The Orissa High Court recently ruled that a woman who asked her husband to wait for some time to eat while the meal was being prepared was not a serious and sudden provocation that would cause her husband to injure her and take her life.

While upholding the appellant husband’s conviction for the murder of his wife, the Division Bench Judge Sangam Kumar Sahoo And Justice Chittaranjan Dash afflicted –

“There is neither a fight nor a fight in this incident. It cannot be said that a housewife seriously and suddenly provoked her hungry husband by asking him to wait for a while while the meal preparation continued.”

Real Background

On 25.09.2008 noon, the defendant Raikishore Jena returned home from his arable land and asked his wife (deceased) to serve him food. Since the meal was not yet fully prepared, the deceased spouse asked the appellant to wait for some time.

Angered by this response, the plaintiff entered their home and brought a document. katuri (sharp-edged weapon) and the vital organs of the deceased such as head, face, neck and ears were repeatedly attacked with this weapon. The person who lost his life as a result of this brutal attack died at the scene.

An FIR was later registered and an investigation was conducted. After the investigation was completed, a criminal complaint was filed against the plaintiff for murder.

Based on the statements of the appellant and the decedent’s minor daughter, the autopsy report, and the medical examiner’s testimony, the trial court came to a definitive conclusion that the appellant was guilty of murder.

Observations of the Supreme Court

Initially, the Court examined whether the deceased died as a result of murder. For this purpose, he examined the autopsy examination. It was claimed that the cause of death was ‘hypovolemic shock’ Injury resulting from extensive cutting injuries to the head, face and neck caused by heavy, sharp cutting weapons. Moreover, this evidence was confirmed by the investigation report. The Court therefore concluded that the decedent’s death was homicidal in nature.

The court found the appellant and the deceased’s minor daughter to be the prosecution’s star witness. He stated that the appellant’s father returned from arable land and asked his deceased mother to give him food, but when the deceased asked him to wait for some time as the food was not fully ready by then, he became enraged and attacked fatally. He was killed with a sharp-edged weapon, so katuri.

The witness in question stated that there was no one other than him at the time of the incident, but after he made the hulla sound, many people came to the scene. The court was of the opinion that the minor witness had no reason to accuse his father of murdering his mother.

“In case PW12 remained unshaken in the cross-examination and especially in the event that the body of the deceased was found in the courtyard, bloody soil and bloody katuri were seized and his evidence was corroborated by medical evidence. We are of the view that the evidence presented by the doctor (PW9) and the chemical examination report (Ext. 8)… the learned court has held that he We are of the opinion that he was quite right to accept his evidence and to regard the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.” it kept.

Finally, the Court considered the argument on behalf of the appellant that his action amounted to culpable homicide, which did not amount to murder. Considering the actual scenario, the Court observed that the deceased had not caused any serious or sudden provocation to the appellant by simply asking him to wait for the food as the food was not yet fully cooked.

“The appellant may be hungry when he returns from the field, and in Panchatantra Verse 4.16 it says ‘Bubhuksitah Kim Na Karoti Papam, meaning a hungry person can commit any sin’ and quotes Jean de La Fontaine, ‘an hungry stomach has no sin. However, the appellant reacted and brought ‘katuri’ from inside the house and attacked the vital parts of the deceased’s body like face, head, neck, ears etc. and inflicting multiple extensive cutting injuries sufficient to cause death under normal circumstances indicates intent to commit murder.” he added.

The court emphasized that in this case there was no argument or fight between the appellant and the deceased and therefore it cannot be said that a wife caused a serious and sudden provocation to her hungry husband by simply requesting him to wait for a while to eat. .

Accordingly, it was held that the act of the appellant could not fall within the scope of any of the exceptions under Article 300 of the IPC and the same amounted to the crime of murder punishable under Article 302. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: Raikishore Jena / State of Odisha

Case Number: JCRLA No. 74, 2010

Decision Date: 28 October 2024

Appellant Lawyer: Smt. Mina Kumari Das, Lawyer

State Advisor: Mr. Rajesh Tripathy, Addl. Standing Advisor

Quotation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 89

Click Here to Read/Download the Order