Krishna Chandra Pati vs Emperor

Adami, J.—The appellant has been found guilty of the murder of his wife Gelha Dei and has been sentenced to transportation for life by the Sessions Judge of Cuttack. Having quarrelled with his father, the appellant was living at his uncle''s house with his wife and his uncle''s wife.

On the evening of 25th May 1928, the uncle was away and the appellant was in the house with his wife and Sundari Dei, his uncle''s wife. He asked his wife to give him pan and she refused and threw a dish of water in which rice had been boiled in his face. The, appellant being enraged he took up a stone which was used for grinding bhang and bashed her on the face with it and it seems he continued to deliver blows with the stone on her head. The result was that she died; her skull was fractured in nine places. After Sundari Dei saw what was happening she rushed out and called her sister-in-law (P.W. 3), and prosecution witness 3 called her son Nabaghana Pati, who happened to be coming to the house on his bicycle. These people rushed into the courtyard and saw Gelha Dei lying senseless with the appellant bending over her. Nabaghana seized him and took the stone from his hand; he-then took the appellant outside and for a time it seems the appellant stood there. Then the chaukidar came and the appellant ran away; he was chased by the chaukidar who arrested him while sitting on the bank of a tank. Information was sent to the thanah and the head constable and the President of the Union and a local Indian doctor came. The-appellant was taken to the police station and there Nabaghana Pati laid an information.

That the appellant killed his wife there is no doubt. He himself has from the very first admitted it and he has pleaded guilty to the killing of his wife. In both the Committing Magistrate''s Court and before the Court of Sessions at first he stated that he killed her because she threw the dirty rice water in his face, but later on, in the Sessions Court, his statement was that he killed her because she had refused to have sexual intercourse with him. The prosecution witnesses, who are mostly relatives of the appellant, all depose that it was the appellant who killed his wife under circumstances I have stated. There can, therefore, be no doubt as to the fact that the appellant caused the death of his wife.

The prosecution witnesses one and all, however, excepting, the Sub-Inspector, depose to the fact that the appellant had been insane for a year and was still insane on the date of death of Gelha Dei. The learned Sessions Judge very carefully considered all the evidence and came to the conclusion that though the appellant may have been mentally deranged some two months before the occurrence, on 25th May 1928 he was in possession of his senses and capable of understanding the nature of his act and that what he did was contrary to law. He, therefore, disagreeing with the four assessors, convicted and sentenced the appellant as I have stated above.

The only questions which we have to decide in this appeal are whether the appellant was insane on 25th May 1928, and whether the act committed by him amounted to murder or was merely a case of homicide not amounting to murder. (The judgment then dealt with the evidence on the point of insanity and proceeded). Taking all the evidence together which the learned Sessions Judge has very carefully stated, I find it impossible to hold that the insanity of the appellant has been proved. In my mind the evidence given by these witnesses is prompted solely by the desire to save a relative and a Brahmin.

The next question is whether the offence committed by the appellant amounted to murder. The only point is whether the refusal to give pan ''and the throwing of the dirty rice water in the {face of the appellant can be held to be a grave and sudden provocation which would reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We know from the evidence that the appellant was a man of hot temper and there were also indications that he and his wife were not on very good terms. The refusal of his wife to give him pan was liable to make him angry, though we do not know on what grounds the refusal was made, but the throwing of dirty water in the face was an act which, in my mind, would cause a husband to lose control of himself and would be a grave and sudden provocation. We are not told why the wife acted as she did. In my mind the act of the wife was a grave and sudden provocation which should be taken to mitigate the offence.

I would reduce the crime committed from that of murder to that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. I would therefore set aside the conviction u/s 302 and substitute there for a conviction u/s 304 and reduce the sentence from transportation for life to rigorous imprisonment for seven year.

Chattarji, J.

I agree.