Daulatrao Tularao vs State

Krishnan, J.

The appellant, a mill labourers of about 35 years of age was sent up and convicted on a charge of murder of his own wife, a middle-aged woman

and mother of four children, the eldest of whom is the main witness (a girl aged 11 or 12 years). She was stabbed 19 times with a knife on deferent

parts of the body and several of the wounds are such that each by itself would result in death. The lesser sentence of imprisonment for life has been

imposed. The only question of fact is as to the origin of the fatal quarrel, of which there are two accounts of law; whether the words used by the

wife during the quarrel can, in this context, be treated as grave and sudden provocation extenuating the offence and reducing it to culpable

homicide not amounting to murder.

The unfortunate couple lived in the outskirts of the city of Indore, the husband working as a mill labourers and often in need of money as he had a

weakness for liquor. The wife was also earning as a cook in a hospital and was supplementing it by rolling bidis. As often happens, the wife and the

appellant used to quarrel the latter disappearing for days together. On the one hand, the daughter''s evidence is that this was after unsuccessful

demand of money which the wife could not spare as she had to look after the children. The appellant''s own account, on the other hand, is that she

used to turn him out. In this background, the husband developed an obsession that the wife was living an immoral life and was having improper

intimacy with different men. Whether it was a justifiable suspicion or just a delusion of a drunkard, he had charged the wife on several previous

occasions with immorality and always got the answer that she had been living as a loyal wife and his suspicions and charges were baseless.

The common ground in this case is that on the afternoon or evening of the 27th March, 1960, both husband and wife at their house as also the

eldest child-a girl named Sushila (P.W.I) aged about 11 or 12 years. The woman had been rolling bidis when there was a quarrel and the girl came

out shouting that her mother was being killed. The wife came outside and soon fell down in front of the house with as many as 19 stab injuries on

her and the husband standing nearby with a knife of which the blade was broken. The neighbors collected, but too late to be of any help to the

woman. The direct evidence is from the girl, to the following effect; her father had been away for several days and on that day he returned at about

4 P.M. and as usual demanded money from the mother. She refused with her usual reply that she wanted money for the children. This led to an

exchange of strong language. The appellant sat on the verandah while the girl went out for a short time to bring some lemons or some fruits. On her

return, the appellant asked the girl to go to his mother, i. e., the girl''s grandmother and bring some money and tried to persuade her to do so by

offering 2 annas. But the girl scented some imminent trouble and refused to go, while the younger boy was sent on that mission. After this, the

appellant walked into the house again, caught hold of his wife who was rolling bidis, and started stabbing her. Having received five or six stabs, she

tottered outside and fell on the verandah, the girl meanwhile running out and shouting for help. The point to note about the evidence of this girl as

well as of the neighbors who gathered the story from her, is that the quarrel starts with a demand for money without the least reference to any

immoral conduct. But it has been brought out in the cross-examination that the girl herself and those who derived the evidence from her, stated to

the police that the quarrel started with the husband charging the wife with immorality. Not that there could not have been quarrels on other

occasions regarding money, but on this occasion, the quarrel certainly started with the charge-justified or otherwise of immorality, and the girl as

well as the neighbors were trying to suppress it in the Court, most probably, because of an understandable sense of delicacy.

The appellant himself was at the Thana very shortly after the incident, it being immaterial whether he went there of his own accord or was being

persuaded or dragged by the neighbors. Later on, he gave a confession before the Magistrate which was recorded in the usual manner. He admits

having attacked his wife but his account is that he had reasons to suspect her of infidelity and had on previous occasions asked her to behave more

properly and always met with a rebuff:

On the 27th, I had my roti with my mother, but went to my wife to persuade her. I talked to her for an hour and a half, but she paid no heed. Then

she said, ""I have not done it till now; bat now I shall go and take another man, I did not go to call you and you may go away"". Thereupon, I

became very angry. In fact, four days before this, I bad Been her at Siyaganj talking to another man whose Dame I do not know. When I came

near them, they separated.

No doubt, the appellant had been in a highly abnormal state of mind immediately before his attack on his wife; but his account of the origin of that

quarrel is substantially correct; in this regard the daughter has not told us the truth; the other witnesses have derived it from her. If the quarrel

started with the husband charging the wife with immorality and with her being seen with another man at Siyaganj a few days before and their

separating on eight of the husband, the wife was pat on a trial of calmness and good behavior. Whether it was justified or was merely a delusion in

the mind of the husband, it was expected that the woman would do something to pacify him. If it was true, she should have promised good

behavior in future and shown genuine penitence. If it was false, she should have repudiated it with a certain amount of restraint. But what the wife

stated was certainly apt to infuriate the husband. There is no doubt that words to this effect, if not those very ones, were spoken by the wife. We

are not concerned with her folly in doing this, for which certainly she has been more than amply punished but we are concerned with the state of

mind induced in the husband by these words and to decide whether it is one of grave and sadden provocation attracting Exception 1 and mitigating

the offence to one of culpable homicide u/s 304, Part I.

Though there are quite a large number of reported cases dealing with the effect of the wife''s words on the mind of a jealous husband, no hard and

fast rule can be laid down for the very simple reason that individual psychologies differ as much as individual facial expressions. However, a set of

general patterns are traceable; and it becomes our duty to see if this falls into one of those, in which there is general judicial opinion that grave and

sudden provocation has been caused. While it is difficult to make an analysis of the effect on a mind which is already abnormal and high-strung two

elements are always found in such cases. The first is one of great surprise; in other words, speech or conduct on the part of the wife that has

altogether been unexpected. The second is a moral revulsion which prompts him to acts of violence which he would not have thought of in a normal

state of mind. In two reported cases, the position was near, though not altogether similar to that in the present case. In re Murugian A I R 1967

Mad. 541, the husband was taking the wife to task for her improper intimacy with a third person; but the latter, instead of showing regret or at

least keeping silent, replied, that she would continue her intimacy with the third person. The Court remarked-

In a society where adultery is made punishable and where the lawfully wedded wife has not merely resorted to adultery but would also swear

openly in the face of the husband that she would persist in such adultery and also abuse the husband for remonstrating against such conduct, we

feel that we should take a more serious view of the psychological situation thus created to arrive at the conclusion whether it could not be a case of

the husband losing his self-control by reason of the provocation and whether such provocation was not grave and sudden enough to make him lose

such self-control. The Court should view it as a psychological problem and not one where reasoning as to the legality or otherwise of the right of

parties is to be considered before the emotion of the man is roused to action. Each case has to be considered in the circumstances that prevail at

the given situation and there can be no generalization on such issues.

In the present case, there is neither proved past conduct of this nature, nor any persistence shown by the wife. But there is the surprise and

revulsion. In re Chervirala Narayan AIR 1958 A P 235, a young man''s wife had just joined him; but already he had vague suspicions about her

past conduct. She confessed to him that she had illicit intimacy with a third man and was already pregnant by him. There again we find the surprise

and revulsion.

Both these precedents apply to the instant case by way of broad analogy. In this case, the wife does deny the charge and as the husband had really

nothing very definite to go upon, he should not have been infuriated by the denial. But she continues it by threatening thereafter to do the very act

with which he was charging her; in other words, she has created a sudden moral revulsion in the man. In addition, she insults him by saying that she

wants him no more.

We would, therefore, alter the conviction to one u/s 304, Fart I, Indian Penal Code and reduce the sentence to one of seven years rigorous

imprisonment. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.