Summary
In an appeal confined to the nature of the offence, the Court maintained a husband’s murder conviction for pouring kerosene on his wife and setting her alight as she tried to escape. The evidence showed conscious conduct, not the claimed incapacitating intoxication. Subsequent efforts to extinguish the fire did not justify reducing the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Issues
- Whether the proved act fell within Section 300 Fourthly or Exception 4 so as to warrant conviction under Section 304 Part II.
- Whether claimed intoxication and subsequent pouring of water justified reducing the offence.
Provisions considered
- Section 300 Fourthly and Exception 4, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conscious, imminently dangerous act of setting the victim alight constituted murder; the claimed exception was rejected on the facts. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.2, 6, 7)
Held
- The scope of the appeal was confined to classification of the offence. The accused poured kerosene and set the victim alight while she attempted to leave, demonstrating awareness of the fatal consequences. Section 300 Fourthly applied. (¶¶ 2, 5, 5.1, 7)
- There was no evidence of the highly inebriated condition relied on to invoke Kalu Ram. The conversation in the dying declaration instead supported consciousness and awareness. That decision did not assist the accused. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.2, 6)
- Following Santosh and Bhagwan, the subsequent act of pouring water did not, in these circumstances, mitigate murder into culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Exception 4 was inapplicable. (¶¶ 5.2, 7)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC affirmed by the High Court remained undisturbed.