Land-Dispute Killing: Jharkhand HC Sets Aside Wife’s Murder Conviction, Finding No Proof She Shared Intent When She Brought Spade On Husband’s Direction

On 23 November 2014, following a quarrel concerning a house or land dispute, appellant No. 1 assaulted his brother with a spade, causing fatal injuries to the deceased’s face and chest.

The prosecution alleged that appellant No. 2, the wife of appellant No. 1, brought and handed him the spade at his direction.

The trial court convicted both appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine.

They appealed against the conviction and sentence

The Court considered Sections 302 and 34 IPC, concerning murder and joint liability for acts done in furtherance of common intention, and the proposed application of Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC.

It applied the principle that a related witness’s evidence is not to be rejected merely because of the relationship; it must instead be scrutinised carefully and may be relied on if found trustworthy.

The Court cited Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444, and Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150, for that principle.

The judgment also treated the nature and location of injuries, together with the medical evidence, as relevant to assessing the nature of the assault and the accused’s intention.

The Court accepted the consistent eyewitness accounts of the deceased’s son and wife, finding them reliable despite their relationship to the deceased; their evidence identified appellant No. 1 as the assailant and was corroborated by the post-mortem evidence.

The fatal injuries involved the face, skull and chest, including fractures and ruptured lungs.

The Court considered the injuries to vital parts and the medical opinion that death resulted from the crushed injuries to the face and chest sufficient to reject the submission that appellant No. 1 lacked the intention to commit murder or that the case fell under Section 304 IPC.

As to appellant No. 2, the evidence showed that she brought the spade and handed it over at her husband’s direction, but did not establish that she shared his intention to commit murder.

The Court therefore found Section 34 IPC inapplicable to her.

As to appellant No. 2, the Court set aside her conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC, discharged her from the liabilities of her bail bonds, and partly allowed the appeal.