A) Abstract / Headnote

This case revolves around the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant was accused of causing the death of his pregnant wife by pouring kerosene on her, which led to fatal burn injuries, and indirectly causing the death of her unborn child. The trial court and the Bombay High Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC for murder and Section 316 IPC for causing the death of a quick unborn child, sentencing him to life imprisonment and ten years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The Supreme Court re-examined the evidence and applied the fourth exception of Section 300 IPC, concluding the act was committed without premeditation during a sudden fight. Thus, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), sentencing the appellant to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

Keywords: Culpable homicide, Dying declaration, Section 304 Part II IPC, Sudden fight, Section 316 IPC.

B) Case Details

• Judgement Cause Title: Dattatraya v. The State of Maharashtra
• Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2012
• Judgement Date: 01 February 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
• Author: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
• Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 989
• Legal Provisions Involved:
  • Section 302 IPC: Murder
  • Section 304 Part II IPC: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  • Section 316 IPC: Causing the death of a quick unborn child
• Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
• Case is Related to: Criminal Law (Homicide and offences against life)

C) Introduction and Background of Judgement

The appellant was convicted for causing the death of his pregnant wife, Meenabai, during a quarrel in their home. He allegedly poured kerosene on her while in an inebriated state, leading to severe burn injuries, the birth of a stillborn child, and her eventual death. Initially charged under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder), the charges were altered to Section 302 IPC and Section 316 IPC upon her death. The defense challenged the convictions, arguing lack of intent and reliance on exceptions under Section 300 IPC.

D) Facts of the Case

1. Incident Details: The appellant returned home intoxicated on 26 January 2007. A quarrel ensued with his wife, who was nine months pregnant. During the argument, he poured kerosene on her, leading to a fire that caused her 98% burns.

2. Victim’s Condition: Meenabai was rushed to the hospital, where she gave a dying declaration identifying the appellant as the perpetrator. She later delivered a stillborn child and succumbed to her injuries on 4 February 2007.

3. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution relied on the victim’s dying declaration, testimonies from her maternal grandmother and aunt, and medical reports confirming the severity of her burns.

4. Defense’s Argument: The appellant claimed innocence, asserting no intent to kill and suggesting the fire was accidental.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Was the appellant guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC, or did his actions constitute culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC?
2. Did the appellant’s actions warrant conviction under Section 316 IPC for causing the death of the unborn child?

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. The act lacked premeditation and was the result of a sudden quarrel.
2. The appellant did not intend to cause the death of the victim or her unborn child.
3. The dying declaration was unreliable due to the victim’s severe condition.
4. The act fell under the fourth exception of Section 300 IPC, warranting reduction of the charge to Section 304 Part II IPC.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. The appellant intentionally poured kerosene on the victim and set her ablaze, knowing the consequences.
2. The dying declaration was credible and corroborated by eyewitness testimonies.
3. The appellant’s actions directly caused the death of the victim and her unborn child, justifying convictions under Sections 302 and 316 IPC.

H) Judgement

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. The appellant’s act was not premeditated but occurred during a sudden quarrel under the influence of alcohol.
2. The fourth exception of Section 300 IPC applied, reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide.
3. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part II IPC, sentencing the appellant to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court emphasized the importance of examining intent and premeditation in cases involving sudden altercations.

c. Guidelines

1. Dying declarations are critical but must be corroborated by other evidence.
2. Section 300 IPC exceptions require careful application based on the facts.

I) Related Legal Provisions

1. Section 302 IPC: Defines and penalizes murder.
2. Section 304 IPC: Provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
3. Section 316 IPC: Penalizes causing the death of a quick unborn child.

J) References

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 10 SCC 324.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.