Conviction Modified
The MP High Court Section 304-II IPC ruling altered the conviction of a man from Section 304 Part-I IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC for causing the death of his wife. The Court held that the deceased’s remark amounted to grave and sudden provocation. It found that the incident was not premeditated and reduced the sentence accordingly.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh delivered the judgment on June 18, 2026, in Shiva v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.1863 of 2024.
Sentence Reduced
The Additional Sessions Judge, Chaurai, District Chhindwara, had earlier convicted the appellant in ST No.07/2022.
The trial court convicted him under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000. It also directed him to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment if he failed to pay the fine.
Appeal Before the High Court
The appellant challenged the trial court’s judgment dated June 20, 2023.
At the beginning of the hearing, his counsel withdrew I.A. No.6791 of 2024, which sought suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The High Court dismissed the application as withdrawn.
Prosecution Case
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred during the night of July 18–19, 2021.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant killed his wife, Kiran, by hitting her with a stone in the Kulbaheri riverbed near Kharra Ghat.
Alleged Provocation
The prosecution stated that the accused informed the complainant that he had killed his wife.
When questioned, the accused allegedly said that Kiran told him she could have thousands of husbands like him. Angered by the remark, he threw a stone at her, causing her death.
Appellant’s Arguments
Advocate Jagat Kumar Dehariya argued that the appellant was innocent and that the trial court wrongly convicted him.
He submitted that the prosecution witnesses gave contradictory statements. He also pointed out that Shivram Kahar (PW-1) stated that he had not lodged the FIR against the appellant.
State’s Response
Government Advocate Ajay Shukla supported the trial court’s judgment and requested the High Court to dismiss the appeal.
Evidence Before the Court
The prosecution examined eleven witnesses, including Shivram Kahar (PW-1), Balram Kahar (PW-2), Ram Kahar (PW-3), Kavita Kahar (PW-5), Dr. Anukrati Pandey (PW-8), Constable Nitin Singh (PW-10), and Investigating Officer Deepak Dehariya (PW-11).
The Court also considered the testimony of eight court witnesses. The defence examined Ashok Kahar as its witness.
PW-1’s Testimony
PW-1 stated that the accused called him around 12:30 a.m. and confessed that he had killed Kiran with a stone.
He reached the riverbank and found Kiran dead.
PW-1 further stated that the accused told him Kiran had remarked, “तेरे जैसे हजार पति कर लूंगी.”
He also confirmed that the police recorded the Dehati Merg Intimation and Dehati Nalishi.
Other Evidence
PW-2 and PW-3 supported the prosecution version.
Ram Kahar (PW-3) stated that Kiran was pregnant at the time of the incident.
Kavita Kahar (PW-5), the deceased’s mother, also testified that Kiran was seven months pregnant.
Medical and Phone Evidence
Dr. Anukrati Pandey (PW-8) found multiple injuries on the deceased. These included facial wounds, rib fractures, a fractured sternum, and bleeding from the nostril.
She concluded that severe injuries to vital organs caused cardiorespiratory failure. She also stated that the seized stone could have caused the injuries.
Constable Nitin Singh (PW-10) confirmed that the phone used to make the call belonged to the accused.
Investigating Officer Deepak Dehariya (PW-11) testified that the accused called him and admitted killing his wife.
Court witnesses also confirmed that police received information through Dial 100 from the accused’s mobile number.
High Court’s Findings
The High Court found sufficient evidence to conclude that the accused threw a stone at Kiran after she taunted him by saying she could have a thousand husbands like him.
The Court also noted that the accused immediately informed the police and other persons about the incident.
No Premeditation
The Bench observed that the accused’s conduct did not indicate premeditation.
It reasoned that a person planning a murder would not ordinarily call the police and admit to the offence.
The Court also noted that the accused picked up a nearby stone during the incident rather than carrying a weapon.
Grave and Sudden Provocation
The Bench examined Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, which deals with grave and sudden provocation.
It also considered other exceptions to Section 300 while determining whether the offence amounted to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The Court held that the wife’s statement indirectly questioned the husband’s worth as a person and as a husband. It concluded that such a remark could amount to grave and sudden provocation.
Reliance on Earlier Decisions
The High Court relied on Nawaz v. State represented by Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 517, where the Supreme Court altered a conviction after finding grave and sudden provocation.
The Bench also relied on Nandu Dada Survase v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.1106 of 2012), where the Bombay High Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part-II IPC in similar circumstances.
Conviction Altered
After examining the evidence, the High Court held that the conviction should remain for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, it found that Section 304 Part-I IPC did not apply.
The Court altered the conviction to Section 304 Part-II IPC.
Appeal Partly Allowed
The High Court partly allowed the appeal and convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC for causing Kiran’s death.
It sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000. In default of payment, he must undergo an additional one year’s rigorous imprisonment.
The MP High Court Section 304-II IPC judgment clarifies that courts may reduce a conviction when the evidence establishes grave and sudden provocation and rules out premeditation.
