Facts
The informant, the father of the deceased lodged an FIR in 2009 against his son-in-law Nandu alleging him to have been murdered by her daughter Shakuntala who used to live with him due to a discordant note between her and her husband. One day the deceased went to meet her sister and while returning, she met the accused at the bus stop. They indulged in an argument at the bus stop. Deceased’s sister reached that spot and noticed that the deceased had sustained an incised wound on her neck and had succumbed to the said injuries.
After the investigation and trial, the accused was convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, an appeal was made in the High Court of Bombay.
Issues and Discussion
Deceased and the accused were married for 15 years and had 3 children who live in Ashram School. The couple parted their ways and the deceased started living with her parents for almost 4 years before the alleged incident. On an unfortunate day, they confronted each other and by seeing the accused after so long, the deceased got heated up and obstructed his way by pulling his neck and accusing him of stealing. The accused tried to ignore, but the deceased did not stop and referred to him as impotent in front of everyone present. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before the High Court that the act of the accused does not fall under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC because he acted in the grave and sudden provocation caused by the deceased.
High Court’s observation
The Bombay High Court quashed the conviction of the accused as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur and convicted him under Section 304 II of IPC and sentenced him to the period already undergone.
The Court observed that the appellant was the father of three children. Despite that, the deceased referred to him as impotent in front of the public and also gave it as an excuse for having illicit relationships. She caused sudden and grave provocation to him and his actions cannot be considered as a pre-meditated act. Thus, the Court held that his act falls under exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC. Hence, he was convicted under Section 304 (II) of IPC.
Case Title: Nandu Dada Survase v. State of Maharashtra
Bench: Justice Sadhana S. Jadhav, Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan
Judgement Date: 3rd February 2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments