SAYAJI HANMANT BANKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2011] 8 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 13-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 8 S.C.R. 234 
SAYAJI HANMANT BANKAR 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 2007) 
JULY 13, 2011 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.304, (Part I), s.300, Exception 4; 
s.302 - Conviction on the basis of dying declaration -
C Allegation that accused-husband came home in drunkeri 
state and started abusing victim-wife and hit her on knee with 
brass pot and thereafter threw burning kerosene lamp on her 
- Victim was wearing a nylon sari which caught fire and she 
got engulfed in flames - In her dying declaration, she stated 
D that accused had tried to douse the fire - Courts below 
convicted accused uls.302 and awarded life imprisonment -
On appeal, held: On facts and in view of evidence on record, 
Exception 4 to s.300 is attracted - There was sudden fight 
between accused and his wife and the act of throwing burning 
E kerosene lamp was without premeditation - The evidence did 
not show the intention on part of accused to cause death or 
such bodily injury so as to result in the death of his wife - The 
burning seemed to be more out of the fact that at the time of 
incident, the victim was wearing nylon sari and had she not 
F been wearing a nylon sari, she would not have been burnt to 
the extent of 70% - Conviction of accused altered from s.302 
to s.304 Part I and sentence modified to period already 
undergone by him. 
The prosecution case was that on the fateful night, 
G the appellant-accused came home at 9 p.m. under the 
influence of liquor and started abusing his wife. There 
was petty quarrel between the accused and his wife and 
in that quarrel, the accused hit her left knee with a brass 
pot and thereafter threw a burning kerosene lamp on her. 
H 
234 
-
._
SAYAJI HANMANT SANKAR v. STATE OF 
235 
MAHARASHTRA 
The wife was wearing a nylon sari which immediately 
A 
caught fire and she was engulfed in flames. She was 
taken to hospital. As per the medical report, the victim 
was burnt to the extent of 70%. In her dying declaration, 
she mentioned that the accused had tried -to douse the 
fire. The accused had also received burn injuries to the 
extent of 18%. 
B 
The trial court as well as the High Court took the view 
on the basis of dying declaration that the act on the part 
of the accused showed his intention to commit the 
murder or such bodily injury as was likely to result in her C 
death. The accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC 
and sentenced to life imprisonment. The instant appeal 
was filed against the order of conviction. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is attracted if 
the act is done without premeditation .in a sudden fight 
or in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and the 
offender does not take any undue advantage or act in a 
cruel or unusual manner. The evidence on record did not 
show that the intention on the part of the appellant- . E 
accused was to cause death or such bodily injury as 
would have resulted in the death of his wife. There would 
have to be much more activity on the part of the accused 
if his intention was to commit the murder of his wife. If 
there was any intention to commit her murder, as 
mentioned in Section 299 IPC, there would have been 
much other acts like pouring kerosene on the victim-
deceased etc. A perusal of evidence showed that as soon 
F 
as the accused entered the house, there appeared to be 
some quarrel with his wife and in that fight first, he threw 
G' 
water pot and thereafter a kerosene lamp. The burning 
seemed to be more out of the fact that unfortunately at · 
that time, the victim was wearing nylon sari. Had she not 
been wearing a nylon sari, she could not have been burnt 
to the extent of 70%. This was a case which clearly fell 
H 
236 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011) 8 S.C.R. 
A under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC since there was 
sudden fight. There was no premeditation either. 
Therefore the accused~appellant is liable to be convicted 
for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I. The 
conviction of the accused is altered from Section 302 IPC 
s to Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentence is reduced to the 
period already undergone by him. [Paras 5, 7, 8, 9] [237-
D-F; 238-B-F] 
c 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 457 of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 11.8.2004 of the High 
' Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 
2000. 
Satyapal Khushal Chand Pasi, for the Appellant. 

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