Sanchayita Lahkar

The Bombay High Court at Nagpur, Division Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande commuted the conviction of a woman from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that she had acted under grave and sudden provocation when the man, earlier accused of sexually assaulting her, repeatedly visited her and pressured her to withdraw her complaint. Setting aside the 2005 judgment of the Additional Sessions Court, Washim, which had sentenced her to life imprisonment for murder, the Bench imposed a ten-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000, noting that the evidence established loss of self-control rather than intent to kill.

The case arose from an incident in June 2004 in Washim, Maharashtra, involving a woman and a man who had previously been prosecuted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on her complaint. On the night of June 22, 2004, the man allegedly went to her residence near the railway station slum area and insisted that she withdraw the rape case. The woman later approached the police and reported that she had caused his death by inflicting injuries with a razor and a pestle during the altercation. Based on her report, a crime was registered, and investigation commenced.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits Four in 1990 Murder Case, Citing Prosecution’s Suppression of Origin and Genesis of Offence

During investigation, the police recovered the deceased’s body from the woman’s house, which was in a decomposed condition. A spot and inquest panchnama were drawn, and blood-stained articles, including the alleged weapons, were seized. The post-mortem examination conducted by a medical officer at Civil Hospital, Washim, revealed incised wounds on the neck and a contusion on the head, with injuries sufficient to cause death. A chemical analysis report indicated the presence of human blood on several seized articles and clothing.

The prosecution examined five witnesses: a panch witness, the deceased’s brother, a neighbour to whom the accused allegedly made an extra-judicial confession, the investigating officer, and the medical officer. The accused denied the allegations in her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, asserting false implication. The prosecution relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, including recovery of the body, seizure of weapons, and extra-judicial confession. The defence contended that the woman’s confessional first information report was inadmissible under Sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and argued that the act, if any, occurred under grave and sudden provocation, attracting Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC.

The judgment recorded, “If the first information report is given by the accused to a Police Officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by Section 25. The confession not only includes the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement.”

The Court held that “the confession by the accused before the Police Officer cannot be used against the accused.” It also noted that the case must therefore rest on other circumstantial and corroborative evidence.

The judgment stated, “An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact.” The Bench found that the appellant’s statement to the witness—“Kaka, that Madhao was asking her to withdraw the case against him, hence she cut throat of Madhao by Wastara & also crushed his head by Khalbatta”—was clear and corroborated by recovery of incriminating articles.

The Court noted that the dead body was recovered from the appellant’s residence and that blood-stained weapons and clothing were seized from the scene. Medical evidence confirmed that the death was homicidal, with the cause being “injury to trachea” and injuries consistent with a razor and a pestle. The Court accepted that while the blood group of the accused could not be determined, the forensic reports corroborated the presence of blood on the weapons and clothes.

It observed, “Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation.” The Bench explained that provocation must be measured objectively and that “the provocation must be such as will upset not merely a hasty and hot-tempered person, but also a person with calm nature and ordinary sense.”

The judgment recorded, “The deceased was insisting her to withdraw the complaint due to which she fed up and on the fateful night also deceased visited her house and insisted her to withdraw the complaint, therefore she lost her control and committed the murder of the deceased with the weapons which were available in her house.”

It stated, “Admittedly, there was no intention on her part to commit the murder of the deceased. It was because she was subjected for sexual assault by the deceased on the promise of marriage and subsequently shown his inability to perform the marriage and insisting her to withdraw the complaint.”

The judgment held, “The death of the deceased is caused by her under the grave and sudden provocation without having an intention to commit the murder, therefore the said act would cover under Section 304-II of IPC.”

Also Read: Bombay High Court Forms High Power Committee Under Former Allahabad Chief Justice After 30 Years of Inaction by State to Protect Sanjay Gandhi National Park

“In view of the discussion above the appeal deserves to be allowed partly. In view of that we proceed to pass following order.”

“The judgment and order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the II Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.98/2004 is modified and the accused is convicted under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.”

“The accused Ku. Panchashila Uttam Thorat, is directed to surrender before the Superintendent District Prison, Washim on 27.10.2025 to undergo the jail sentence.” The bail bonds were canceled, and the case records were ordered to be returned to the trial court.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. R.L. Khapre, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mandar Deshpande.
For the Respondent/State: Mr. M.J. Khan, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Case Title: XX v. State of Maharashtra
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:11229-DB
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2006
Bench: Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande