Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Bride Burning Case — Act Falls Under Section 300 Fourthly IPC, Not Exception 4. Pouring kerosene and setting a pregnant wife on fire constitutes murder despite subsequent attempt to pour water.

  • 22
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Suraj Jagannath Jadhav, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of his wife by pouring kerosene on her and setting her ablaze. The incident occurred when the deceased, who was pregnant with 18-20 weeks, returned home late after attending nature's call. The accused questioned her fidelity, and an altercation ensued. The deceased, in her dying declaration, stated that the accused poured kerosene on her while she was trying to run out of the house and threw a lighted matchstick, setting her on fire. The accused later poured water on her, but she succumbed to 60% burn injuries. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC, and the High Court of Bombay confirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court issued notice limited to the nature of the offence. The appellant argued that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, making it culpable homicide not amounting to murder, relying on Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan, where the accused was highly inebriated and attempted to save the deceased. The State contended that the act fell under Section 300 fourthly IPC, as the accused had knowledge that such an act would cause death, and that the subsequent pouring of water was not a mitigating factor. The Supreme Court held that the accused was conscious and aware of his actions, as evidenced by the dying declaration, and that the act of pouring kerosene and setting the deceased on fire was imminently dangerous, attracting Section 300 fourthly. The Court distinguished Kalu Ram, noting that in that case the accused was highly inebriated, whereas here the accused was in full senses. The Court also held that the subsequent act of pouring water, done only when the deceased screamed for help, did not mitigate the offence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 300 Fourthly IPC - Knowledge of Imminent Danger - The act of pouring kerosene on the deceased and setting her ablaze by throwing a lighted matchstick is so imminently dangerous that it would in all probability cause death, attracting Section 300 fourthly IPC. Any person of average intelligence would have such knowledge. (Paras 5.1-5.2)

B) Criminal Law - Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC - Inebriation as Mitigating Factor - For Exception 4 to apply, the accused must be in a highly inebriated condition where his faculty of reason is blurred. In the present case, the accused was conscious and aware of his actions, as evident from the dying declaration; hence Exception 4 is not applicable. (Paras 5.1-5.2)

C) Criminal Law - Mitigating Factor - Subsequent Conduct of Pouring Water - The subsequent act of pouring water on the deceased, done only when she screamed for help, is not a mitigating factor and does not reduce the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It appears to be an attempt to cloak guilt. (Para 5.2)

D) Criminal Law - Precedent - Distinction from Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan - The decision in Kalu Ram (2000) 10 SCC 324 is distinguishable as in that case the accused was highly inebriated and attempted to save the deceased immediately, whereas in the present case the accused was in full senses and poured water only after the deceased came out for help. (Para 5.2)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the death of the deceased falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) or under Section 300 fourthly (murder), and consequently whether conviction under Section 302 IPC should be altered to Section 304 Part II IPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, holding that the case falls under Section 300 fourthly IPC and not Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Law Points

  • Section 300 Fourthly IPC
  • Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
  • Section 304 Part II IPC
  • Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder
  • Mitigating Factor of Inebriation
  • Subsequent Conduct of Pouring Water
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (12) 2

Criminal Appeal No. 1885 of 2019

2019-12-13

M. R. Shah

Sushil Karanjkar (for appellant), Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar (for respondent)

Suraj Jagannath Jadhav

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought alteration of conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.

Filing Reason

Appellant aggrieved by the High Court's dismissal of his appeal and confirmation of conviction.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC; High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction.

Issues

Whether the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC or Section 300 fourthly IPC. Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC should be altered to Section 304 Part II IPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the accused was under influence of liquor, had no intention to kill, and attempted to save the deceased by pouring water, relying on Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan. Respondent argued that the accused was conscious, the act of pouring kerosene and setting ablaze is imminently dangerous, and the subsequent pouring of water was not a mitigating factor, relying on Santosh v. State of Maharashtra and Bhagwan Tukaram Dange v. State of Maharashtra.

Ratio Decidendi

The act of pouring kerosene on a person and setting them on fire is so imminently dangerous that it would in all probability cause death, attracting Section 300 fourthly IPC. The subsequent act of pouring water, done only when the deceased screamed for help, does not mitigate the offence. Inebriation must be of a high degree to blur reason; mere consumption of alcohol is not enough to bring the case under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The act of pouring kerosene, though on spur of moment, was followed by lighting a matchstick and throwing it on the deceased and thereby setting her ablaze are intimately connected with each other and resulted in causing death of the deceased. Any person of average intelligence would have the knowledge that pouring of kerosene and setting her on fire by throwing a lighted matchstick is so imminently dangerous that in all probability such an act would cause injuries causing death. The subsequent act of pouring water by the accused on the deceased also appears to be an attempt to cloak his guilt since he did it only when the deceased screamed for help.

Procedural History

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Bombay, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued notice limited to the nature of the offence and ultimately dismissed the appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 300, 304
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Bride Burning Case — Act Falls Under Section 300 Fourthly IPC, Not Exception 4. Pouring kerosene and setting a pregnant wife on fire constitutes murder despite subsequent attempt to pour water.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Restores Acquittal in 1996 Murder Case. Appellants acquitted as Supreme Court finds errors in the High Court's reappreciation of evidence and interpretation of burden of proof.