ANIL KUMAR versus THE STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 173 · Decided: 01-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 173 : 2023 INSC 965
173
CASE DETAILS
ANIL KUMAR 
v.
THE STATE OF KERALA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2697 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 01, 2023 
[ABHAY S. OKA AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether in the circumstances of the instant 
case, the appellant had any premeditated mind to kill the deceased or was 
it due to grave and sudden provocation which would not amount to murder 
or would at best be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder 
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 10 years 
or with fi ne or with both u/s. 304 Part-II of IPC. 
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s. 304 Part-II – Prosecution case that 
the appellant, with the intention to kill his wife, lighted a matchstick 
and threw it upon her when she had already poured kerosene upon 
herself due to the quarrel with the appellant – Wife died – Appellant was 
convicted u/ss. 302 and 498-A IPC by both the courts below – Appellant 
contended that provisions of s.302 IPC are not applicable and at best 
he can be charged u/s. 304 Part-II of IPC – Propriety:
Held: The fi rst dying declaration is in the form of the statement Ext.P1 
and the other statement which can be read as a dying declaration is Ext.P10 
– Both the statements, if read together, would reveal that on the fateful day, 
the appellant had assaulted the deceased wife under the infl uence of alcohol 
– He even struck a blow on her chest and pushed her – When the assault of 
the appellant became unbearable, she took the cane of kerosene from kitchen 
and poured it on her body whereupon her husband lighted a matchstick and 
burnt her – Magistrate-PW5, before whom one of the dying declarations 
was recorded, proves the correctness of the statement – Appellant was in 
174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
habit of drinking alcohol and used to assault her frequently in inebriated 
condition – Victim also stated that various criminal cases are pending against 
the appellant in connection with similar kind of assaults – The above aspect, 
as stated by the deceased, was corroborated by the testimony of PW21 
(Investigating Offi  cer) – On the day of incident, during their quarrel, a 
neighbour-PW1 had visited their house and the deceased wife had shown 
some injuries received by her during the assault – However, realizing the 
quarrel between the two, he left saying that he would come later on – It was 
thereafter that the incident of pouring kerosene and burning took place – 
So, there was suffi  cient time in between the two acts and it cannot be said 
that there was a sudden quarrel and provocation leading to burning – In the 
instant case, the appellant upon seeing the deceased drenched in kerosene 
clearly took advantage of the situation and lighted a matchstick and threw 
it upon her so that she can be burnt – The appellant having taken “undue 
advantage” of the situation cannot be extended the benefi t of Exception 4 
to s.300 IPC so as to bring the case within the ambit of Part-II of s.304 IPC. 
[Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20 and 21]
LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2000) 10 SCC 324 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No.2697 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2019 of the High Court of 
Kerala at Ernakulam in CRLA No.1217 of 2015.
Appearances:
Ms. Aparna Jha, Abhishek Yadav, Ms. Priyanka Mathur, Ms. Ipsita 
Behura, Ms. Pooja Singh, Ms. Geeta Verma, Ms. Jessy Kurian, Ms. Ruby 
Mohd. Wasim, Advs. for the Appellant.
Abraham Mathew, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, 
Advs. for the respondent.
175
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. The appellant Anil Kumar has been convicted under Sections 302 
and 498A of the Indian Penal Code1 by both the courts below and has been 
sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay fi ne of Rs.50,000/-, and in default 
to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 302 IPC and 
rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 498A IPC with direction 
that both the sentences would run concurrently. 
2. The incident is of 26.09.2010 and had taken place at 9:00 am in the 
morning at the house of the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant, 
with the intention to kill his wife, lighted a matchstick and threw it upon 
her when she had already poured kerosene upon herself due to the quarrel 
with the appellant. 
3. The F

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.