Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the husband’s murder conviction for throttling his wife and rejected alteration to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An accused may rely on alternative exceptions even after advancing a false defence, but the evidence here established neither grave and sudden provocation nor a sudden fight. The suicide account was rejected, and the asserted intoxication was not shown to prevent formation of the requisite intention. The injuries and circumstances established murder.
Issues
- Whether the proved killing qualified for alteration from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC through provocation, sudden fight or the asserted intoxication.
Provisions considered
- Section 86, Indian Penal Code, 1860Voluntary intoxication does not displace attributed knowledge; intention is assessed from the circumstances and degree of intoxication, which did not undermine the requisite intention here. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27)
Held
- The prosecution retains the burden of proving the offence. The accused may establish a Section 300 exception on a preponderance of probabilities using prosecution material, without separate defence evidence. A false defence does not itself bar an alternative exception, which must nevertheless find support in the record. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- The medical and other evidence established throttling rather than suicide. No evidence established provocation by the deceased or a sudden quarrel leading to a sudden fight; the appellant’s own account did not supply it. His injuries could arise from the victim’s resistance and did not establish the claimed exception. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 23, 24)
- No evidence showed the degree of intoxication or that it prevented formation of the necessary intention; there was also a time gap before the crime. The circumstances supported an inference of intended natural consequences. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27)
- Section 304 applies where culpable homicide is not murder. Its reference to intention to cause death does not independently reduce a killing satisfying Section 300 where no exception is established. The throttling and injuries in this case established murder. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30)
Result
Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with Rs.10,000 fine left undisturbed.