HC acquits doctor from charges of murdering pharmacist wife, holds guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Mumbai: Holding that the murder was not a "premeditated and planned act", the Bombay High Court has quashed the life imprisonment sentenced to a Maharastra-based doctor.

Taking note of the fact that the doctor has already served jail-term for 14 years for allegedly murdering his pharmacist wife, the HC bench comprising of Justices M.N. Jadhav and A.S. Gadkari modified the order of the Sessions court and acquitted the doctor from charges of murder under Section 302 IPC and held him guilty of culpable homicide under Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC, additionally reducing his imprisonment to 10-years.

Besides, the bench also quashed and set-aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the doctor under Section 498-A. The bench observed, "...it is reasonably concluded that Appellant lost his power of self-control temporarily and committed the offence in the proximity to the time of provocation i.e. the quarrel that ensued between Appellant and Sangita before the time of incident. There is no material brought on record by prosecution to show that the act of Appellant was a premeditated and planned act."

The concerned doctor had been convicted for murdering his wife by assaulting with a lid of autoclave and throwing acid on her. He had married his wife back in 1993 and initially both of them resided at Manmad. After securing a job as a pharmacist in Pune Municipal Corporation, his wife shifted to Pune along with her two children and started living with her mother.

Every fortnight, the concerned doctor used to visit his family in Pune. However, back on 30.08.2008, a quarrel allegedly took place between the couple while the mother-in-law of the doctor was outside. After returning home, she found her daughter lying in burnt condition. Allegedly, the doctor's wife Sangita had informed her mother that her husband had assaulted her on the back of her head with some hard object and thereafter poured an acid-like substance on her body due to which she had sustained burn injuries.

After admitting the patient, the treating doctor had also recorded her statement in the presence of her mother. In her statement, the wife had alleged that her husband suspected her chastity and therefore assaulted her and wan away after this. Following this, a complaint was lodged against the doctor under sections 307, 498-A and 504 of IPC and the consequently, the doctor was arrested on the same night. The eight-years-old son of the couple was an eyewitness of the incident and he had also deposed that his father had assaulted his mother.

On the other hand, the doctor had contended that the alleged incident had happened on the day of Pola festival when his wife was preparing puranpoli. He claimed that his wife had sustained the burn injuries due to over-flaming of the stove. He had also claimed that his mother-in-law and brother-in-law had falsely implicated him in the case. 

While considering the case, the Sessions Court, Pune had sentenced the doctor to life imprisonment along with rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, challenging this order, the doctor had approached the High Court.

After taking note of the depositions given by the witnesses and the dying declaration of the deceased, the HC bench observed, "...it is clear that circumstantial evidence proved by prosecution points and indicts the role of Appellant as the author of crime in the present case. However even though it is discernible that the Appellant committed the act of killing Sangita, it is not proved in evidence as to what was the liquid that was used because of which Sangita suffered burn injuries."

The bench further noted, "...it is clear that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the chain of circumstances snaps in between and does not explain the above discussed issue."

At this outset, the Court also referred to the Supreme Court order in the case of Dauvaram Nirmalkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, where the top court discussed the issue of gravity of provocation while considering the account of history of abuse.

Noting that there used to be regular quarrels between the couple, the bench referred to the Supreme Court order and held this case to be an exception under Section 300 IPC. Therefore, the bench observed,

"Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC states that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. Exception 1 applies when due to grave and sudden provocation, the offender looses his self-control and causes the death of a person who gave the provocation."

"Thus from the above, it is seen that gravity of provocation need not be confined to the singular incident but can be assessed by taking into account the history of the abuse culminating in the final act of the accused if it is shown that the said act occurred due to temporary loss of self-control and the accused had acted without planning and premeditation," it further noted.

"While evaluating and considering the circumstances discussed hereinabove from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, it is reasonably concluded that Appellant lost his power of self-control temporarily and committed the offence in the proximity to the time of provocation i.e. the quarrel that ensued between Appellant and Sangita before the time of incident. There is no material brought on record by prosecution to show that the act of Appellant was a premeditated and planned act. Thus, there was sudden loss of self-control as observed by the Supreme Court on account of 'slow burn' reaction followed by the final and immediate provocation and there was temporary loss of self-control. Hence, applying the exception 1 of Section 300 IPC, we would convert the conviction of Appellant from Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 IPC," read the judgement.

Therefore, the bench quashed the charges of 498-A IPC against the doctor as it noted that the doctor has already served jail term for 14 years and he has been in custody since 31.08.2008.

The court ordered,

"(i) The conviction and sentence imposed upon Appellant under Section 498-A is hereby quashed and set aside;

(ii) The conviction of Appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead Appellant is convicted under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two years. Since the Appellant has already undergone the aforestated sentence awarded along with the default sentence, he shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case / cases; (iii) Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms; (iv) Interim Application No. 392 of 2020 does not survive and accordingly stands disposed of."

To read the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/doctor-imprisonment-190374.pdf

Also Read: Bengaluru Shocker: Woman beats doctor to death for sharing nude pictures on social media, arrested