Killing of wife inflicting 26 stab wounds: Bombay High Court reduces jail term of husband from life to 10 years

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday reduced the life sentence of a man convicted for murdering his wife to ten years observing that the act was a result of provocation which had left his "pride wounded" [Pravin Khimji Chouhan v The State of Maharashtra].A Bench of Justices Sadhana Jadhav and Prithviraj Chavan noted that prior to the crime, the couple indulged in a quarrel, their tempers were high and they had also consumed alcohol. “The statement of the accused recorded by the police would show that he was left with a feeling of mortification. According to him, he was left with a wounded pride, which resulted in the brutal death of his wife”, the Court said.It, therefore, set aside his conviction for murder under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and instead convicted him for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.The accused-husband had killed his wife using a knife inflicting 26 stab and incised wounds..The Bench also remarked that in every alternate case they were dealing with the murder of a wife by the husband who violently attacked his wife in the moment of grave and sudden provocation by the wife. "There is physical violence, there is sexual violence, however, this sort of physical violence is less seen amongst women even in a moment of anger and in all probabilities, it is the mother in a woman which supersedes her element of physical violence. There could be psychological violence by women," the Bench observed. .The accused, Pravin Khimji Chauhan, had been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life by the Raigad Sessions Court, Maharashtra. The crime was registered against him, after he voluntarily made a statement to the police confessing to the crime and identifying his wife's body after committing the offence.He challenged the order in appeal before the High Court seeking a sympathetic view from the Court.It was the appellant's case, that the act committed was not premeditated. He argued that he lost self-control after being provoked by his wife and hence amounted assault upon her.According to Chauhan, his wife had held a knife against him, and his attack on her was an act of self-defence.The prosecution however opposed the appeal by stating that the number of injuries inflicted on the deceased were as many as 26 blows and hence he deserved no sympathy..Noting that both parties had acted in a fit of anger, the Bench remarked that they almost forgot their children during the incident. "The mother died and the father was thrown to the gallows by his own act," the bench stated..The Court noted from the injury on the appellant's palm, that he may have acted in self-defence.The Court also noted that the marriage of the accused as well as the deceased had failed on two occasions before they got married to each other. Further, after examining the phone call records he had started suspecting the honesty of his wife in their marital relationship."At the time of incident, they were quarreling. The tempers were high. It is the case of the accused that the conduct of his wife at the relevant time was beyond reproach. According to him, he had maintained his cool for quite sometime. However, he lost it when she brought the knife from the kitchen and provoked him to hurt her if he could. Probably, the chauvinism in him has arisen. She had expressed disgust and abhorrence at his very manliness and had forgotten for a moment that he is a father of their two daughters," the Court said.The Bench also appreciated the conduct of the accused as he made no attempt to cause disappearance of evidence. He voluntarily called upon his family and relatives and admitted the guilt before he approached the police station.Taking into consideration the circumstances in which the incident has occurred, the Court concluded that the present seemed to be a case of culpable homicide (Section 304) and not murder. In view of this, imprisonment of 10 years would meet the ends of justice, the Court held..The same bench had recently commuted the sentence of another convict recently after observing that there was grave and sudden provocation when the wife publicly called the husband impotent..Advocate Farhana Shah appeared for the appellant. Assistant Public Prosecutor Arfan Sait appeared for State..[Read Judgment]