Community ‘Inflated Ego’ No Defence To Wife’s Killing; Gujarat High Court Convicts Husband For Murder Under section 302 IPC, Sets Aside Earlier 304 Conviction
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Gujarat Division Bench of Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee and Justice J. L. Odedra set aside a 2002 trial court decision that had found the husband guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for the death of his wife and instead convicted him for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to the husband inflicting multiple knife wounds on his wife while she was returning from an agricultural field with her mother, causing her death. While accepting the trial court’s findings on the accused’s involvement, the nature of the injuries and the homicidal death, the High Court held that the evidence met the requirements of Section 300 rather than Section 304 Part I and directed that the matter be listed on a later date for hearing on sentence.
The State filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the acquittal of the accused from the charge under Section 302 IPC and his conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC. The prosecution case was that the deceased, married to the accused for about two years, had come to her maternal home on 20.10.2000.
The accused allegedly followed her, confronted her and her mother in the agricultural fields, and insisted that she return to the matrimonial home the same day. When she declined, she later walked back with her mother around 5:30 p.m., during which the accused allegedly approached from behind and inflicted multiple stab wounds. Three eye-witnesses were cited, including the mother of the deceased and an independent witness. Medical evidence included the medico-legal certificate and post-mortem report detailing nine ante-mortem injuries, several on vital organs. The accused was arrested the next day, and the knife and his blood-stained dhoti were seized. The trial court accepted the prosecution evidence but held the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
The State contended that the incident involved premeditation and intentional infliction of fatal blows. The defence argued absence of intention, possible provocation, community-related behavioural tendencies, and challenged reliability of witnesses.
The Court recorded that “the Trial Court, after discussing the evidence in detail has concluded, and rightly so that the offence under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. However, the Court at Paragraphs no.44 and 45 of the judgement has come up with an alternative theory that it was owing to the sudden flare of temper that the accused had ended up committing the crime. In this respect, the trial Court has categorically indicated that no such defence has been taken up by the accused during the trial. However, the Trial Court has held, despite no such defence having been taken up by the accused before the trial Court, that it is its duty to see if indeed such defence is available in law to the accused.”
It further noted that “the trial Court has embarked upon a journey whereby it inter alia records that individuals of Thakore community are prone to have inflated ego and that they are likely to be offended by the fact that the wife of such individual went to her maternal house without informing the husband and would not necessarily follow the dictates of the husband when the husband insists that the wife herself accompany him back to his house. It was the Trial Court’s opinion that in such circumstances it is likely that the husband would loose his temper and he may start the quarrel and that in such quarrel, the victim has been stabbed and that, therefore, the case would fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.”
The Bench then stated that “in so far as, the Trial Court’s finding that the evidence pertaining to the crime, namely the involvement of accused, the nature of injuries inflicted and the consequent death of the deceased amounting to an offence under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, is palatable. Even the accused has not challenged this part of the evidence, accepting his involvement in the crime. However, it is the invocation of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which raises concern. The said line of reasoning, in the view of this Court, is totally unsustainable.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s exposition, “There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed… The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found.”
Applying these parameters, the Court observed that “in the present case, the aforesaid parameters are far from being satisfied. It is crystal clear that the first ingredient namely the premeditation is present in the case. Here, the accused had brought a knife with himself to the agricultural field, where he lures the victim by sending the a message through the victim’s mother… Thus, during such time, he already has a knife with him and that, therefore, it cannot be stated that the accused did not have any premeditation.”
It further recorded that “Again, there was no fight, much less a sudden fight… the accused sneaked behind the victim and started giving her knife blows, nine in number, that too, on the sensitive vital parts of the body. In all, it cannot be said that the fight was sudden fight or that the victim started any fight. Thus, the accused was clearly taking undue advantage of the situation and by inflicting as many as 08 to 09 blows of knife, that too, on vital parts of the body, he has certainly acted both in cruel and in unusual manner. Thus, this Court believes that there was no satisfaction of ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code…
The Court held that “this appeal is liable to be allowed and we, accordingly, allow the appeal.” It directed that “the conviction of the accused under Section 304 Part-I is set aside and we convict the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent accused is directed to remain present on the next date of hearing and, therefore, the matter shall be listed for further hearing on 10.12.2025.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant/State: Mr. Manan Mehta, Additional Public Prosecutor
For the Respondent/Accused: Mr. Apurva Dave, Advocate
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Ishwarji Sursanji Thakor
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 850 of 2002
Bench: Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee and Justice J. L. Odedra
