Single Blow In Heat Of Moment During Sudden Quarrel Without Prior Intention Does Not Constitute Murder: Tripura High Court Converts Husband's Conviction to Culpable Homicide
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Tripura, Division Bench of Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha, partly allowed a criminal appeal, converting the conviction of the appellant from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I, and reducing the sentence from life imprisonment to eight years. The Court found that the marital relationship had long been strained and marked by frequent disputes, and that the fatal blow was delivered in the heat of the moment during a sudden quarrel, without any prior intention or premeditation. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the absence of clear intent and mens rea to cause death precluded a finding of murder.
The appeal arose from a conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Gomati District, Udaipur, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine. The prosecution case originated from a complaint lodged on 17.09.2020 alleging that the appellant had killed his wife by striking her with a lathi at their residence. It was also alleged in the FIR that the appellant had confessed to the offence.
After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses, including seizure witnesses, the complainant, the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem, and the Investigating Officer. The accused denied the allegations under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and expressed his intention to adduce a defence witness, though the witness was not examined.
The defence contended that the case was based on extra-judicial confession without corroboration, that there were no eye witnesses, and that the evidence was circumstantial. It was argued that, at best, the case would fall under Section 304 Part I IPC. The State contended that the presence of the accused at the scene, the recovery of blood-stained articles, the medical evidence, and the surrounding circumstances proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court recorded that “none of the witnesses are eye witness.” It noted that the case rested substantially on extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence.
Referring to settled principles, the Court stated: “It is no more res integra that an extra judicial confession must be accepted with great care and caution. If it is not supported by other evidence on record, it fails to inspire confidence and in such a case, it shall not be treated as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of guilt.”
On circumstantial evidence, the Court quoted: “The chain must be complete and each fact forming part of the chain must be proved… The proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.”
With regard to recording of confession before police, the Court observed that no statement was recorded under Section 164(2) Cr.P.C., and therefore such report had no evidentiary value.
While examining the factual matrix, the Court noted that the incident occurred in the context of strained marital relations and an altercation. It recorded: “As per the injury report, there was only a single blow injury on the head of the victim i.e. his wife.” The Court further observed: “If the appellant had intention to kill his wife, he would not have inflicted single blow that too with a stick… It is, therefore, cannot be said that there was any premeditation.”
It concluded: “Thus, the offence presumably would not fall under Section 302 IPC rather under Section 304 Part I IPC.” Further, the Court recorded: “There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the appellant had an intention to cause death of the deceased victim.” It stated that the act occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel and absence of clear mens rea for murder was evident.
The Court directed that “the appeal is partly allowed.” It ordered that “The conviction under Section 302 IPC is converted to Section 304 (Part-I), IPC. Accordingly, the sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life is reduced to a period of 8 (eight) years. The period of imprisonment undergone by the appellant shall be computed accordingly.”
The judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge were “modified to the extent as indicated above.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. P. Majumder, Legal Aid Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Sri Bir Manik Jamatia vs The State of Tripura
Case Number: Crl. A(J) 55/2024
Bench: Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha
