The Supreme Court has transformed a man’s conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to his act of pouring kerosene oil on his nine-month pregnant wife while in an intoxicated state. This incident led to her subsequent death from burn injuries resulting from a stove burst in 2007.
Conversion of Conviction and Sentence Adjustment
Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale, sitting on the bench, have directed the release of Dattatraya after altering his conviction from Section 302 to 304 Part II of the IPC and reducing his sentence from life imprisonment to a 10-year term of rigorous imprisonment.
The bench stated that the appellant’s action was not premeditated but rather the outcome of a sudden quarrel and altercation in the heat of the moment. They justified the conversion of the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II by arguing that while the appellant knew his actions could lead to the death of the deceased, there was no explicit intent to kill her. Thus, they deemed the offense to fall under Part-II rather than Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC.
Examination of Evidence and Legal Interpretation
The court acknowledged the petitioner’s counsel’s submission that while the accused was aware of the potential consequences of his actions, there was no deliberate intent to cause death.
Despite not considering the deceased’s dying declaration, the bench found sufficient evidence to establish the appellant’s guilt. They concluded that he had poured kerosene on the deceased, leading to her burn injuries and subsequent death, along with that of her unborn child. Additionally, they noted a history of frequent altercations between the husband and wife, further underscoring the volatile nature of their relationship.
The bench emphasized that there was enough evidence to support the prosecution’s case regarding the incident itself. They highlighted the appellant’s arrival at his house in an intoxicated state and pouring kerosene on his wife while she cooked for him, resulting in a stove burst and the wife’s burn injuries. They also noted previous instances of frequent fights between the couple.
Based on the evidence available, the bench concluded that the incident stemmed from a sudden altercation between the spouses. They pointed out that the deceased was nine months pregnant at the time, and it was the act of pouring kerosene on her that caused the subsequent fire and her eventual death.
In their considered opinion, the bench stated that the appellant’s act fell under the fourth exception of Section 300 of the IPC, which exempts culpable homicide from murder charges in cases of sudden fights in the heat of passion, provided the offender did not act with premeditation or cruelty.
The court partially allowed the appeal and overturned the Bombay High Court’s 2010 judgment, which had dismissed the appellant’s plea against the Usmanabad trial court’s decision.
Outrage Erupts on Social Media
The judgment stirred public outcry on social media, with many expressing anger and disbelief at the decision.
One user expresses disbelief: “What!! Our judiciary keeps on giving!! In a fit of rage, one won’t pour kerosene on a 9-month pregnant wife, leading to the death of two lives. If you are angry, move out of the house and take a walk to cool down, not to take two lives.”
What !! Our judiciary keeps on giving !!
In a fit of rage – one won’t pour kerosene on a 9 month pregnant wife leading to the death of 2 lives .
If you are angry move out of the house and take a walk to cool down not to take two lives . https://t.co/9r2Fk0v8BE
— Ruchi Angrish (She/Her/Hers) (@RuchiAngrish) March 7, 2024Another user expressed dismay: “This being the Supreme Court, means there is nowhere else to go… Mind boggling that this inexplicable decision is made in 2024. Such a gruesome act, such a medieval world view. What is a woman’s life worth, her child’s, her right simply to not be randomly, viciously, bodily harmed?”
This being Supreme Court, means there is nowhere else to go… Mind boggling that this inexplicable decision is made in 2024. Such a gruesome act, such a medieval world view. What is a woman’s life worth, her child’s, her right simply to not be randomly, viciously, bodily harmed? https://t.co/AnuotjerZx
— SRK_x10 🇳🇱 Lady Rathore 💪💅 (@010_srk) March 6, 2024Social media reactions underscore the profound disbelief and frustration with the Supreme Court’s decision, questioning its implications for justice, gender rights, and societal values.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
-
What factors does the Supreme Court consider when making rulings on cases like this?
A: The Supreme Court considers a range of factors, including legal precedent, evidence presented during trial, the interpretation of relevant laws, and principles of justice and fairness. Each case is examined thoroughly to ensure that the judgment aligns with established legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case.
-
Can Supreme Court judgments be appealed or challenged further?
In most cases, Supreme Court judgments are final and binding. However, there are certain limited avenues for challenging a Supreme Court decision, such as filing a review petition or seeking a curative petition. These options are subject to strict legal criteria and are typically only granted in exceptional circumstances where there is a genuine legal error or violation of fundamental rights.
