A fatal slap with knowledge of likely death attracts Section 304 Part II, not murder.

The appellant and Nandini were married and had two children.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant had harassed her, including by pressuring her to work despite her ill health, and that he assaulted her shortly before her death.

On 1 April 2016, Nandini died after an incident at the couple’s home.

The appellant maintained that she had collapsed because of thyroid and heart-related illness.

The post-mortem examination recorded head injuries and opined that death may have resulted from cardiorespiratory arrest following syncope caused by traumatic impact.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 498A and 302 of the IPC; it rejected the charge under Section 304B.

The appellant appealed against the conviction and sentence.

Whether the prosecution proved that Nandini’s injuries resulted from an assault by the appellant, rather than a fall caused by her medical condition.

Whether the assault constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Whether the conviction under Section 498A IPC should be disturbed.

The Court considered Section 302 IPC, which concerns murder, and Section 304 Part II IPC, which applies where an act causing death is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without the intention required for murder.

It also considered Section 498A IPC in relation to cruelty by a husband.

The Court discussed Section 304B IPC but upheld the trial court’s conclusion that the charge was not established because there were no allegations of dowry harassment.

It applied Section 428 CrPC in directing set-off of the appellant’s detention.

No precedent was cited.

The Court rejected the defence that Nandini’s illness caused her to fall and sustain the injuries.

The post-mortem evidence recorded injuries to the head and face, and the doctor’s evidence did not support the proposed fall as an explanation for all the injuries.

The evidence of PW.2 was that, following a quarrel, the appellant said he had assaulted Nandini and that she had fallen; the Court inferred that he had slapped her, causing her to fall and sustain the head injury.

However, the medical evidence did not establish that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The Court therefore found the appellant had the requisite knowledge, but not the basis for sustaining a murder conviction, and classified the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC.

It found no reason to disturb the Section 498A conviction, supported by evidence of continuing harassment and cruelty.

The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside and replaced with a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.

The appellant was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default.

The Section 498A conviction was confirmed; the remaining compensation directions were left unchanged.

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently, with set-off under Section 428 CrPC.