After 44 Years, Allahabad HC Cuts Son-In-Law’s Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide For Mother-In-Law’s Death, Citing Sudden Quarrel And His Injuries

The appellant went to his mother-in-law’s house to take his wife with him.

A quarrel followed her refusal; the deceased allegedly struck the appellant with an iron rod, which he then used to inflict fatal injuries to her head and face.

The appellant admitted the quarrel and said the deceased had assaulted him, but claimed that she fell on the rod during a scuffle.

The trial court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On appeal, the High Court found that he caused the fatal injuries, but considered whether the offence was murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Sections 299 and 300 IPC distinguish culpable homicide from murder by reference to the accused’s intention and knowledge; Section 304 provides the applicable punishment where culpable homicide does not amount to murder.

Under Clause Thirdly of Section 300, the prosecution must prove both that the accused intended to inflict the particular bodily injury and that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; the latter is assessed objectively, while the former is inferred from the circumstances (Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465).

The court also relied on Anbazhagan v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, (2024) 20 SCC 500, and the principles discussed there from Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration), (1991) 2 SCC 32, and Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444: the weapon, injuries, force, suddenness of the quarrel, premeditation, provocation, conduct, and number of blows are relevant to determining intention; absence of an exception to Section 300 does not itself establish murder.

Where intention is not proved but the accused had knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, the offence may fall under Section 304 Part II.

The medical evidence and PW-1’s account established that the appellant inflicted the injuries that caused the deceased’s death; his explanation that she merely fell on the rod was inconsistent with the injuries.

However, the evidence also supported a reasonable possibility that the deceased first struck the appellant with the rod, causing bleeding injuries.

The appellant had not come armed, and the assault followed a sudden domestic quarrel without evidence of premeditation or an intervening interval.

Although the repeated blows to the head and face supported an inference of intention, the court held that the circumstances did not prove beyond reasonable doubt the intention required by Section 300, or the relevant intention under the first two clauses of Section 299.

The use of the rod to strike the deceased repeatedly nevertheless established knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, bringing the offence within Section 299(c) and Section 304 Part II.

The court did not find that the blows were necessary in the exercise of private defence.

In sentencing, it considered the sudden quarrel, the appellant’s injuries, the altered degree of culpability, the passage of nearly forty-four years, and his age.

The conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to one under Section 304 Part II IPC.

The appellant was sentenced to the period already undergone and fined ₹1,00,000, payable within three months; in default, he must undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

As he was on bail, he was not required to surrender for further substantive imprisonment, subject to payment of the fine.