by Lexis Nexis Butterworths Chapter 20).” 12. We have referred to the aforesaid dictum only to show various types and natures of burn injuries. The ample of evidence on record indicate that the deceased was conscious and hence, we are inclined to accept the dying declaration which would reveal the cruel treatment meted out by the husband to the wife, the suspicion harboured by him and the threats given. True it is, she had stated that she had suspected that her husband might have set her ablaze but to prove the said aspect, there are numerous circumstances which the trial Judge as well as the High Court has taken into consideration. The circumstances which lead singularly to the guilt of the accused are that the accused was sleeping in the bed room on the eastern side of the room where she was sleeping and it was a small house; that the bed room was not having any shutters; that PW-3 woke up on hearing the cries of the deceased; that the accused had purchased petrol from the petrol pump belonging to PW-5 in a bottle; that Ext. P-15, Chemical Analysis Report, has clearly mentioned that kerosene was not detected in any of the material objects sent for chemical analysis; that the accused was seen running away from the house by PW-3 and PW-7; that it has been clearly deposed by PW-3, the daughter, that the father used to demand that mother should sleep with him, but she could not oblige him; and that he had threatened to kill her. The elder daughter has deposed that the father was doubting the husband of PW-3 to have illicit relationship with the mother. She had also deposed that the mother was 52 years of age and was infirm and not in a position to cater to the desire of her husband. All these circumstances appreciated in the context of the dying declaration clearly establish the involvement of the accused in causing burn injuries on the deceased. 13. Quite apart from above, the conduct of the accused is also worth noting. After escaping from the house, he had surrendered at the police station. In his statement under Section 313, Crl. P.C., he has stated that he tried to save his wife, but no burn injuries were found on his body. Though he had taken the plea of accidental fire, yet it has clearly established by the medical evidence that the possibility of causing burn injuries from a small kerosene lamp is impossible. Therefore, it is evident that the accused has given false statement. 14. Thus, the cumulative effect of the evidence clearly proves the guilt of the accused and the chain of circumstances exclusively leads towards him and none else. The obsession with the inferior endowments of nature made him to do a totally insensible act and ultimately, the addiction with the insatiated desire drove him to become frentic and frenzied to commit the crime.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Aftab Alam, B. Sudershan Reddy
Date of Judgment: 17 Jun 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
While undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries on 18.1.1997 at 4.45 p.m. in the Government Hospital, Guntur. Upon receiving information the police altered the provisions of law into Sections 498A and 302 IPC and accordingly issued the altered FIR. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 498A and 302 IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to establish its case against the appellant altogether examined 15 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-15) and 21 documents were got Exhibited (Ex. P-1 to P- 21). The appellant pleaded of his false implication in the case. 5. The learned Sessions Judge upon appreciation of the evidence available on record held that prosecution established its case beyond doubt that the appellant lit the match stick when the deceased herself poured kerosene on her body. However, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant had no intention to kill his wife. In the result, the learned Sessions Judge held that in the circumstances it cannot be said that the appellant was having any knowledge that the burn injuries were likely to cause the death of the deceased. But his act would certainly cause hurt to a person and accordingly found the appellant guilty under Section 324 IPC. We must express our anguish about the manner in which the learned Sessions Judge has dealt with the matter. 6. The appellant as well as the State preferred appeals against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The High Court upon re-appreciation of the evidence and more particularly relying upon the evidence of PWs -1, 3 and 4 coupled with the dying declaration (Ex. P-4) held that there were serious disputes between the appellant and his wife with regard to the wayward habits of the appellant resulting in frequent quarrels between them which led to the incident on the fateful day. The High Court also found the appellant himself put her on fire which resulted in causing 60% burns all over the body and more particularly on vital parts resulting in death of the deceased. The High Court found the incident took place on the "spur of the moment" due to quarrel that had developed in the bed room due to which the deceased poured kerosene on herself, the accused lighted the match stick which ultimately resulted in her death. In the result, the High Court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Hence, these appeals by the accused against his conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC. The State did not prefer any appeal though it filed the charge sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 302 IPC. 7. Shri A.D.N.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah
Date of Judgment: 08 Mar 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 14
When there is clear evidence as to the act of the accused to set the deceased on fire, absence of premeditation will not reduce the offence of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Likewise, pouring of water will not mitigate the gravity of the offence. 12. After attending to nature's call, the deceased returned to the house a little late. The accused questioned her as to why she was coming late and he also suspected her fidelity. There was no provocation for the accused to pour kerosene and set her on fire. The act of pouring kerosene, though on the spur of the moment, the same was followed by lighting a matchstick and throwing it on the deceased and thereby setting her ablaze. Both the acts are intimately connected with each other and resulted in causing the death of the deceased and the act of the accused is punishable for murder. 13. Even assuming that the accused had no intention to cause the death of the deceased, the act of the accused falls under clause Fourthly of Section 300 IPC that is the act of causing injury so imminently dangerous where it will in all probability cause death. Any person of average intelligence would have the knowledge that pouring of kerosene and setting her on fire by throwing a lighted matchstick is so imminently dangerous that in all probability such an act would cause injuries causing death. 14. Insofar as the conduct of the accused in attempting to extinguish fire, placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Kalu Ram case [(2000) 10 SCC 324 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 86] , it was contended that such conduct of the accused would bring down the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In Kalu Ram case [(2000) 10 SCC 324 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 86] , the accused was having two wives. The accused in a highly inebriated condition asked his wife to part with her ornaments so that he could purchase more liquor, which led to an altercation when the wife refused to do as demanded. Infuriated by the fact that his wife had failed to concede to his demands, the accused poured kerosene on her and gave her a matchbox to set herself on fire. On her failure to light the matchstick, the accused set her ablaze. But when he realised that the fire was flaring up, he threw water on her person in a desperate bid to save her. In such facts and circumstances, this Court held that the accused would not have intended to inflict the injuries which she sustained on account of the act of the accused and the conviction was altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. 15. The decision in Kalu Ram case [(2000) 10 SCC 324 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 86] cannot be applied in the instant case. The element of inebriation ought to be taken into consideration as it considerably alters the power of thinking. In the instant case, the accused was in his complete senses, knowing fully well the consequences of his act.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges T.S.Thakur, V.S.Sirpurkar
Date of Judgment: 13 Jul 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 457 OF 2007 SAYAJI HANMAT BANKAR ... Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T V.S.SIRPURKAR,J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 11.8.2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2000 passed by the High Court of Bombay affirming the judgment and order dated 6.3.2000 passed by the trial court by which the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The brief facts leading to case are as under: On 18.5.1998 at about 9 p.m., appellant-accused Sayaji Hanmat Bankar came home under the influence of liquor and abused his wife deceased-Suman. There was petty quarrel between the appellant and the deceased Suman and in that quarrel the appellant hit her left knee with a water pot made of brass and thereafter threw a burning kerosene lamp upon her. At that time, she was wearing nylon sari which immediately caught fire and she was engulfed by flames. The deceased was immediately taken to the hospital by her parents where her dying declaration was recorded. The medical report of the doctor showed that the deceased was burnt to the extent of 70%. A dying declaration was recorded. During investigation the deceased gave the above version. In her dying declaration, it has also been mentioned that the accused-appellant also tried to douse the fire. It is established that he had received burn injuries to the extent of 18%. 3. The trial court as well as the High Court have taken the view on the basis of dying declaration that the act on the part of the accused showed his intention to commit the murder or such bodily injury as was likely to result in her death. 4. We have heard Mr. S.K.C. Pasi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Shankar Chillarge, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and also gone through the record. 5. In our view, from the evidence on record, it does not appear that the intention on the part of the accused was to cause death or such bodily injury as would have resulted in the death of his wife. There would be much more activity on the part of the accused if his intention was to commit the murder of his wife. It seems that there was a fight as soon as he came to the house under the drunken state and in the fight, he first hit her left knee with a water pot and thereafter, threw kerosene lamp on her. It is obvious from the evidence that this was done suddenly in the heat of passion. If there was any intention to commit her murder, as mentioned in Section 299 IPC, there would have been much other acts like pouring kerosene on the deceased etc. on the part of the accused.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges M. R. Shah, Ashok Bhushan
Date of Judgment: 13 Dec 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
There was no provocation for the accused to pour kerosene and set her on fire. The act of pouring kerosene, though on the spur of the moment, the same was followed by lighting a matchstick and throwing it on the deceased and thereby setting her ablaze. Both the acts are intimately connected with each other and resulted in causing the death of the deceased and the act of the accused is punishable for murder. 13. Even assuming that the accused had no intention to cause the death of the deceased, the act of the accused falls under clause Fourthly of Section 300 IPC that is the act of causing injury so imminently dangerous where it will in all probability cause death. Any person of average intelligence would have the knowledge that pouring of kerosene and setting her on fire by throwing a lighted matchstick is so imminently dangerous that in all probability such an act would cause injuries causing death. 14. Insofar as the conduct of the accused in attempting to extinguish fire, placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Kalu Ram case [(2000) 10 SCC 324 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 86] , it was contended that such conduct of the accused would bring down the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In Kalu Ram case [(2000) 10 SCC 324 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 86] , the accused was having two wives. The accused in a highly inebriated condition asked his wife to part with her ornaments so that he could purchase more liquor, which led to an altercation when the wife refused to do as demanded. Infuriated by the fact that his wife had failed to concede to his demands, the accused poured kerosene on her and gave her a matchbox to set herself on fire. On her failure to light the matchstick, the accused set her ablaze. But when he realised that the fire was flaring up, he threw water on her person in a desperate bid to save her. In such facts and circumstances, this Court held that the accused would not have intended to inflict the injuries which she sustained on account of the act of the accused and the conviction was altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. 15. The decision in Kalu Ram case [(2000) 10 SCC 324 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 86] cannot be applied in the instant case. The element of inebriation ought to be taken into consideration as it considerably alters the power of thinking. In the instant case, the accused was in his complete senses, knowing fully well the consequences of his act. The subsequent act of pouring water by the accused on the deceased also appears to be an attempt to cloak his guilt since he did it only when the deceased screamed for help. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a mitigating factor.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Pankaj Mithal, Abhay S. Oka
Date of Judgment: 01 Nov 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
In the first place, the fight was not sudden. The appellant and the Page 10 | 14 Criminal Appeal No.2697 of 2023 deceased wife had a past history of quarrel and that they had been quarrelling on the fateful day also since before the actual incident. During their quarrel, a neighbour/(Sahajan) i.e. PW1 had visited their house and the deceased wife had shown some injuries received by her during the assault. However, realizing the quarrel between the two, he left saying that he would come later on. It was thereafter that the incident of pouring kerosene and burning took place. So, there was sufficient time in between the two acts and it cannot be said that there was a sudden quarrel and provocation leading to burning. The appellant saw the deceased wife drenched in kerosene and was conscious that if lighted, she would be burnt to death even then ignited her to fire. This shows premeditated mind to kill her. More particularly, the appellant cannot take advantage of the 4th Exception only on the pretext that it was not on account of premeditated mind or out of a Page 11 | 14 Criminal Appeal No.2697 of 2023 sudden fight or that his intentions were not bad as he tried his best to douse the fire and to save the life of the deceased wife for the reason that the benefit of the above exception would have been available to him, had he not taken undue advantage of the situation. 21. 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 can 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 PartII of 304 IPC. Page 12 | 14 Criminal Appeal No.2697 of 2023 22. In view of the above legal position, the ruling cited above, viz. Kalu Ram (supra) would not benefit the appellant. 23. 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”. 24. The aforesaid evidence clinches the issue and establishes beyond doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder and is not entitled to benefit of the Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. 25. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the courts below have not committed any error of fact or law in convicting and sentencing him to a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Dipak Misra, B.S. Chauhan
Date of Judgment: 21 May 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
On that fateful day, her mother-in-law had slapped her 2-3 times and she had started to cry loudly. Thereafter, her father-in-law had asked the other accused, if this bitch should be burnt alive? He had then brought a can of kerosene oil and poured its contents over her. Her mother-in-law lit a matchstick and had thrown its contents on her, setting her ablaze. She had then begun to scream owing to the pain. Her husband had locked the door. Her parents-in-law and husband had set her on fire with the intention of causing her death. She had burns all over her body. There is a thumb impression on the FIR which appears to be normal. It has ridges and curves. 23. Ex.P-14 is the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Jabera. The original reveals that the executive Magistrate had asked the SHO to call a doctor at 2.25 p.m., but there is an endorsement stating that there was no government doctor available at Nohta. What the deceased has said, is that her mother in law had set her on fire. Her father-in-law and husband had also been party to the same. She has also stated that they had never provided her adequate food. She, in anger, had told them not to harass her everyday and to simply kill her (set me ablaze). Her mother-in-law had poured kerosene oil on her and had then set her ablaze, (humari saas ne mitti ka tal dalkar jalaya). Her father-in-law set her on fire (Sasur ne aag lagayi). Her husband bolted the door. There is thumb impression of the deceased on the FIR also. We have carefully seen the thumb impression of the deceased on the said dying declaration. The same has ridges and curves. 24. It is evident from the record that defence neither put any question in cross-examination to either the Executive Magistrate, or to the doctor who had examined the deceased in the hospital, or to Dr. S.K. Jain (PW.8), who had conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased with respect to whether the skin of the thumb was also burnt, or whether the same was intact. Nor was any such question put to R.S. Parmar (PW.14), who had recorded the FIR, which can also be treated as a dying declaration. 25. The respondents in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied their presence at home at the time of incident, taking the plea that they had been working in their agricultural field. They had rushed to the place of occurrence only after learning about the incident. They further took the defence that Kusumbai had committed suicide by burning herself, and that it was on being tutored by her parents that she had given a dying declaration against them. The trial court however, rejected the suggestion made by Mannu Singh (PW.5), to the effect that Kusumbai had caught fire while preparing food on the ground. Kerosene oil had been found on her body and in her burnt clothes and hair.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Swatanter Kumar
Date of Judgment: 24 Jul 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
One (the second) declaration (Exhibit P-12) was recorded by Rajiv Srivastava, Tehsildar (PW9) at 6.30 p.m. on the same date. In relation thereto, Dr. Jain had endorsed the certificate of fitness of the deceased to make the statement. The third dying declaration (Exhibit P-6) was recorded by Sub-Inspector D.C. Doheria, (PW7) in presence of two independent witnesses, Bharat Kumar and Abdul Rehman. In these two subsequent dying declarations recorded by PW9 and PW7, respectively, the deceased had specifically implicated the accused by clearly stating that he had put kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. The reason for not implicating her husband in her first dying declaration was that there was every likelihood that his husband would lose the job. 4. Unfortunately, she succumbed to the burn injuries and died in the hospital itself. Inquest proceedings were carried out. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan and the body of the deceased was subject to post mortem which was performed by PW4, Dr. H.V. Jain. The Investigating Officer recovered matches as well as burnt match, broken mangalsutra and burnt saree from the place of occurrence. Among certain other articles recovered from the site, one can was also recovered in which about one litre of kerosene oil was still remaining. 5. Now, we may discuss some of the prosecution witnesses. PW1, Krishna Bai Tiwari is the landlady in whose house the accused and the deceased used to live. According to her, quarrels used to take place between the husband and the wife and even cooked food used to be left behind in their house. The accused frequently used to be under the influence of liquor. About 4-6 days prior to the date of occurrence, she had been called by the deceased to request the accused to have food. According to this witness, on the date of occurrence, the deceased had requested her to accompany her to the bank for opening an account, which she had done and a bank account in the name of the deceased was opened. Thereafter, she went upstairs but after some time, the boys of the locality told her that smoke was coming out from the room upstairs. When she went upstairs along with other people, she saw the deceased in flames. They doused the flames in the mattress in an attempt to save the deceased. On being asked, Ratanmala told her that she had been burnt by the accused by pouring kerosene oil on her. 6. PW3, Gunwant, father of the deceased, is another witness who stated that the deceased often told him that the accused, after drinking liquor, used to beat her. The sister of the accused had come and informed him that the deceased had received burn injuries and was admitted to the hospital. 7. PW5, Rajender Dubey, is a witness who was present near the house of the accused at the time of the occurrence and after seeing the fire, he had gone up to the house of the accused and saw that smell of kerosene was coming from the room.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Pankaj Mithal, Abhay S. Oka
Date of Judgment: 01 Nov 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
The statement of PW5 was supported by that of PW14 (Dr. K. Venugopal). 15. The statement of the deceased wife further categorically states that the appellant was in habit of drinking alcohol and used to assault her frequently in inebriated condition. She also stated Page 7 | 14 Criminal Appeal No.2697 of 2023 that various criminal cases are pending against the appellant in connection with similar kind of assaults. The above aspect, as stated by the deceased, was corroborated by the testimony of PW21 (Investigating Officer). Even the DW1 (Saji Mathew) also proved that the deceased, at the time of the admission in the hospital, narrated about her burn injuries and alleged that her husband assaulted her and that she had poured kerosene on herself whereupon her husband had set her on fire. The medical report reveals that the deceased had suffered 96% burn injuries. 16. The incident was also proved by the oral testimony of PW1 (Sahajan) and PW2 (Gopalakrishnan), the neighbours who took the deceased to the hospital in a jeep and have seen the deceased in burning state. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the overwhelming evidence on record, there is no escape from the Page 8 | 14 Criminal Appeal No.2697 of 2023 conclusion that the deceased died of burn injuries. She had herself poured kerosene upon her body and that the appellant set her ablaze and later tried to douse the fire by pouring water. The appellant also accompanied the deceased to the hospital. 18. Now the only point for consideration is whether in the above circumstances, the appellant had any premeditated mind to kill the deceased or was it due to grave and sudden provocation which would not amount to murder or would at best be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 10 years or with fine or with both under Section 304 PartII of IPC. 19. In support of his above argument, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan2 2 (2000) 10 SCC 324 Page 9 | 14 Criminal Appeal No.2697 of 2023 which was case of a similar kind in connection with uxoricide by burning. However, it would be relevant and material to refer to Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC which defines “Murder” before extending the benefit of the above decision to the appellant. The said exception reads as under: “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. Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.” 20. It is on the strength of the above exception that from the side of the appellant it has been argued that the appellant is not guilty of murder as he had no premeditated mind and that the action of the appellant arose out of a sudden fight.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah
Date of Judgment: 08 Mar 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 13
PW 6, doctor certified that the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the statement and PW 7, the Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration Ext. 1. In the said dying declaration, the deceased had categorically stated that on the date of incident, the appellant poured kerosene over her person and set her on fire. That accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire is corroborated by the oral testimony of PW 3, Sindhu Sunil Ingole (sister-in- law) of the deceased. PW 1 Raju Janrao Gavai, neighbour of the deceased who accompanied the deceased to the hospital to whom the deceased is said to have made a statement about the overt act of the accused, had only stated that the deceased told him that the accused beat her and also kicked her. PW 1 had not supported the statement of the deceased in the dying declaration that the accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. However, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused by Ext. 1 dying declaration and the oral evidence of the mother (PW 2) and the sister-in-law (PW 3) and the same cannot be doubted. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no premeditation and the appellant had poured kerosene from the lamp nearby and thereafter the appellant attempted to extinguish the fire by pouring water on her and himself getting burn injuries in the process. It was submitted that the conduct of the appellant in trying to extinguish the fire immediately after the incident would clearly show that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to commit the murder. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(2000) 10 SCC 324 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 86] . 11. The question falling for consideration is whether the act of the accused pouring water would mitigate the offence of murder. Where the intention to kill is present, the act amounts to murder, where such an intention is absent, the act amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. To determine whether the offender had the intention or not, each case must be decided on its facts and circumstances. From the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is evident that : (i) there was a homicide, namely, the death of Saraswatibai; (ii) the deceased was set ablaze by the appellant and this act was not accidental or unintentional; and (iii) the post-mortem certificate revealed that the deceased died due to shock and septicaemia caused by 60% burn injuries. When the accused poured kerosene on the deceased from the kerosene lamp and also threw the lighted matchstick on the deceased to set her on fire, he must have intended to cause the death of the deceased. As seen from the evidence of PW 5, panch witness, in the house of the appellant, kerosene lamp was prepared in an empty liquor bottle. Whether the kerosene was poured from the kerosene lamp or from the can is of no consequence.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Gyan Sudha Misra, Swatanter Kumar
Date of Judgment: 14 Dec 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
20. Taking assistance from these apt and relevant considerations when we examined the case of the appellant, we have noticed that the appellant was living with his deceased wife day in and day out, but none of the witness has deposed that she was abused and beaten earlier. Thus, there is lack of evidence that on the fateful day the appellant-husband had the pre-meditated intention to kill the deceased with a log of wood due to which he inflicted the fatal blow on the deceased. The anger and frustration no doubt was acute in the mind of the appellant on account of his suspicion which aggravated due to hot exchange of words and abuses resulting into loss of mental balance as a consequence of which he hit his wife with such intensity that she died on the spot itself. In view of this the appellant will have to be attributed with the knowledge that his act was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to kill the victim- wife. 21. Thus, in our view, the accused-appellant although might not be attributed with the intention to kill his wife, sufficient knowledge that his act would result into killing her was definitely there in the appellant’s mind and he in fact gave vent to his feeling by finally killing her when he hit her with a woodenlog to take revenge for her alleged infidelity without realising that suspicion of her fidelity was not proved and even if it did, that gave no right to him to kill his wife in a brutal manner by hitting her hard enough with a log of wood with such intensity which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to kill the victim. 22. There are no dearth of incidents referred in the case laws where the husband has gone to the extent of shooting his wife and many a times a paramour shoots the husband or the husband shoots the paramour on account of suspicion founded or unfounded. But if the evidence discloses that the accused killed the victim in a pre- meditated manner as for instance by using a firearm, the same might be a clear case under Section 302 of the I.P.C. But the facts and circumstances of the incident in which the appellant has been convicted, indicate that the accused-appellant was not armed with any weapon or a firearm. As already noticed the evidence do not disclose in any manner that the appellant had come with a pre-meditated mind to kill his wife, but it was only in course of hot exchange of words and abuses which mindlessly drove him to take the extreme step of beating his wife with a log of wood with such force and intensity that she sustained head injury, profusely bled and finally died on the spot. 23. We are, therefore, of the considered view that although the conviction and sentence of the appellant might not be sustainable under Section 302 I.P.C., it cannot also be scaled down to Section 304 Part-II I.P.C.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges N.V. Ramana, Dipak Misra
Date of Judgment: 01 Jul 2014
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
One day prior to the date of the incident my husband had heavily beaten me, he beaten me from the Pirha (wooden structure) and from the iron rod, on the next day to that at about 8.00 a.m. after holding me my husband poured kerosene oil over me and after lit up a match stick my mother-in- law thrown the same at me, after becoming frightened, I held the hands of my Jeth, while my Jeth also started burning then after giving jolt at me, he got me fell down, the ladies residing in the back side of my residence arrived there and they changed my clothes after than by arranging a temp, I got admitted in the hospital. Q: Whether you did not tell your parents that your husband and mother- in-law were harassing you? A: After the marriage, I visited Mayeka for three times, then on the third occasion while I had gone to Mayeka then I had told my father then my father had told me that presently his position was not good, after managing the money as earliest he would sent the money. I had told abiout the cruelty of my husband and mother-in-law. Q: Since how may days from the marriage they have been committing cruelty? You have been burnt at which body parts? A: They have been harassing me since 4 -5 months after the marriage. They were committing cruelty for the dowry. My whole body parts below the neck have been burnt. Q: Whether you want to tell anything more? A: No”. 14. According to the High Court, Ex.P-2, the alleged consent letter given by sister and brother-in-law, which says that burn injuries sustained by the deceased was a case of accident and Anita had burnt herself, runs contrary to each other, because in the case of accident, the patient will burn herself, but if she burnt herself, then it cannot be a case of accident. Hence, the High Court disbelieved Ex.P-2. The High Court further observed that not giving the information about the incident by the Revival Medical Centre to the police shows that the hospital staff in connivance with the accused, treated the deceased without informing about the incident to the police. 15. Another reason given by the High Court for convicting the accused under Section 302, IPC is that, as per the dying declaration, the deceased had stated that when her mother-in-law and husband lit fire to her, she asked the brother-in-law and caught hold of him, and at that time, he also sustained burn injuries, which is supported by the evidence of the Doctor P.W.13, who has deposed that the injury on the hands of the brother-in-law P.W.14 is possible if a person who is in flames catch holds of another person. The High Court disbelieved the evidence of Doctor Vijay Kumar Sharma, which is in favour of the accused, basing on the contradictions in his evidence with regard to the nature of injuries and not informing about the incident to the police. 16. Finally, the High Court convicted and sentenced the accused, basing on the dying declaration that the deceased was not having cordial relationship with the accused.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Swatanter Kumar, B.S. Chauhan
Date of Judgment: 22 Jul 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
13. The object of examination under this section is to give the accused an opportunity to explain the case made against him. This statement can be taken into consideration in judging his innocence or guilt. Where there is an onus on the accused to discharge, it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case if such statement discharges the onus." 10. The statement made by the accused is capable of being used in the trial though to a limited extent. But the law also places an obligation upon the Court to take into consideration the stand of the accused in his statement and consider the same objectively and in its entirety. This principle of law has been stated by this Court in the case of Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat [AIR 1953 SC 468]. 11. Let us now examine the relevant part of the statement made by the accused under Section 313 of the Code as it would to some extent narrow the controversy before the Court. The appellant had clearly and in unambiguous terms admitted that the deceased was his wife and she died of burn injuries. The questions put to the accused were very few and the two important questions which were put to the accused by the Court and his answers read as under: "Question:- It is the case of the prosecution that after committing murder you in order to disappear the evidence of the murder set the dead body on fire and also tried to disappear the same to screen yourself from punishment. Ans:- No. Question:- You had stated in the information that your wife Bimla Devi had died being burnt due to fire. In postmortem examination it has been found that her death has been caused by throttling her neck. What have you to say? Ans:- I had given information to the police regarding burning. She has not been murdered. Her death has been caused due to throttling her neck is wrong." 12. As already noticed from the above answers, it is clear that the appellant does not dispute the factum of the deceased being his wife and had died because of burn injuries. However, his version is that she committed a suicide by pouring kerosene on her and burning herself. While according to the prosecution primarily relying upon the statement of PW3, it was a case of causing death of the deceased by strangulating and then burning the body of the deceased. Even the learned Trial Court had noticed and discussed these facts and as well as noticed the admission and argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the accused before that Court. It will be useful to refer to those findings in paragraph 8 and 9 of the Trial Court Judgment:- "8. This case is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness of the occurrence, which had taken place in the cabin belonging to the accused. So far the occurrence is concerned, the stand of the accused had been in the beginning that his wife Bimla Devi had committed suicide during his absence by sprinkling K.Oil.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges J.M. Panchal, Harjit Singh Bedi
Date of Judgment: 13 Jan 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 8
What is claimed by the appellant is that because of the bhabhak of the stove, the cotton garments put on by the deceased had caught fire. However, a brief burst of flames, i.e., bhabhak at the time when the stove is ignited first time would cause at the best first degree burns and could not have been sufficient to totally and completely ignite the cotton garments. Normally, it is inconceivable that the deceased would have received 90% burns in spite of the fact that she was wearing a cotton nightgown. Further, the evidence of prosecution witnesses establishes beyond pale of doubt that when the deceased was removed to the hospital, her clothes and her body were smelling of kerosene. It is also inconceivable that due to initial bhabhak, the clothes and body of the deceased would be soiled with kerosene unless it had burst. The CFSL report on the record shows that kerosene oil stove was found in normal working order. Therefore, the presence of kerosene oil on the body of the deceased and clothes put on by her, rules out the theory of accidental fire as suggested by the defence. The medical evidence on record makes it evident that soot particles were present in the stomach of the deceased. According to Dr. Bernard Knight who has authored `Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology' if soot particles are found in Larynx Trachea or into stomach, it is commonly a case of conflagration. The presence of soot particles in the stomach indicates that the injuries could have been sustained by the deceased only in a conflagration and that too in a closed area. The instinct of survival would have made the deceased to run into an open place but in this case, the record does not indicate that any such attempt was made by the deceased to run towards any open space and positively establishes that she was found at the end of the passage which hardly admeasures 12' x 3'. The case of the appellant is that on hearing shrieks of the deceased, he was woken up and he found that the deceased was engulfed in the fire. It is also his case that he had made an attempt to extinguish fire on her and had received burn injuries on the dorsum and wrist of the right hand. Having regard to the common course of natural events and human conduct in their relation, when a loving husband finds his wife engulfed in fire, he try his best to extinguish the fire either with the help of a gunny bag or blanket or sheet of cloth and would not make any attempt to extinguish the fire with bare hands. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that in the instant case, the appellant had made an attempt to extinguish fire with his bare hands, it is reasonable to infer that he would have received extensive burn injuries because the whole body of the deceased was on fire and ultimately it was found that she had received almost 100% burn injuries.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges A.K. Patnaik, Swatanter Kumar
Date of Judgment: 28 Feb 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.113-114 OF 2010 Brajendrasingh b�& Appellant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh b�& Respondent J U D G M E N T Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The present appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of imposition of extreme penalty of death by the Trial Court. 2. The disaster that can flow from unchastity of a woman and the suspicions of a man upon the character of his wife cannot be more pathetically stated than the facts emerging from the present case. As per the case of the prosecution, a man suspecting his wife of having illicit relations with his neighbor, killed his three young children, namely, Varsha, Lokesh and Mayank, who were asleep, sprinkled kerosene oil on his wife and put her on fire. However, when called upon to make a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.), the accused rendered the following explanation : b� There was illicit relationship between my wife, the deceased Aradhna and Liladhar, when on 27.02.2005 I came from the factory, at that time it was 11.00 b� 11.30 Ob�clock at night, there was no fixed time coming and going from the factory. When I came to my house the door of the house was opened. My wife was not at the house and then I searched her here and there. I heard her voice in the house of Liladhar Tiwari, the voice of male was also coming. My children were sleeping in my house, when I shouted loudly and I hit the door of Liladhar Tiwari with foot, then the door opened then I saw that both were naked and then she came out then I threw her on the ground after catching her hair and then she started shouted and speaking cohabitedly and said that she would go with Tiwari Jee only and if I would stop her from meeting Tiwari Jee then she would kill the children and she would kill me also. Thus quarrel went on. After some time she came with knife from the kitchen and she inflicted injuries in the necks of the three children. I tried to snatch the knife from her and the in that process in my neck also the knife inflicted injury and then after taking that very knife I inflicted injury on the neck of deceased because she had inflicted the injury in the necks of children, Aradhna fell down on the back after being hit by the knife. My mental balance was upset and I put the kerosene oil kept there at myself, that some of that kerosene oil fell on me and some on the deceased, I was standing nearby. I ignited the match stick and at first I burnt myself and the match stick fell on the deceased, due to which she was also burnt and then in the burning condition after extinguishing the fire taking the knife I went towards the Bye-pass.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges S. Rajendra Babu, G.P. Mathur
Date of Judgment: 27 Jan 2003
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
After examining her he made the necessary entries in the Accident Register and the relevant extract of the same have been proved by the witness as Exh. P12 and the same reads as under:- "Patient says that she sustained burn injuries when her husband Shariff thrown kerosene oil over her body in her house and put fire to it on 24.7.86 at 4.00 a.m. There was a quarrel between her and her husband for the last two days. On examination patient is conscious. Pulse 86/minute. CVS/RS NAD Answers well to the question and orientation was good. Brought by Akbar (brother) Kerosene smell over the body of the patient." Besides above two other dying declarations were recorded by Sub- Inspectors of Police Station Victoria Hospital and Anekal Police Station on July 24, 1986 and July 26, 1986 respectively. PW 11 BK Krishnappa was ASI Victoria Hospital Police Station. His statement shows that after receiving a memo from PW 12 Dr. Nagabhushan that Muneera Begum was admitted in the hospital with burn injuries, he made the necessary entry in the general diary and went to the hospital. He sought permission from PW 5 Dr. Rangarajan, who was on duty, to record the statement of Muneera Begum. Thereafter in the presence of the Doctor he recorded her statement which is fairly a detailed one. In her statement she gave details about the past conduct and behaviour of her husband leading to an earlier complaint at police station against him. She further stated that accused picked up a quarrel on July 24, 1986, tied her hands and legs and thereafter poured kerosene and set her on fire. She also stated that she tried to raise an alarm but the accused placed a cloth over her mouth. The dying declaration has been quoted in extenso in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and it is therefore not necessary to reproduce the same here. PW 14 Kumar Swamy was posted as PSI at Anekal Police Station. He took over investigation of the case on July 26, 1986. He went to Victoria Hospital on the same day and after obtaining permission from PW 5 Dr. Rangarajan, recorded the statement of Muneera Begum which is Ex. P4. In this statement also she stated that for the last two years the accused was abusing and beating her. She had made a complaint at police station and the police warned him to behave properly. Her husband was working as a labourer and she was also making some money by making agarbattis. On July 21, 1986 she had given Rs.100/- to him. She alongwith her husband and children slept in the house on July 24, 1986 and at about 4.00 a.m. in the morning her husband picked up a quarrel and asked about some more money. Then he poured kerosene oil over her and set her on fire. She tried to scream but her husband gagged her mouth by a cloth. This statement Ex. P4 has also been quoted in extenso in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and therefore we are not reproducing it here.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges K.M. Joseph, Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Date of Judgment: 04 Sep 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
13. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant would undoubtedly emphasise that this is a case where there are three dying declarations. In the first two dying declarations, which were given by the deceased herself, no incriminatory role is attributed to the appellant. Rather, the cause of her catching fire is attributed to an accident generated by the appellant lighting his biri. It is submitted that there is evidence of PW1- husband of the sister of the deceased visiting the deceased at the hospital on 26.01.2008. It is on the very next day, i.e. 27.01.2008, as a result of the tutoring and prompting by PW1, that the deceased comes up with a completely different version in the dying declaration. The mother of the deceased-PW7 was also in the hospital. The theory of conspiracy to sabotage the claim to the property is pressed into service. 15. In other words, the argument is painting the appellant as the murderer, his claim to the property would stand extinguished, thus enabling the other two daughters to claim exclusive right. In this regard, he would point out that PW29 has deposed that he went to the hospital on 27.01.2008 and recorded the dying declaration on the basis of a telephone call which came from the hospital. He points out that the call did not come from any Doctor as ordinarily would have been the case if the patient wanted to make the dying declaration but strangely it came from his co-brother, viz., PW1. PW1 has admitted in his evidence that he did indeed made the call to the Police to come and record the statement of the sister-in-law. Therefore, the dying declaration, in other words, is the brain child of PW1 in pursuance to the conspiracy to oust the appellant from property rights. He next points out that the very case of homicide is irreconcilable with the appellant himself suffering burn injuries to the extent of 40 per cent. In the dying declaration, it is stated that after pouring kerosene on the deceased, the appellant poured less kerosene oil on himself. The medical evidence establishes that the appellant suffered 40 per cent burns. A reference is made to the evidence of PW15 who is a Police Constable working with the Police Control Room (PCR) as in cross-examination, she has this to state: “It is correct that as per further proceedings mentioned in Ex.PW15/DA, it is mentioned that the husband was smoking a biri inside the room and lid of the petrol tank of a motorcycle lying nearby was lying open as a result of which the husband got fire and wife tried to extinguish the fire, she also caught fire and that Indrawati who is their relation had also stated so and both husband and wife were conscious.” 16. He, therefore, would point out that the said statement, which is recorded at the earliest point of time after the incident, corroborates the first and the second dying declaration and the case of accidental burn injuries is clearly probablised.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Madan B. Lokur, Ranjana Prakash Desai
Date of Judgment: 12 Nov 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1223 OF 2008 ANJANAPPA …Appellant Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA …Respondent JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. This appeal, once again like many other appeals, presents before us the plight of a woman who is burnt to death by her husband. Sadly, her parents turned hostile in the court. This raises the serious question of witness protection which is not addressed as yet. 2. Deceased Gowramma was married to the appellant on 17/04/1987. It is the prosecution case that at the time of marriage the appellant demanded dowry and he received Rs.5,000/-, a motor bike, one gold chain and clothes from Hanumantharayappa, the father of Gowramma. After marriage the appellant was harassing the deceased for bringing more dowry from her parents. The harassment was both physical and mental. The appellant had caused burn injuries on the thighs of Gowramma to compel her to bring more dowry. He had kept one Puttamma as his mistress, which caused mental agony to Gowramma. On 17/10/1991 there was a quarrel between the appellant and Gowramma on the question of transferring Gowramma’s property in the appellant’s name. At about 6.00 p.m. the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Gowramma was taken to the Victoria hospital. At about 7.00 p.m. PW-4 Dr. Parthasarathy admitted her for treatment of burn injuries. When PW-4 Dr. Parthasarathy asked her about the burn injuries she told him that on the same day at about 6.30 p.m. the appellant had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. He recorded the said occurrence in the Accident Register. Gowramma’s statement recorded by him is at Exhibit-P16(b). He reported the matter to the police. PW-5 HC Ramachari of Vijayanagara Police Station came to the hospital on 17/10/1991 at about 10.30 p.m. and sought permission to record the statement of Gowramma from PW-4 Dr. Parthasarathy. As Gowramma was in a position to give statement PW-4 Dr. Parthasarathy permitted PW-5 HC Ramachari to obtain her statement. Thereafter, PW-5 HC Ramachari recorded her statement in Burns Ward, which is Exhibit P-19. She stated that her husband had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. PW-4 Dr. Parthasarathy put an endorsement on the said statement and signed it. After recording the statement of Gowramma, PW-5 HC Ramachari presented the memo Exhibit-P18 and statement Exhibit-P19 before the Station House Officer. PW-6 S. Nanjundappa, who was at the relevant time, working as ASI, Vijayanagara Police Station, recorded the FIR at about 11.30 p.m. on 17/10/1991 on the basis of Gowramma’s statement Exhibit-P19. The appellant came to be arrested and charged for offences under Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution examined eight witnesses.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges M. Srinivasan
Date of Judgment: 22 Jan 1998
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
The neighbours who were present made all attempts to put out the flames by wrapping her in a rug and removing the burning clothes for her body. An auto rickshaw was brought by one of them and she was taken to the Government hospital. 3. Even before that the appellant's wife had told the neighbours that her husband had poured kerosene oil on her and set fire. While going in auto-rikshaw she was repeatedly saying that her husband had burnt her. She was admitted in the hospital by PW 12 to whom the appellant's wife had two days before the incident given a sum of Rs. 100/- and addresses of her brothers with a request to inform them in the event of anything untoward happening to her. PW -12 sent telegrams to the relatives of the appellant's wife. The appellant went to the hospital later in the night and saw his wife in the ward. He scolded PW 12 Krishnaveni fro staying in the hospital by the side of his wife and told her that whatever had happened and his wife should be properly advised. 4. On 27.1.1984 the statement of the appellant's wife was recorded by PW 27, P.S.I. Extension Police Station, Devangere. The appellant was arrested on the same day in the hospital where he was undertaking treatment as an indoor patient. The appellant's wife died on 28.1.84 at about 12.30 AM. After completion of investigation the appellant and his mother stood charged with offence under Section 302 and 408A IPC. 5. The Court Session disbelieved the evidence adduced by the prosecution and accused. On appeal the High Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Sessions and so far as the appellant is concerned, convicted bin an aforesaid. 6. Though the High Court refused to accept the credibility of the statement containing dying declaration escorted by PW 27 and also the entry in the Accident Register of the hospital containing the version given by the deceased, accepted the evidence of PWs 2, 13 and 14 and then factum of dying declaration made to them by the deceased. The High Court has found that the evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses is quai natural and there is no reason whatever to reject the same. Consequently the High Court found no difficulty in accepting the declarations made to those witnesses.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges M.K Mukherjee
Date of Judgment: 11 Oct 1995
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
Madan Lal had told that Darshana Devi had sprinkled kerosene oil on him when he was lying asleep and had burnt him. My mother took him to the hospital where he subsequently expired." There is variance in the statements of the two witness with regard to the exact words allegedly used was not in a fit condition to make a statement after the police had arrived at the hospital at about 3.45 a.m.,in response to the police query. We, therefore, find it difficult to believe, as PW3 would like us to, that a patient with extensive burn injuries whose pulse could not be felt and whose blood pressure could not be recorded, was mentally fit and making a coherent statement that he had been burnt by his wife, keeping in view the concentration of alcohal in his blood, so as to be heard so clearly by PW3. It does not appear probable to us that the deceased could have made the statement as is being attributed to him by PW3. Even without the burn injuries, because of the alcohal concentration found in the body of the deceased, he could not be making a coherent. We therefore, find it difficult to rely upon the statement of PW3. The prosecution has also not been able to establish any motive for the appellant to commit the murder of her husband particularly when the couple had lost their 9 year old only child just a few weeks before the occurrence. According to the investigating officer there were no marks of burning on the bed and through a broken bottle smelling of kerosene was taken into possession from the deceased neither the bed nor the bedding was found to have any burn marks. No burnt article was found in the room nor any such article was seized. Had the deceased been sleeping as deposed to by PW2, when kerosene oil was poured on him and he was set on fire, the bedding could not have remained unaffected by the room by the police either. The burnt pieces of the shirt of the deceased were recovered from the lane between the room of the deceased and his mother. In her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant while denying the prosecution allegations gave the following version: "I was putting up with my husband Madan Lal in the room facing the house of my mother-in-law at Mansa.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Pinaki Chandra Ghose, M.Y. Eqbal
Date of Judgment: 23 Sep 2014
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
According to Dr. Ravi Kanta (PW-1), who conducted post mortem examination, burn injuries were approximately 50% and cause of death of Rajni was due to ante mortem burns, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. According to Dr. Naresh Kumar Kardwal (PW-3), who medico-legally examined the deceased, found superficial deep burns all over the body except back, hip, lower leg, left hand and forearm. He stated that possibility of burn injuries in this case by fall of kerosene oil on the head cannot be ruled out. Agyapal (PW-7), father of the deceased, stated that accused person started harassing his daughter three months after marriage for want of dowry although sufficient dowry was given. Ultimately, she was shunted out from the matrimonial abode and her husband filed a divorce petition. Later, the matter was resolved on the apology being tendered and assurance given by the accused persons before the panchayat on 1.12.1996. Ironically she fell prey to recurrence and was turned out from the matrimonial house in the year 1997. His daughter divulged about the illicit relations between her husband and sister-in-law. Again accused persons were apologized before the Panchayat on the assurance given by them. In 2001, a criminal case was filed, which was also compromised with the intervention of panchayat. Against willingness of his daughter, he persuaded and sent her daughter back to the matrimonial house through panchayat. He further highlighted that about one week prior to the occurrence, his daughter informed him telephonically about harassment and requested him to take her to parental house. Thereafter, on 10.12.2003 at around 5.00 A.M. a telephonic message, was received and he along with his wife and son rushed to the hospital, where the victim disclosed that accused Prem and Bimla caught hold of her and her husband Mahender poured kerosene oil and set her on fire. PW8, brother of Rajni, supported the version of his father PW7. 5. Accused denied all the charges and in defence accused Mahender Singh stated that at the time of occurrence he was present on the ground floor and was working at flour mill. His wife and children were on the first floor. After hearing cries of children, he went upstairs on the first floor and saw that his wife was having burn injuries accidentally due to falling of a lamp upon her in the kitchen. Complaint against his brother and bhabhi, who were residing separately, was filed at the instance of her parents. The accused examined deceased’s eight years’ old daughter Kumari Manshu (DW-1), who deposed that she heard cries of her mother in the kitchen. She came out and told that she had caught fire due to falling of burning lamp on her as glass of the lamp got broken after falling upon her. The Child called her father, who was on the ground floor in the flour mill at that time. Her father and neighbours extinguished fire and took her mother to the hospital.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges P. Sathasivam, Ranjan Gogoi
Date of Judgment: 14 Dec 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
P-4), hence, the courts below ought not to have accepted the prosecution case. He further submitted that in the absence of smell of kerosene from the bed sheet, quilt and the pillow, the entire statement in the form of dying declaration is to be rejected. He finally submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is acceptable, in view of the fact that the appellant tried to extinguish the fire and by such conduct at the most, he would be punishable only under Section 304 Part II IPC and not under Section 302. On the other hand, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, learned counsel for the State submitted that the very same contentions were raised by the accused before the trial Court and the High Court and taking note of the statement of the deceased in the form of dying declaration, all other relevant materials and compliance of all the formalities, the said objections were rejected, hence, there is no valid and acceptable ground for interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below by exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 6) We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused all the relevant materials. 7) As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the State, it is seen from the FIR (Exh.P-4) that the accused was not happy with his married life and they had frequent quarrels. A perusal of the FIR further shows that on 03.02.1998, in the midnight, when the accused and the deceased alone were in the house, the accused poured kerosene oil on the deceased and set her on fire. It is further seen that on hearing the cry of the deceased, a number of persons entered into the room when the accused himself opened the door from inside and a report was made to the police. No doubt, a perusal of the FIR shows that her husband, the present appellant also tried to extinguish the fire. 8) In the light of the contents of the FIR (Ex.P-4), now we have to consider the dying declaration which is Exh.P-11 made by the deceased recorded by Rajendra Tiwari, Naib Tahsildar, (PW-11) wherein it was stated that her husband abused her and compelled her to go away from his house. She further stated that on the fateful night, when they were sleeping together, he poured kerosene oil on her and set fire. She further narrated that when she shouted for help, neighbours came in and she was taken to G.M.Hospital, Rewa. The above statement was recorded at 3.25 p.m. on 04.02.1998. 9) Before recording the above statement, the doctor concerned certified that she was fit for giving a statement. The doctor also certified that the patient was conscious while giving the dying declaration.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Gyan Sudha Misra, Swatanter Kumar
Date of Judgment: 14 Dec 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
18. Thus the appellant although do not appear to have killed his wife by planning out the whole incident in a methodical manner, yet the evidence disclosed that he was nurturing a grudge against the wife over a long period of time and on the date of the incident when the husband started to abuse his deceased wife alleging her of loose moral and character, the accused-husband gave vent to his deep seated grudge by hitting her with such intensity that he did not bother about the consequence of his action. But it cannot be overlooked or ignored that the intensity with which he hit his wife after abusing her is indicative of the fact that he was not oblivious of the consequence which would have resulted from his violent act of beating his wife with a log of wood. Thus, it will have to be inferred that he had sufficient knowledge about the consequence of his heinous act at least to the extent that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of his wife. He was thus fully aware of the consequence that this would result in a serious consequence and in fact it did result in the said manner since the wife died as a result of the injury inflicted on her. In fact, when the village Kotwal reached the incident, the deceased did not even expressed any remorse for what he had done to his wife nor he appeared to be repentant of the incident. This clearly reflects his state of mind that he committed the crime with full knowledge to kill his wife Nagibai on account of his deep seated grudge which he was carrying since long. Therefore, the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. should be converted into one under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. is fit to be rejected and accordingly we do so. 19. The matter, however, do not set at rest at this stage as the evidence on record and the surrounding circumstances compels us to consider further, whether the offence would be made out under Section 302 I.P.C. or the same would fall under Section 304 Part-I of the I.P.C. since the appellant-accused and his wife-Nagibai had been married for a long time and were having nine children as also the manner of occurrence and the circumstance under which the incident happened does indicate that the incident of hot exchange of words between the accused-appellant and his deceased-wife got precipitated and as the appellant was already aggrieved of his wife suspecting her character, he hit his wife severely with whatever was available without caring for the consequence. Thus, the intention to kill his wife and the knowledge that she would be killed due to the hard hit blow by the log of wood surely cannot be ruled out. We take assistance from the observations of this Court quoted hereinabove that in all cases it cannot be said that when only a single blow is given, Section 302 I.P.C. is made out.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Swatanter Kumar
Date of Judgment: 24 Jul 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2472 OF 2009 Shudhakar … Appellant Versus State of M.P. … Respondent J U D G M E N T Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. An important question of criminal jurisprudence as to in a case of multiple variable dying declarations, which of the dying declaration would be taken into consideration by the Court, what principles shall guide the judicial discretion of the Court or whether such contradictory dying declarations would unexceptionally result in prejudice to the case of the prosecution, arises in the present case. 2. The facts as brought out in the case of the prosecution are that the accused Shudhakar was married to the deceased Ratanmala and they used to live at Ganesh Chowk Seoni, Tehsil and District Seoni, Madhya Pradesh. They were living in the house of one Krishna Devi Tiwari. The accused was suspicious about the character of his wife Ratanmala. On the date of occurrence, i.e., 25th July, 1995, there was argument between the husband and the wife in consequence to which the accused assaulted Ratanmala. Thereafter, he poured kerosene oil on her and put her ablaze by lighting a match stick due to which there was smoke in the house. The people living nearby gathered around the house upon seeing the smoke and finding Ratanmala in burning condition, took her to the hospital wherein she was admitted by PW8, Dr. M.N. Tiwari and was occupying bed No.10 of the surgical ward of the district hospital. Except the upper portion, her entire body had been burnt. Her body was smelling of kerosene. The injuries were fresh. According to the medical evidence, they were caused within five hours and the burn injuries were fatal for life. As per the statement of PW4, Dr. H.V. Jain, one Dr. Smt. A. Verma, lady doctor, gynaecologist had accompanied him for the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased which was brought by Constable Bhoje Lal from Seoni. Statement of PW4 clearly shows that upon post mortem examination, Rigor Mortis was found on the entire dead body. Both the eyes were closed, superficial burns were present on the entire body. The skin had separated at a number of places. The body was burnt between 97 per cent to 100 per cent. There were burn injuries on the skull and occipital region. The cause of death was shock and hipobolamar which was caused due to severe burn injuries and due to fluid loss. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that Ratanmala had told the people gathered there that the accused had burnt her by pouring kerosene oil on her. When she reached the hospital, the doctor had informed the police. The doctors also informed the Naib Tehsildar, DW1, who came to the hospital and recorded the first dying declaration (Exhibit D/2) of the deceased Ratanmala at 4.35 p.m. on 25th July, 1995. In her first dying declaration, she did not implicate her husband and stated that she received the burn injuries from a stove while cooking food.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges B.C. Ray, M.P. Thakkar
Date of Judgment: 03 Nov 1988
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 25
The natural conduct of anyone else would have been to run to the place from where smoke was emanating especially when the kitchen was on the left side of the drawing room as one enters inside and one has to pass through the drawing room in order to come to the entrance door. Any inmate of the house who noticed so much smoke emanating from the kitchen, the door of which was open, would have seen the body of Veena burning. One would have expected such a person to rush to the kitchen and shout for help. But strangely enough even though the door was opened after considerable ringing of the bell and repeated knocking at the door Meera just did not show awareness of the tragedy. When the milkman drew here attention to the fact that smoke was coming out and enquired as to what was the matter, accused Meera looked back and called her brother. It was then that accused Narendra came out. When he came out he must have also noticed the smoke. The room was full of smoke as all the windows and shutters were closed. He must have felt the suffocation. He evinced no curiosity as to the source from which the smoke was emanating. Surely he must have realised that when there is smoke there must be fire. He also had to pass through the drawing room in which the door leading to the kitchen was open. The door was open and his wife Veena was burning. Did he go to the kitchen and try to extinguish the fire or show any concern for his recently wedded wife? No. 31. He did not show as much concern as the milkman, a stranger, who shouted for help and tried to extinguish the fire. Whilst the milkman was there none of the accused went towards the kitchen. The evidence of Dr. Qamar Jahan, PW 5, who arrived soon after also reveals that none of them had gone near the kitchen where the body of Veena was burning. The evidence of PW 2 (milkman) shows that when both of them came to the door accused Narendra appeared to be in a perplexed condition (the expression used is surprised, but what is perhaps meant is perplexed). Accused Meera started weeping and accused Narendra console her. Surely, this was not the normal conduct of the husband who did not even care to go to his wife who was burning in the house and did not even shout for help or show any emotion.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges K. Ramaswamy, Kuldip Singh
Date of Judgment: 10 Apr 1992
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
PETITIONER: MULAKH RAJ ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT10/04/1992 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. KULDIP SINGH (J) CITATION: 1992 AIR 1175 1992 SCR (2) 484 1992 SCC (3) 43 JT 1992 (2) 554 1992 SCALE (1)804 ACT: Criminal Law : Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 and 201-Death of wife-Strangulation and destruction of dead body by burning to destroy evidence-Sessions Court convicting husband on the basis of post-mortem report and medical and other circumstantial evidence-Acquittal by High Court-Whether justified-Symptoms on dead body showing death due to pressure on neck-Medical evidence revealing ante-mortem strangulation and 95% post-mortem burn injuries-Doctor's evidence clear, cogent, truthful, reliable and conclusively establishing death due to asphysxia, and consistent with medical jurisprudence-Circumstantial evidence connecting husband-accused with the crime-Hence death homicide and not suicide-High Court not justified in reversing Court's conviction of husband-Accused. Criminal Trial Murder of wife-Motive-Proof-Absence of-Whether material when facts are clear-Whether breaks the link in the chain of circumstances connecting husband accused with the crime. Murder of wife and destruction of evidence-Suspicion that someone amongst parents and brother of husband-accused might have facilitated accused to screen evidence-Whether a substitute for proof-Acquittal of these accused-Whether proper. Medical Jurisprudence : Ante-mortem and post-mortem burn injuries-Distinction between. HEADNOTE: The first respondent, his brother and parents were charged under Section 302 read with section 34 and section 201 I.P.C. for the murder of first respondent's wife and screening of evidence. After seventeen months of marriage of the deceased with the first respondent, PW.15, deceased's brother received a telegram that his sister had died. Immediately, the same night at 9.00 P.M., he came to the first respondent's place and found that his sister was dead. He alleged that the first respondent had made extra judicial confession that the deceased was strangulated for not getting the dowry of their demand, and that she was burnt to destroy the evidence and sought pardon of him. He sent for his people. A compromise was mooted to which he was not agreeable. A complaint was lodged with the police the next day.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah
Date of Judgment: 08 Mar 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 12
No stove was found at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the defence came out with a false case of accidental fire, which, as such, is not supported by any other reliable evidence. On the contrary, this evidence speaks otherwise. Therefore, when A1 came with a false defence and the dying declaration – Exhibit P5 is corroborated by other surrounding circumstances and evidence and after independent evaluation of Exhibit P5 and Exhibit D2, when the High Court has found that Exhibit P5 is reliable and inspiring confidence and thereafter when the High Court has convicted the accused, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error. 10. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that even thereafter he tried to extinguish the fire and he also sustained injuries and therefore it cannot be said that the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the prosecution is successful in proving that the accused – appellant herein poured kerosene on the deceased. As per dying declaration Exhibit P5, it has been proved that the deceased was set ablaze by pouring kerosene on her. The act of the accused falls in clause fourthly of Section 300 IPC. It emerges from the evidence on record that the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and not only poured kerosene but also set her ablaze by the matchstick. Merely because thereafter the A1 might have tried to extinguish the fire, that will not bring the case out of clause fourthly of Section 300 IPC. A somewhat similar submission was made before this Court in the case of Santosh v. State of Maharashtra (2015) 7 SCC 641. In the case before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the accused who poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze by matchstick that thereafter they tried to save the deceased by pouring water on her and therefore it was contended on behalf of the accused that by that conduct it cannot be said that the intention of the accused was to cause death of the deceased. The aforesaid has been negated by this Court by observing in paragraphs 9 to 18 as under: “9. Insofar as the first contention that the appellant is not responsible for the death of deceased Saraswatibai, the defence made an attempt to contend that the fire was accidental and that the appellant tried to extinguish the fire in order to save her and in that process, he also suffered burn injuries. The prosecution has adduced cogent evidence to prove that the appellant has caused the death of deceased Saraswatibai. The accused suspected the deceased of infidelity and picking up a fight over it, he kicked her and inflicted fist-blows and further set her on fire by pouring kerosene over her person.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Mukundakam Sharma, Dalveer Bhandari
Date of Judgment: 06 Nov 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 11
This Court has observed as follows in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra,(2006) 10 SCC 681, at page 693: "21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of T.N. v. Rajendran (SCC para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal (SCC para 39 : AIR para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (SCC para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (SCC para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. (SCC para 4).] 22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling house where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of H.P. it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with "khukhri" and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that the wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at house at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night.
Supreme Court of India
Honourable Judges Mukundakam Sharma, Dalveer Bhandari
Date of Judgment: 06 Nov 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 12
The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime." (emphasis underlined) 27. The conduct of the appellant, in scaling up the bathroom wall, instead of opening the bolt and coming out, and leaving for the hospital for his own treatment without telling anyone as to what had actually happened, is an unnatural and unreasonable conduct. The stand of the appellant that he attempted to save the deceased from burning is untenable in view of the fact that after coming out from the bathroom by scaling the wall, the appellant immediately proceeded to the hospital without even making an endeavour to rescue the deceased or render help to the people who had gathered there at his house to facilitate her rescue. At the hospital, the appellant informed the doctor that he had suffered the injuries while lighting the stove, instead of telling that he had suffered those injuries while trying to save his wife from burning. If that were true, the appellant would not have hesitated in informing the doctor about the same. Hearing the screams of the deceased, PW 1 arrived at the scene of occurrence and at that time, he saw the appellant scaling the wall for coming out from the bathroom. The appellant knew that the deceased was burning inside the bathroom. Instead of opening the door of the bathroom so as to bring the deceased out from there, the appellant chose to scale the bathroom wall despite having sustained burn injuries. The portion of the written statement furnished by the appellant wherein he categorically states that he was in an unconscious condition after climbing over the bathroom wall and, therefore, he was unable to inform the witnesses who had gathered at his house about the incident stands in direct conflict with his statement under Section 313 CrPC as well as with the medico-legal examination report of the appellant (Ex P.14), which speak to the effect that the appellant was conscious and oriented. This position is fortified by the appellant who had himself admitted that he had jumped over the bathroom wall to come out. If he was aware of that situation and when he could request PW1 for arranging an autorickshaw, it is quite clear that he was totally conscious and oriented at the time when the appellant came out from the bathroom.
Relevant High Court Judgments
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024
Calcutta High Court
Smt. Krishna Banerjee vs Bhanu Bikash Bandyopadhyay
Date of Judgment: 15 June 2001
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 14
In the cross-examination, it was suggested to him that the story of attempting to kill him by pouring kerosene oil was false and concocted. In her cross-examination, the wife as D.W. 1 admitted that on 11-5-84 she threatened the petitioner to kill him by burning. She added that she had to threaten the petitioner as he wanted to abort her child forcibly without her consent. We have already seen that the allegation made against the husband that he insisted abortion has not been proved. So we can conclude that the wife on 11-5-1984 wanted to kill her husband by burning. Of course she denied that she wanted to kill her husband by pouring kerosene oil on his body. This allegation also gets further corroboration from an entry in the page of a diary maintained by the wife which has been marked exhibit 1 (b), wherein the wife admitted that she tried to burn her husband but due to resistence offered by her husband she could not succeed. This entry, no doubt, is an admission, on the part of the wife to kill her husband. An attempt has been made from the side of the wife/appellant that the wife was forced to make those writings. In other words, the writings on the diary and some of the letters of the wife which have been produced by the husband and which documents have been marked exhibits should not be relied on as these were not instances of voluntary action on the part of the wife. But we are not inclined to accept such argument. It transpires that the wife did not deny the writings in her evidence. She only attributed, that these documents were out come of pressure created on her. But the letters and entries of the diary were not made on the same day in the same sitting. They bear the different dates. The letters were sent through post office. There was not allegation prior to her coming to the witness box that those letters or writings in the diary were taken forcibly. That being the position, we do not find any difficulty in coming to the conclusion on the basis of the entire evidence both oral and documentary that the wife even tried to kill her husband by setting him on fire. This is no doubt an extreme case of physical cruelty.
Delhi High Court
Ranjeet Kaur vs Saranjeet
Honourable Judges G.S. Sistani, Jyoti Singh
Date of Judgment: 20 November 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 12
24. The respondent/husband also relied upon two incidents of 2008. The husband alleged that in the year of 2008, the wife filed a petition under Section 9 of HMA; the matter was compromised by him on 12.09.2008 in the mediation cell at Karkardooma courts, Delhi for the life and career of their grown up children. However, only four days after, on 16.09.2008, the appellant/wife tried to implicate the respondent/husband in a case by pouring kerosene on herself. The respondent/husband deposed that the appellant/wife was warned orally by the police, and no action was taken against her due to her old age and reputation of the family. We deem it appropriate to reproduce para 15 of the appellant/wife's written statement wherein she has replied to the said allegation of pouring kerosene. "15... it is correct that on 16.09.2008, the petitioner came to Gagan Vihar house and misbehaved with the respondent and children, on their asking him to set aside some thing as per his status, for maintaining them and also for (sic) finding suitable match for her daughters living with respondent. The petitioner instead of agreeing to do same thing for the respondent and children, poured (sic) kerosene oil on the respondent when the children were not at home. Respondent fearing harm, ran to the street outside, where she was beat mercilessly. Accordingly, the petitioner to get excused from his own acts, rang up police at number 100, on coming of the PCR, the matter was entrusted to police station, where statement of the respondent was recorded. Since the petitioner is a rich person, the police in his league did not take any action against him. It is correct that the petitioner to get rid of the respondent wanted to kill her. It is wrong that the respondent has alleged, wants to remove the petitioner from her ways, to live with Mr. Ansari." The appellant/wife has alleged that it was in fact the respondent/husband who poured kerosene oil on her and subsequently she had to run outside the house wherein she was beaten mercilessly by the husband. The fact that the appellant/wife did not pursue the matter gives rise to an adverse inference that it was she who poured the kerosene oil on herself.
Tripura High Court
Convict vs The State Of Tripura
Date of Judgment: 6 February 2024
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 25
In Nika Ram v. State of H.P. :AIR 1972 SC 2077 it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with 'khukhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra :(1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal :AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of T.N. v. Rajendran :(1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries.
Allahabad High Court
Shashi Kant vs State Of U.P.
Honourable Judges Virendra Kumar Srivastava
Date of Judgment: 8 December 2020
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 14
In Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2077 it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries.
Delhi High Court
Mohd.Hanif vs State
Honourable Judges Sanjiv Khanna, S.P.Garg
Date of Judgment: 13 August 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 11
In Nika Ram v. State of H.P. [(1972) 2 SCC 80 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 635 : AIR 1972 SC 2077] it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with "khukhri" and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra [(1992) 3 SCC 106 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 435] the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. RavindraPrakash Mittal[(1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 642 : AIR 1992 SC 2045] the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that the wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of T.N. v. Rajendran [(1999) 8 SCC 679 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 40] the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter.
Delhi High Court
Rama Shankar & Ors. vs State
Honourable Judges Kailash Gambhir, Sunita Gupta
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2014
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 26
22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes places in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of H.P., [(1972) 2 SCC 80 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 635 : AIR 1972 SC 2077] it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with "khukhri" and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, [(1992) 3 SCC 106 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 435] the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, [(1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 642 : AIR 1992 SC 2045] the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that the wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband illtreated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Balak Ram R vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
Honourable Judges Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Vivek Singh Thakur
Date of Judgment: 5 December 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
23 PW4 Kamal Kumar, husband of deceased, is an eye witness of incident. During investigation, his statement was . recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. His supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. In his deposition in Court, he has stated that his father slapped his wife and started scuffle with them and when he tried to rescue his wife, accused persons pounced upon him and thrown him on double bed and his brother caught him from neck and in the meanwhile, his father picked up a canny of kerosene and poured the same on his wife. They were crying for help and in the meanwhile his wife caught fire. He has further stated that later on, he asked his wife and she had told him that fire was put on her by his father. In his statement Ext.PW4/C recorded on 15.7.2014 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he had stated that his wife was crying for help and at that time, his father Balak Ram, in front of him put her on fire with matchstick. In his supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mark D-1, he has stated that his father had taken out a match box from his pocket for putting his wife on fire. But in his cross examination, he has categorically denied to have made such statement to the police. This portion of statement Mark A to A in both i.e. statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. including supplementary statement, has been denied to have been stated by him. In cross . examination, he has stated that he did not see his father igniting the matchstick with clarification that he was told by his wife that matchbox was taken out by his father from his pocket. He is noneelse but husband of the deceased. He was present at the spot. In earlier statement, he claimed that his father, in his presence and before him, had put his wife on fire. But in Court, he denied to have made such statement to the police, but claimed that this fact was informed by his wife to him. As admitted by him, the room was of 12'x18 feet dimension wherein double bed, fridge, cooler and TV on table were also kept. He was fully conscious and according to him, the kerosene oil was poured in the room and his wife was put on fire on threshold of veramdah. Initially he claimed that he was witness to the action of his father, but in deposition in Court, he disowned his statement on this count. Therefore, it creates doubt with regard to veracity of his statement.
Delhi High Court
Anzar Ali Alias Saddam vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
Honourable Judges Siddharth Mridul, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
Date of Judgment: 13 February 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 29
17. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes placed in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2077 it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night.
Patna High Court
Neyaz Ansari vs The State Of Bihar
Honourable Judges Aditya Kumar Trivedi
Date of Judgment: 23 October 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 18
In Nika Ram v. State of H.P. : (1972) 2 SCC 80: 1972 SCC (Cri.) 635: AIR 1972 SC 2077] it was observed that the fact that the Accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with "khukhri" and the fact that the relations of the Accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra : (1992) 3 SCC 106: 1993 SCC (Cri.) 435] the Appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the Appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the Accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the Appellant is a prime Accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal : (1992) 3 SCC 300: 1992 SCC (Cri.) 642: AIR 1992 SC 2045] the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that the wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1132 of 2019 by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the Accused and convicted him Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. In State of T.N. v. Rajendran : (1999) 8 SCC 679: 2000 SCC (Cri.) 40] the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the Accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the Accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter.
Allahabad High Court
Smt.Phulau @ Phoolwati & Another. vs State Of U.P.
Honourable Judges Virendra Kumar Srivastava
Date of Judgment: 18 February 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 32
In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime." (Emphasis supplied) 66. In dowry death, the conduct of the appellants also becomes very important to explain the facts and circumstances especially within their knowledge, as required by Sections 106 and 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, that why and how the deceased had received such a severe burn injury and died and also what efforts were made by the appellants to save the life of the deceased. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the State of Karnataka vs. Suvarnamma 2015 (1) SCC 323, while expressing its opinion on the relevancy of conduct of appellants accused where they had taken plea that they did not know how the deceased had received burn injury and had died, has held : "15. What is surprising and wholly unacceptable is the stand of the accused who were husband and mother in-law of the deceased, living in the same house and that they had no idea that the deceased received burn injuries.
Allahabad High Court
Vinod vs State Of U.P.
Honourable Judges Virendra Kumar Srivastava
Date of Judgment: 13 December 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 15
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes placed in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2077 it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra (1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Balak Ram R vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
Honourable Judges Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Vivek Singh Thakur
Date of Judgment: 5 December 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 10
24 Further, in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he has stated that when his wife started burning thereupon she ran outside the room crying for help. Whereupon, he got himself released from clutches of his mother and brother and put off the fire by covering his wife with bed sheet. In his . supplementary statement he has stated that when his wife was put on fire by his father, she was in veramdah near threshold. In Court, he has again stated that on catching fire she ran towards veramdah, possible inference whereof is that she was inside the room when she was put on fire. In cross examination also, he has categorically stated that she was put on fire inside the room and then she came outside. PW21 Inspector Prem Singh has visited the spot and prepared the site plan Ext.PW21/C on the basis of evidence available at the spot, wherein he has mentioned spot 'A' in veramdah, the place where kerosene oil was poured on deceased and place 'B' the spot inside the room whereto deceased rushed after catching fire and fire was put off by her husband. As per prosecution case as depicted in the site plan, the kerosene oil was poured in veramadah, whereas PW4, has been shifting his stand on this count. Somewhere he is stating that it was poured inside the room and somewhere he is saying that at that time, his wife was at the threshold of veramdah. Whereas spot 'A' and 'B' in site plan Ext.PW21/C none of the spots either' A' or 'B' are on the threshold of veramdah and actual spot where kerosene was found to have been poured is neither inside the room nor at threshold of varamdah but in the . 'B' varamdah. 25 In his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in portion 'A' to 'A', PW4 Kamal Kumar has stated that his father Balak Ram put his wife on fire in front of him. Whereas, in cross examination, he has categorically stated that on asking, his wife had told him that fire she put on fire by his father. In cross examination, he has denied to have made the statement mentioned in portion 'A' to 'A'. As recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Mark 'K' now Ext.PW21/E that at about 8.30 AM when his wife was going to Barmana to attend the school, his father entered the room adjacent to the old house, where they were living.
Karnataka High Court
Choodalingegowda vs State Of Karnataka
Honourable Judges K.N.Phaneendra, H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Date of Judgment: 6 March 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 19
37. In a similar context, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs State of Maharashtra reported in [2006] 10 Supreme Court Cases 681 at paragraph 22 was pleased to observe as follows:- "22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of H.P. it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with 'khukhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr.Ravindra Prakash Mittal the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night.
Allahabad High Court
Bablu @ Narendra Singh vs State Of U.P.
Honourable Judges Pritinker Diwaker, Rajeev Misra
Date of Judgment: 30 May 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 26
The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime. The aforesaid decision has been followed in the case of Raj Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar 2007 (10) SCC 433, in the case of Narendra Vs. State of Karnataka 2009 (6) SCC 61 and in the decision of Gajanan Dashrath Kharate Vs. State of Maharashtra 2016 (4) SCC 604." The Apex Court in the decision of Gajanan Dashrath Kharate Vs. State of Maharashtra 2016 (4) SCC 604 relying on the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (supra) has observed that the burden is on the inmates of the house to offer an explanation about the death of the deceased. Paragraph no. 13 is extracted hereinunder:- "13. As seen from the evidence, Appellant-Gajanan and his father-Dashrath and mother-Mankarnabai were living together. On 07.04.2002, mother of the Appellant-accused had gone to another village-Dahigaon. The prosecution has proved presence of the Appellant at his home on the night of 07.04.2002. Therefore, the Appellant is duty-bound to explain as to how the death of his father was caused.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Balak Ram R vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
Honourable Judges Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Vivek Singh Thakur
Date of Judgment: 5 December 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 11
Though, he has stated that portion 'B' to 'B' in the said statement, that his father brought a gallon from outside the room and poured it on his wife, was given by him, but he had not seen his father igniting the matchstick. He has denied to have made statement recorded in portion 'C' to C that when his wife started crying for help after catching fire, then his brother Vijay Kumar and mother Ram Pyari caught and hold him as according to him, he had already been held up by them. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in portion 'D' to 'D' it is recorded that at the time of incident, his cousin Sunil Kumar and . Rajiv Kumar were also present at the time of incident. But in cross examination, he has denied to have made such statement. In examination-in-chief, he has stated that Rajiv and Sunil Kumar had heard their cries and he and his cousins tried to dial on 100 and 108 services for help. 26 PW4 Kamal Kumar in his cross examination has stated that there are two doors in the room and one door is towards veramdah and another opens towards back side, which were closed but not bolted and after sometime, back door was opened by one of the accused. He has further stated that accused came from front side and went away from the back door and when they entered into the room, the back door was closed and canny of kerosene was brought from back side of the door and said canny was not taken to or from his veramdah at any time during the stay of accused in his room and his wife was put on fire inside the room and then she came outside and he had extinguished the fire in veramadah. 27 Contrary to this statement of PW4, the case presented by prosecution, as noticed supra, as per site plan Ext.PW21/C, the kerosene oil was poured in the veramdah and fire was extinguished inside the room. . 28 In statement Ext.PW1/A made by deceased, it is stated that accused Balak Ram brought a gallon from outside the room and poured it on deceased, whereupon she cried and Balak Ram had put her on fire and at that time, door was open and she was at a place like veramdah and she cried. First part of aforesaid statement gives an impression that kerosene was brought inside the room and poured upon the deceased but in later part, it reflects that kerosene was poured upon at a place like veramdah. However, in the last portion it is stated that deceased ran outside after catching fire.
Kerala High Court
K.M.Sujith vs State Of Kerala
Honourable Judges K.Balakrishnan Nair, P.Bhavadasan
Date of Judgment: 21 October 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 10
In view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 162 Cr.P.C., the statement can be used only for the limited purpose of contradicting the maker thereof in the manner laid down in the said proviso. Therefore, the High Court committed a manifest error of law in relying upon wholly inadmissible evidence in recording a finding that Kapil Dev Singh could not have been present at the scene of commission of the crime." 23. There is absolutely no evidence of any cruel acts by the accused towards his wife nor is there any evidence of harassment or torture. The allegations of the prosecution in this regard remain as mere allegations. There is nothing to show that the victim had ever complained to anybody about the misdeeds of her husband. As already noted, if as a matter of fact the accused had harassed or tortured her, she would have mentioned that fact at the time of giving Ext.P1 statement. The lower court ignored these aspects altogether. 24. The lower court had strained itself much to hold that the deceased was strangulated and stabbed. The lower court ought to have noticed that the cause of death as shown in the postmortem certificate is due to burns. P.W.4, who had conducted the autopsy in his evidence says that he is unable to say whether any inflammable oil was involved in the accident. There is absolutely no medical evidence in this case even to suggest that the incident was due to the act of another person or that the victim was strangulated and knifed. There is no convincing evidence to indicate as to how the incident had occurred. 25. Being together is no sin as far as the accused and the victim are concerned, since they are husband and wife. The evidence of P.W.6, on which considerable reliance is placed by the court below, stated that when she opened the door hearing the groans and grunts of the victim, she found that the accused was not in the room. It is also interesting to note that there is no evidence in this case at all to show that the victim was drenched in kerosene. Even going by P.W.6, all that she says is that she saw the accused dropping a can and a lighted matchstick. It is true that P.W.15, the brother of the victim says that P.W.6 told him that it was the accused who had done the act. But that was long after the incident, and such evidence does not even qualify as res gestae evidence. There is no suggestion to P.Ws.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Honourable Judges J.K. Maheshwari, Anjuli Palo
Date of Judgment: 17 May 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 46
IPC. nature. (ii) Deprived of the The father of deceased and 2. Three persons livelihood on accused had given 2 acres of the same account of the land of land to the accused for family died, who being taken away. the purpose of cultivation were his own but the accused who was a kith and kins. (iii) Frequency of person of bad habits tried to quarrels indicates alienate the land that was lack of any sinister given to him by his father. planning to take There was constant quarrel away lives. between the family over the ancestral land and the (iv) The factual accused assaulted the scenario gives deceased and the family impression of members and three persons impulsive act and of the same family died. not planned assault. 5 (2002) 9 SCC 168 - i. Meticulously i. Quarrels and Vashram NarshiBhai planned. continuous Rajpara vs. State of harassment. Gujrat. ii. Brutal & a ii. Constant gruesome act. nagging well Offence: 302 and 201 IPC. affected the mental balance and such The accused, a fruit vendor sustained purchased a house and provocation. started living in the house iii. No criminal with his family consisting of background and his wife, four daughters and not menace to the a son aged 5 years. The society. wife and the daughter of the accused did not like the iv. Mentally house and started depressed pressurizing him to sell and condition of the purchase another house. accused. The accused purchased 5 litres of petrol in plastic can and kept in the kitchen. The accused and his son slept on the terrace of the house and other members slept in the rear room on the ground floor. At about 3.00 am, the accused sprinkled the petrol on his wife and daughters and set them on fire, thereafter, the accused ran away from the room by closing the door from outside. Brutal and cold blooded murder of his wife and four daughters by setting them on fire.
Delhi High Court
Delhi High CourtState Through Reference vs Ram Singh & Ors.
Honourable Judges Reva Khetrapal, Pratibha Rani
Date of Judgment: 13 March 2014
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 186
However, the deceased in the FIR as well as in her statement recorded before the Executive Magistrate had implicated all the three accused persons. The trial court convicted all the accused. On appeal, the High Court acquitted all the accused. On further appeal, the Supreme Court restored the judgment of the trial court holding that the contradictions raised by the defence in the two dying declarations, as regards who had put the kerosene oil on her, and who had lit the fire had been carefully examined and explained by the trial court. Furthermore, in such a state of mind, one cannot expect that a person in such a physical condition, would be able to give the exact version of the incident, as she had been suffering from great pain and physical agony. This judgment further reiterates the legal position enunciated in Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710. We are not able to see as to how this judgment is of any assistance to the defence. CRL. APP. NOS.1398/2013, 1399/2013 AND 1414/2013 279. Reliance was next placed by Mr. Sharma on a recent decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Kashi Vishwanath vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 8 SCALE 620. In this case, the Taluka Executive Magistrate recorded the first statement of the deceased as to who had set her ablaze in her matrimonial home. The second dying declaration was recorded by the police Sub-Inspector while the third statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. The Supreme Court after observing that there were glaring inconsistencies in the said three dying declarations allowed the appeal of the Appellant. The Supreme Court noted that in the first dying declaration, the deceased stated that she had sustained burn injuries when her husband had a fight with her and instigated her to pour kerosene upon her body and when she poured kerosene on her body, her husband further poured kerosene upon her and put her on fire with the match box. In the second dying declaration, she stated that her husband started quarrelling with her at the behest of one Laxmi and along with Laxmi poured kerosene on her body and put her on fire by using match stick; while in the third dying declaration she stated that her husband poured kerosene on her and the aforesaid Laxmi lit the match stick and threw it upon her body as a result of which the flames spread all over her body.
Delhi High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State
Honourable Judges Mukta Gupta
Date of Judgment: 11 May 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 18
It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation 2023:DHC:3247-DB for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal [(1992) 3 SCC 300:1992 SCC (Cri) 642: AIR 1992 SC 2045] the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that the wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of T.N. v. Rajendran [(1999) 8 SCC 679: 2000 SCC (Cri) 40] the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime". [Emphasis supplied] 32. Learned counsel for the appellant also contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive.
Allahabad High Court
Jakir Ali And Anr. vs State Of U.P.
Honourable Judges Bachchoo Lal, Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Date of Judgment: 13 April 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 29
He saw both the appellants Jakir Ali and Kutti running away from the place of the incident. (v) The deceased told PW-2 Mohd. Salim that Jakir and Kutti tied a rope around her neck, poured kerosene oil on her body, and set her on fire. (vi) PW-1 Mohd. Umar arrived at the spot after receiving the information from PW-2 Mohd. Salim, within 10 minutes of the incident and he brought the injured to C.H.C. Etwa. The deceased also told PW-1 that Jakir and Kutti tied a rope around her neck, poured kerosene oil on her body, and set her ablaze. (vii) A ligature mark was found all around the neck size 1 cm x 30 cm injury colour was red and 80% of burn injures were found on the body of the injured at the time of medical examination conducted by PW-4 Dr. V. K. Vaid at 2:00 a.m. on 17.7.2011. (viii) PW-4 Dr. V. K. Vaid after examination of the injured at 2:00 a.m., informed the police. (ix) PW-7 Gur Saran Lal recorded the dying declaration on 17.7.2011 in presence of the doctor (E.M.O.) after taking the certificate of the doctor regarding the fit state of mind and condition of the injured. The doctor recertified her sound mental condition during and after the statement. (x) At the time of recording the dying declaration, PW-7 Gur Saran Lal, the doctor (E.M.O.), and the declarant were present. 76. In the instant case, the dying declaration has been properly proved by PW-7 Gur Saran Lal. It is significant to note that in the course of cross-examination of PW-7 proving the dying declaration, no questions were put as to the state of health of the deceased, and no suggestion was asked as to whether the deceased was not in a fit state of mind to make any such statement. As per the dying declaration (Ex.Ka.-7) of the deceased, she has given a clear and vivid account of the incident as her husband came at 1:30 a.m. when she was sleeping on the roof of the two-storeyed house, her two children were sleeping on the adjacent cot and four other children slept on the ground floor. Her husband poured kerosene oil over her body and setting her to clothes by lighting a matchstick, after trying to kill her by tying her neck with a rope. Her husband Jakir, and Kutti carried out the incident and both of them are guilty. Upon making her cries, both of them fled away leaving her alone. Her children and other villagers came and saved her.
Allahabad High Court
Akhtar @ Bhoora vs State Of U.P.
Honourable Judges Vikram Nath, Rajeev Misra
Date of Judgment: 25 February 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 60
It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime. The aforesaid decision has been followed in the case of Raj Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar 2007 (10) SCC 433, in the case of Narendra Vs. State of Karnataka 2009 (6) SCC 61 and in the decision of Gajanan Dashrath Kharate Vs. State of Maharashtra 2016 (4) SCC 604."
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanju Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Honourable Judges Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, Atul Sreedharan
Date of Judgment: 27 April 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 15
Explanation.--It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault." 37. Section 300 of the IPC is in two parts. The first part is when culpable homicide can be said to be the murder and the second part is the exceptions when the culpable homicide is not amounting to murder. The learned counsel for the appellant referred exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. As per exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, 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. As per explanation to exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. 38. In the case of Rambir Vs State of NCT, Delhi, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 122, the Hon'ble Apex Court illuminated the ingredients to bring out the case under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, the ingredients are :- (i) There must be a sudden fight; (ii) There was no premeditation; (iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion; and (iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 39. From perusal of evidence available on record, it is clear that the incident occurred in a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation of the appellant/accused. As per Nitesh (PW-1) and Sita (PW-11), the appellant was not happy with the relation of deceased with other person who invited her in birthday party and on said issue, quarrel took place between the deceased and accused. Even the deceased stated in her dying declaration that after setting her on fire, the appellant tried to extinguish the fire. It was not a case where the appellant came to the house of deceased in a pre-planned way to murder her. The kerosene was picked up at the spur of the moment at the time of incident. In that view of the matter it is nothing but an act committed by the appellant in a heat of passion. 40. In the Rambir (Supra) case, the accused strangulated his wife by using "Saria" and caused her death on trivial issue of taking out money from the accused's wallet.
Karnataka High Court
Basayya vs The State Of Karnataka
Date of Judgment: 2 July 2020
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
But still they started demanding for additional dowry and when their demand was not met and when the deceased questioned their demand, saying that already sufficient cash has been paid, all of them assaulted her, caught hold of her, accused No.1 poured kerosene and lit fire. As a result of which, she sustained burn injuries and was admitted to the hospital. Subsequently, she succumbed to the injuries on 13.12.2012 and thereby all the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 20. The trial Court after taking into consideration the fact that almost all the material witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution and were treated hostile, held that the charges against accused Nos.2 to 7 for the above said offences and the charges against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, is not proved. 21. PW1 and 2 are the panchas for the spot mahazar, which is as per Ex.P1, whereunder M.O.1 to 9 were said to have been seized from the scene of the offence. Both these witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW3 is the inquest witness who spoke about the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 4 years earlier to the incident and also giving of money and gold ornaments at the time of marriage. He stated that there were frequent quarrels between the husband and the wife and regarding other allegations of the prosecution, he has not supported his contention and pleaded his ignorance that the accused were ill-treating the deceased by demanding dowry and that the accused have caused death of the deceased by pouring kerosene and litting fire. 22. PW4 is the relative of accused No.1, who is also the pancha to Ex.P1. PW5 and 9 are the neighbors who said to have gone to rescue the deceased on hearing her screaming but unfortunately, all these witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and even during cross examination by the learned public prosecutor, nothing has been elicited from them, to disbelieve their version. PW 14 is the PDO who issued the house extract as per Ex.P27 to show that the house in which the incident had taken place, stands in the name of the accused.
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Bharatbhai Balubhai Lad And 4 Ors.
Honourable Judges A.M. Kapadia, S.R. Brahmbhatt
Date of Judgment: 19 December 2005
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
About 15 days before the incident in question, Jaynaben came down to her parental home on account of harassment at the end of the accused persons. The first informant and his wife thereafter met Jaynaben and learnt through her that all the accused persons, on one pretext or the other, picked up quarrels with her and were causing lot of mental and physical harassment to her. Jaynaben also informed the first informant that as and when she desired to talk to her mother on telephone, the accused persons did not permit her to talk. It was also the case of the first informant that his mother-in-law i.e. mother of Jaynaben had called up the accused persons requesting them to take Jayna back with them but they refused and because of that she was at her parental home since previous 15 days from the date of the incident. 2.2 On 23.1.2003, at about 1.30 in the afternoon, the first informant was informed by Jigisha, the younger sister of Jaynaben, that Jaynaben sustained serious burn injuries. The first informant immediately rushed to Sisodara and found that Jaynaben had burnt herself very seriously all over the body after dousing herself in kerosene. People from the neighbourhood had gathered and one of the neighbours, Nileshbhai Umedbhai Patel, informed the first informant that at about 1-30 in the afternoon husband of Jaynaben, accused No. 1, had called her up on telephone and Jayna had come to talk with accused No. 1 on telephone. After talking with each other on telephone for some time Jaynaben returned home and immediately within half an hour the incident in question occurred. It was the case of the prosecution that, Nileshbhai Umedbhai Patel, PW-3, residing next to the house of the parents of the deceased, rushed at the house after having found that something was on fire and broke open the door which was locked from inside. He found Jaynaben in a burned condition. Nileshbhai Patel poured water on her body and inquired with her as to what she had done. In reply to the question put by Nileshbhai, Jaynaben was said to have told Noleshbhai that her husband, A-1 did not talk properly with her on telephone and also told her that he would not come to take her back. Because of this behaviour on the part of accused No. 1, she felt bad on account of which she doused herself in kerosene and set herself on fire.
Delhi High Court
Anzar Ali Alias Saddam vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
Honourable Judges Siddharth Mridul, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
Date of Judgment: 13 February 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 30
It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime." 42. Keeping in view the law laid down above, it stands settled that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. Dowry Death 43. The learned trial court framed charges under Sections 302/304B/498A of the IPC and the appellant was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC. The learned trial court failed to deal with the charges framed under Section 304 B of the IPC. 44. Before delving into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to discuss the relevant provisions which are involved in the present case. Section 304B of IPC, which reads as under: "304-B Dowry Death- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Allahabad High Court
Pintu & Another vs State Of U.P.
Date of Judgment: 24 September 2015
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
The trial Court only on the basis of dying declaration, drawn the presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act. It was further submitted that the dying declaration, said to have been recorded on 4.6.2009, can not be relied upon, as the cause of death shown in the dying declaration is not supported from the medical evidence. It was further argued that husband of the deceased himself received injuries in the said incident. No injuries, said to have been caused by the other accused-appellants, were found on the body of the deceased, which also creates doubt in the prosecution story. In fact, the deceased received burn injuries while she was cooking food. If the appellants poured kerosene oil over the body of the deceased, certainly the doctor, who examined the deceased on the very same day of the incident, would have found the smell of kerosene oil. It was further submitted that there is no any persistent demand made by the appellants regarding dowry and also there is no evidence regarding cruelty, harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry which be taken to be caused soon before the death of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution could not connect the appellants with the cause of the death of the deceased. 18. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. argued that the witnesses, who turned hostile, themselves have admitted that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage. Death of the deceased is due to burn injuries and the same is not accidental or natural. Therefore, burden lies on the accused-appellants to explain that under what circumstances she received burn injuries. The burden was not discharged by the accused-appellants. The trial Court, placing reliance upon the dying declaration of the deceased, has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants. The findings recorded by the trial Court are in accordance with evidence and law. 19. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 20. In this matter, offence is said to have been committed on 28.5.2009 in the night at 9:30 P.M. Allegation is that the accused-appellants poured kerosene oil over the body of the deceased and set her ablaze. She received burn injuries and was admitted in the hospital. She died on 23.6.2009 due to septicemia as a result of burn injuries.
Allahabad High Court
Ram Shanker And Another. vs State Of U.P.
Honourable Judges Virendra Kumar Srivastava
Date of Judgment: 10 November 2020
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 14
It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime." (Emphasis supplied) 29. Coming again to the fact of this case, where the prosecution has successfully proved all the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. Now a question arise as to whether the appellant, who was present at the time of occurrence with deceased has succeeded to rebut the presumption of law, as provided under Section 113-B of Evidence Act, by producing any cogent and reliable evidence.
Allahabad High Court
Jagdish Chandra Gupta And Another vs State Of U.P.
Honourable Judges Rakesh Tiwari, Anil Kumar Sharma
Date of Judgment: 27 November 2012
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 11
The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish it's case lies entirely upon the prosecution to offer any explanation. [Vide Daulatram vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2008 (63) ACC 121, Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (57) ACC 938 (SC), Chankya Dhibar vs. State of W.B., (2004) 12 SCC 398, and State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh, 2003 (47) ACC 654 (SC). 15. The most important circumstance against the story of defence regarding burn injuries found on the person of the deceased is that the doctor conducting autopsy has found smell of kerosene in the scalp hair of the deceased. Pramod Kumar Gupta DW-1 has stated that when he reached at the house of accused persons, he saw the deceased having burn injuries and she told him that while pouring kerosene in the stove, inadvertently it spread and she caught fire. However, this witness could not withstood the test of cross-examination about the alleged manner in which the deceased sustained burn injuries. The vigilant Presiding Officer had asked questions on this point and the witness had given vague and irresponsible answers. The question and answers are reproduced as under: " iz'u% D;k vki crk ldrs gS fd feV~Vh ds rsy ds LVkso esa rsy dSls Mkyk tkrk gS\ mRrj% rsy dh Vadh dh MkV [kksydj LVkso esa rsy Mkyk tkrk gSA iz'u% ;fn MkWV [kksyh tk;sxh ;k tk;sxkA mRrj% eSaus dHkh LVkso esa rsy gh ugha Mkyk blfy;s eq>s bldh tkudkjh ugha gSA iz'u& LVkso tyrs tykrs ns[kk gS\ mRrj& th gkWA" The above question-answers show that the witness has tried to give evasive replies to the questions put to him. If for sake of arguments, the contention of defence is accepted that the deceased caught fire while cooking food on stove as the kerosene spread when she was filling the stove, then in such a situation the kerosene would not be found in the scalp hair of the deceased and she would not get such severe burn injuries which may cause her death in few hours after sustaining the injuries. Apart from it, the ante-mortem injuries no. 1 and 2 which are result of use of violence with the deceased also belie the defence theory. In such a situation, following mute questions arise: Where were the accused at the time of incident? Why did they not try to extinguish the fire if it was a case of accident?
Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Hashim @ Pappu vs State Of U.P.
Honourable Judges Rajan Roy
Date of Judgment: 25 January 2024
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
Line of redness present at some places about 99% burn." 15. The Membranes and Brain was congested. The postmortem also mentions about burnt pieces of clothes on the body of the deceased. The cause of death is mentioned as shock as a result of ante-mortem burn injuries. 16. PW-4 the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy, has proved the postmortem report. He has spoken about smell of kerosene oil from the body of the deceased. The blisters on the skin were open. The body was burnt about 99%. He has reiterated the cause of death as mentioned by him in the postmortem report. In cross-examination he has stated that the death of the deceased was caused by shock resulting from burn injuries and not from any other ante-mortem injuries. He has spoken about superficial to deep burn injuries. He has stated that injury no. 2 could have been caused by a fall or striking or forcible contact with a wall. He has denied suggestion that ante-mortem injury no. 3 could be caused by fall. 17. PW - 4 was also called as a Court witness wherein he has explained as to how he has mentioned contusions when the degree of burn injuries was 99%. He had cut the skin to find contusions. According to him, there was no contradiction in the report. The death had been caused on account of shock due to 99% burn injuries. 18. From the discussion made hereinabove, especially with regard to medical evidence, it is proved firstly that the deceased wife died from shock caused by 99% burn injuries and that it was not death in normal circumstance. It is proved from the prosecution witnesses that marriage had taken place between the accused Mohd. Hashim and deceased on 25.05.2010 and death occurred in abnormal circumstances on 07.04.2012, this happened within less than two years of marriage. 19. The question to be considered is as to whether soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with any demand for dowry or not. 20. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-1 the mother and informant.
Allahabad High Court
Banshi Deceased Now Kallu And 3 Others vs State Of U.P.
Honourable Judges Alok Mathur
Date of Judgment: 20 July 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
10. The complainant got the report of the incident written from Murlidhar Shukla of Sandhna and gave it at the police station where on the basis of this written report, the F.I.R. was lodged on 13.4.1994 at 3.30 p.m. 11. About the death of Smt. Phoolmati, accused Bansi Pasi gave an information in writing at police station Sandhna in the morning of 11.4.1994 which was entered at G. D. no.5 at 4.30 a.m. 12. The accused were charged under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. on 24.4.1996 and an additional charge under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against them. 13. During the trial the prosecution had produced 3 witnesses namely Tulsi (PW1)- the father of the deceased, Sumitra (PW2) - mother of the deceased, Ved Prakash Singh (PW3) - the Investigating officer while the defense had produced a solitary witness Rajoo(DW1). 14. The trial court while convicting the accused has returned a finding that the death of the deceased was not due to any accident but kerosene oil was poured upon her body and then the fire was lit. The deceased had died within 7 years of her marriage, under circumstances which were other than normal, and she was subjected to cruelty by the accused which was in connection with the demand of dowry. Relying upon the post mortem report, it was said that smell of kerosene oil was present in the hair, and hence all the ingredients of section 304-B of the IPC stood fulfilled, leading to the conviction of all the accused. 15. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record. The appellants who is the husband of the deceased has been tried under sections 304 B and 498A of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition act. 16. For examining the case of the prosecution and the evidence adduced by the accused, we may extract below the relevant provision of Section 304B IPC that relates to "dowry death": - "304B Dowry Death - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is intended for informational purposes only and is designed to assist legal professionals, law students, and other professionals such as Chartered Accountants (CA), Company Secretaries (CS), and Cost and Management Accountants (CMA). Patodia Infotech Private Limited utilizes artificial intelligence (AI) to generate information based on various laws, acts of India, and judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Tribunals of India. However, we do not make any guarantees regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information provided.
Legal professionals are advised to independently verify the information and conduct their own research to validate its applicability to specific cases or situations. The contents of this website do not constitute legal advice, and reliance on them should be at the discretion and risk of the individual legal professional.
Patodia Infotech Private Limited hereby disclaims all representations and warranties, express or implied, regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the contents. We shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of or reliance on the information provided on this website.
By accessing and using this website, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Patodia Infotech Private Limited and its affiliates from any claims, damages, losses, or liabilities arising from your use of or reliance on the information presented herein.
Legal professionals are advised to independently verify the information and conduct their own research to validate its applicability to specific cases or situations. The contents of this website do not constitute legal advice, and reliance on them should be at the discretion and risk of the individual legal professional.
Patodia Infotech Private Limited hereby disclaims all representations and warranties, express or implied, regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the contents. We shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of or reliance on the information provided on this website.
By accessing and using this website, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Patodia Infotech Private Limited and its affiliates from any claims, damages, losses, or liabilities arising from your use of or reliance on the information presented herein.