Wife's request to wait for food not grave provocation: Orissa High Court finds man guilty of murder

The Orissa High Court recently upheld the murder conviction of a man who attacked his wife with a katuri (chopping knife), leading to her death, after she requested him to wait for a while to be served food [Raikishore Jena v. State of Odisha].

A Bench of Justices SK Sahoo and Chittaranjan Dash rejected that man's explanation that he had attacked her because she had provoked him by asking him to wait for food when he had come home hungry after work in the field.

The man had urged the Court to to set aside his murder conviction, arguing that his actions could only amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder since the wife had provoked him into attacking her.

The Court, however, held that a wife cannot be considered to have caused "grave and sudden provocation" to her hungry husband simply by requesting him to wait while she prepared food.

“A housewife cannot be said to have caused grave and sudden provocation to her hungry husband when she requests her to wait for a while as the preparation of food is under process. It is clear in this case that on the day of the incident nothing had happened to cause sudden provocation which was grave enough to make the appellant lose his balance of mind and assault mercilessly to his helpless wife in front of his minor daughter,” the October 28 order said.

The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by Raikishore Jena (appellant) who had been accused of murdering his wife.

The prosecution submitted that the appellant had become infuriated when his wife asked him to wait for food upon his return from the fields. In his anger, he is said to have taken a katuri and inflicted multiple fatal injuries on her neck, face, head, and ear.

A trial court convicted him for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The trial court found him guilty on the basis of testimony given by his daughter, who allegedly witnessed the crime.

This verdict was challenged by the appellant before the Orissa High Court. His counsel argued that the testimony given by the child witness should be treated cautiously as she was living with her maternal relatives after her mother's death and may be tutored to give false evidence against the appellant.

The appellant added that his wife telling him to wait for food amounted to grave provocation for the attack, which could reduce the charge against him from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

However, the High Court dismissed this argument and concluded that the woman's death was homicidal.

The Court noted the appellant's reaction to his wife's request was disproportionate and also involved premeditation since he went to take a weapon (katuri) before inflicting repeated blows on vital parts of his wife's body.

“The manner in which the appellant reacted and brought the ‘katuri’ from inside the house and assaulted the deceased on the vital parts of her body like face, head, neck, ear, etc., and caused as many as nine numbers of extensive cut injuries which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, show his intention to commit the murder,” the Court said.

The Court concluded that the appellant’s actions were not covered by any exceptions to the offence of murder, as defined under Section 300 IPC, making the case under Section 302 (punishment for murder), IPC rather than Section 304.

 “Exception 4 to section 300 of I.P.C. states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Neither there is any quarrel nor fight in this case,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction for murder. However, the Court asked the State to examine whether he is eligible for remission, since he has already served 16 years in jail.

Advocate Mina Kumari Das appeared for the appellant, while Additional Standing Counsel Rajesh Tripathy appeared for the State.

[Read Judgement]