A fatal assault on a grandmother intervening in a marital attack constituted culpable homicide, not murder, absent premeditation.

On 18 August 2016, the appellant entered the home where his wife, Soni Parveen (P.W.3), was staying and assaulted her with an iron rod. When her grandmother, Husna Bano, intervened, the appellant struck her on the head as well. Both women sustained injuries; Husna Bano died during treatment on 24 August 2016.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 307 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment under Section 302 and five years’ imprisonment under each of Sections 307 and 449, with the sentences to run concurrently.

On appeal, the High Court considered whether the conviction for Husna Bano’s death should remain under Section 302 and whether the convictions under Sections 307 and 449 were sustainable.

Whether the appellant’s act causing Husna Bano’s death amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC

Whether the convictions under Sections 307 and 449 IPC should be upheld

Section 300 IPC defines when culpable homicide amounts to murder, including where the accused intends to cause death or intends to inflict bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; its exceptions identify circumstances in which culpable homicide is not murder.

Section 304 Part I IPC applies to culpable homicide not amounting to murder where the act is done with the intention of causing death or bodily injury likely to cause death.

Section 307 IPC concerns an act done with the requisite intention or knowledge that, if death were caused, would amount to murder; Section 449 IPC concerns house-trespass committed in order to commit an offence punishable with death.

The court found that the eyewitnesses consistently established that the appellant assaulted both women with an iron rod, and the medical evidence corroborated the injuries and attributed Husna Bano’s death to head injuries.

It nevertheless concluded that the appellant’s assault on Husna Bano occurred when she intervened in the ongoing attack on his wife, and that the evidence did not establish premeditation or an intention to murder her. It therefore substituted a conviction under Section 304 Part I for the Section 302 conviction.

The court upheld the Section 307 conviction because the appellant repeatedly struck Soni Parveen on the head, causing injuries including brain contusions; it upheld Section 449 because he entered the house to commit the assault.

The convictions and sentences under Sections 307 and 449 IPC were upheld.

The appellant was directed to be released forthwith if not required in another case.