K. RAVI KUMAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 588 · Decided: 28-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 588 
K. RAVI KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAl<'A 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2494 of 2014) 
NOVEMBER 28, 2014 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 498A - Husband 
c stabbed his wife and poured ~erosene on her leading to her 
death-Appellant-husband convicted ulss.302 and 498A !PC 
by Courts below -
Sentenced to life imprisonment -
Conviction of appellant uls.302 /PC challenged-Appellant 
claiming entitlement to benefit of Exception 4 to s.300 /PC-
D Held: Claim of appellant tenable for more than one reason; 
firstly, there was no premeditation irl commission of the crime; 
secondly, there was not even a suggestion or conclusive 
evidence that appellant had any pre-determined motive or 
enmity to commit the offence; thirdly, the incident had 
E occurred due to sudden quarrel between appellant and 
deceased, fourthly, no conclusive evidence was adduced by 
prosecution to prove that any kind of constant quarrel ever 
ensued between the couple and lastly, there was no 
corroboration from post-mortem report nor any blood stained 
F 
knife was recovered from the place of occurrence at the 
instance of the appellant or of any witness - Offence in 
question was not murder but an offence of culpable homicide 
not amounting to murder as specified in Exception 4 to s. 300 . 
/PC and hence punishable u/s. 304 Part II /PC and 
G accordingly appellant sentenced to rigorous imprisonment 
for 1 O years - Sentence I Sentencing. 
H 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is 
given to the appellant by altering the sentence awarded 
588 
K. RAVI KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
589 
to the appellant punishable under Section 304Part11 IPC A 
for more than one reason. Firstly, even according to the 
prosecution, there was no premeditation in the 
commission of crime. Secondly, there is not even a 
suggestion or conclusive evidence that the appellant had 
any pre-determined motive or enmity to commit _the 
B 
offence against the deceased leave alone a serious 
offence like murder. Thirdly, incident that occurred was 
due to sudden quarrel which ensued between the 
appellant-accused and the deceased on the issue of 
going to village to see the ailing appellant's father. The C 
appellant, on receiving this news, had become upset and, 
therefore, his insistence to see his ailing father 
immediately was natural and atthe same time, the refusal 
of appellant's wife to leave could lead to heated 
exchange of words between them. True, it is that it D 
reached to its extreme inasmuch as the appellant in 
heated exchange of words lost his mental balance and 
poured kerosen.e on his wife setting her to burn. 
However, the fact remains that it was an outcome of 
sudden outburst and heated exchange with no E 
predetermined motive per se to kill her. Fourthly, no 
conclusive evidence was adduced by the prosecution 
to prove any kind of constant quarrel ever ensued in_ the 
last 9 long years between the couple and that too for a 
cause known to others which could lead to the killing of F 
appellant's wife or whether any unsuccessful attempt 
was ever made by the appellant to kill her in past and 
lastly, this Court has not been able to see from the post-
mortem report that any stab injury on deceased's body 
· was caused nor prosecution was able to prove that any G 
blood stained knife from the place of occurrence was 
recovered at the instance of the appellant or of any 
witness. The offence in question was therefore not 
murder but it was an offence of culpable homicide not 
amounting to murder as specified in Exception 4 to H 
I 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Section 300 and hence punishable under Section 304 
part 11 IPC. In the result, instead of Section 302 IPC, the 
appellant shall stand convicted for the offence of 
culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable 
under Section 304Part11 IPC and accordingly sentenced 
B to undergo ·rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 
years. The conviction and sentence imposed under 
Section 498-A shall remain unaltered which shall run 
concurrently. [Paras 14, 15, 16][600-F-H; 601-A-H; 
602-A-B] 
C 
Surinder Kumar v Union Territory, Chandigarh 
(1989) 2 SCC 217: 1989 (1) SCR 941; Ghapoo 
Yadav and Ors. v State of MP (2003) 3 SCC 528: 
2003 (2) SCR 69; 2002 (1) SCR 1152; Sukbhir 
. 
' 
Singh V. State of Haryana (2002) 3 sec 327:; 
D 
Mahesh v State ofM.P (1996) 10 SCC 66

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