LI Network
Published on: November 03, 2023 at 02:10 IST
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court has clarified that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not apply when an offender takes “undue advantage” of a situation.
The ruling was made while upholding the conviction of a husband accused of murdering his wife.
In this particular case, the deceased wife had poured kerosene on herself in an attempt to prevent further abuse following a quarrel with her husband, the appellant. The husband, allegedly, lit a matchstick and threw it at her, uttering “You Die” with the intention to kill her.
The husband, challenging his conviction under Section 302 and 498A IPC, relied on Exception 4, arguing that the incident occurred during a “sudden fight or quarrel.”
Exception 4, as specified in the IPC, states, “Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”
The Court made a crucial observation: “The exception clearly states that it would be applicable where culpable homicide is committed not only without a premeditated mind in a sudden fight or quarrel but also without the offender taking ‘undue advantage’ of the situation. In this case, the appellant, upon seeing the deceased drenched in kerosene, clearly took advantage of the situation and lit a matchstick, throwing it at her to burn her. Since the appellant took ‘undue advantage’ of the situation, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC cannot be applied to bring the case under Part-II of 304 IPC.”
The bench, consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, heard an appeal against a judgment of the Kerala High Court.
The court noted multiple dying declarations, oral, and ocular evidence indicating that the deceased died due to burn injuries after being set on fire by the appellant.
The central question before the court was whether this was a premeditated act of murder, a result of grave and sudden provocation not amounting to murder, or a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The Court ruled out the possibility of this being a case of sudden quarrel and provocation, as the couple had a history of quarrels. On the day in question, they had already quarreled, and a neighbor had visited their house before the burning incident, leaving a sufficient intervening time.
Regarding the application of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, the court emphasized that culpable homicide must be committed without premeditation and without taking undue advantage.
In this case, the court pointed out that the appellant had indeed taken undue advantage of the situation by throwing a matchstick at the victim while she was drenched in kerosene.
As a result, the court dismissed the appeal and held the appellant guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder.