Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on November 1, 2023 said that exception to the offence of murder would be available to an accused if he committed the act due to sudden fight or acted without a pre-meditated mind but not to one who took undue advantage of a situation.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal upheld the conviction and sentence of life term imposed upon appellant Anil Kumar for the offence of murder. 

"The First Information Report and the dying declarations on record clearly contain the statement of the deceased that when she had poured kerosene upon herself to deter the appellant from fighting and assaulting, he lighted a matchstick and with the intention to kill her, threw it upon her by saying 'You Die'," the bench said

The court held that the appellant was guilty of the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder and was not entitled to benefit of the Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC.

In his contention, the appellant contended that he had no premeditated mind to kill the deceased wife and that he had no intention even to kill her. Therefore, the provisions of Section 302, IPC were not applicable and at best he could be charged under Section 304, Part-II of IPC, his counsel said.

The state counsel strongly opposed it on the ground that the appellant had burnt the deceased wife with a matchstick fully knowing that she was drenched in kerosene oil and that lightning of matchstick and throwing it upon her would certainly cause her death. 

"The exception clearly in unequivocal term states that it would be applicable where culpable homicide is committed not only without premeditated mind in a sudden fight or quarrel but also without the offender taking 'undue advantage' of the situation," the bench said.  

In the instant case, the appellant upon seeing the deceased drenched in kerosene clearly took advantage of the situation and lighted a matchstick and threw it upon her so that she could be burnt. The appellant having taken 'undue advantage' of the situation cannot be extended the benefit of exception 4 to Section 300, IPC so as to bring the case within the ambit of Part- II of 304, IPC, the bench said.

Having gone through the facts of the case, the bench noted that in the first place, the fight was not sudden as the appellant and the deceased wife had a past history of quarrels and that they had been quarrelling on the fateful day also since before the actual incident.     

So, it cannot be said that there was a sudden quarrel and provocation leading to burning, the bench said.

The court noted that the appellant saw the deceased wife drenched in kerosene and was conscious that if lighted, she would be burnt to death even then ignited her to fire. 

"This shows premeditated mind to kill her. More particularly, the appellant cannot take advantage of the 4th Exception only on the pretext that it was not on account of premeditated mind or out of a sudden fight or that his intentions were not bad as he tried his best to douse the fire and to save the life of the deceased wife for the reason that the benefit of the above exception would have been available to him, had he not taken undue advantage of the situation," the bench said.

Case Title: Anil Kumar Vs The State of Kerala