A Bench of Justices Sadhana Jadhav and Prithviraj Chavan reduced the sentence after noting that the wife had shouted on a busy road that the convict (her husband) was impotent, and it was natural for a man to feel ashamed upon being so labelled.
The Court noted that on the fateful day, suddenly upon seeing the accused by chance, the deceased had not just obstructed his way by holding his neck, by pulling his shirt but had started hurling abuses and had levelled scathing remarks.
“The incident had occurred on a busy road near the residential house of Ananda More. The loud allegations made by the deceased were heard by one and all. It was quite natural for the man to feel ashamed upon being referred as impotent,” the Court said.
It, therefore, concluded that the act by the accused was not a premeditated one but one which came out of sudden and grave provocation and that the appellant had no criminal intention to murder his wife.
“It is true that the incident of assault is outcome of a grave and sudden provocation. The accused was deprived of his self-control and hence, he could not have any restraint upon himself while mounting assault. It was not a pre-meditated act,” the judgment said.
Hence, only the offence under Section 304(II) (culpable homicide likely to cause death) of the Indian Penal Code can be maintained.
“It was not a pre-meditated act. He was on his way for work and therefore, was carrying a sickle in his bag. The offence committed by the accused falls under Exception 4 to Section 300,” the Court emphasised before stating clearly that the accused deserved to be convicted only under Section 304(II) to meet the ends of justice.
Source: Barandbench
