Hyderabad HC: No life-term for murder if it’s not premeditated

HYDERABAD: The act of killing a person on the spur of the moment after losing self-control falls under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and the accused is liable to be convicted and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. Not carrying any weapon shows that the accused did not nurse premeditated intention of killing that person.

The case of the prosecution is that the appellant-accused, after divorce from his first wife, developed acquaintance with another woman (the deceased) and married her. They lived happily for a few months. Later, he started harassing her mentally and physically for money as she is an employee of the district headquarters hospital. She decided to take divorce when he used to beat her indiscriminately, and filed a case before the civil court. Though notices were sent to him, he refused to acknowledge them.

On the day of the incident, the local municipal corporator came to know that the appellant-accused killed his second wife by hitting her. He went to the scene, made enquiry and came to know that the couple used to quarrel with each other because of their family disputes. The man went up to the woman and, demanding to know why she decided to give divorce to him and approached the police, he picked up a drainage pipe lying there and banged her head with it. As she collapsed, he threw a stone on her head which resulted in grievous head injury and her instantaneous death.

The incident was witnessed by three persons, who are the tenants of the deceased, and when they raised an alarm, the appellant fled away. The corporator requested the police to take necessary action against the appellant who was later arrested.

A division bench of the High Court comprising justices CV Nagarjuna Reddy and J Uma Devi said that it did not see any delay either in the registration of FIR or its reaching the court to give scope for any false implications. Stating that the appellant developed the intention to kill the deceased on the spur of the moment after losing his self-control, the bench said that the act of the appellant falls within Section 304 Part-I IPC and that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The bench allowed the appeal partly by altering the impugned judgment and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.