Orissa High Court Supports Murder Conviction: No Serious Provocation If Wife Asks Hungry Husband to Wait for Food.
The Orissa High Court stated that a wife asking her hungry husband to wait a bit while food is being prepared does not count as serious provocation. This statement came during an appeal by the husband, who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justices S.K. Sahoo and Chittaranjan Dash explained that there was no argument or fight in this situation. They noted that a housewife cannot be seen as provoking her husband to the point of violence just by asking him to be patient while she cooks. The court emphasized that nothing occurred on the day of the incident that could justify the husband’s extreme reaction, which led him to attack his wife in front of their young daughter.
In 2008, around noon, the accused came home from his farm and asked his wife, the deceased, for food. She told him to wait a bit since she was still cooking. This made him angry, and he went inside the house, grabbed a ‘Katuri’, and hit her multiple times on her face, head, and ear, leading to her immediate death. An FIR was filed for murder, and the accused was arrested. The Trial Court found him guilty under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life in prison with a fine of Rs. 5,000. Upset with the conviction, he appealed to the High Court.
The High Court noted that there was no serious provocation from the deceased just for asking him to wait for food. While the accused may have been hungry, the way he reacted—fetching the ‘Katuri’ and attacking her on vital areas like the face, head, neck, and ear, causing nine severe injuries that could lead to death—indicated his intention to kill.
The Court observed that the actions of the Appellant do not fit any exceptions listed in Section 300 of the IPC. Therefore, the Appellant’s lawyer’s claim that this is a case of culpable homicide rather than murder is not valid. The Court also stated that the Trial Court was right to find the accused guilty under Section 302 of the IPC. The Court found no issues with the Trial Court’s judgment and confirmed it. The Appellant has been in custody for about sixteen years. If the Appellant qualifies for any benefits under sections 432 and 433 of the Cr.P.C. (sections 473 and 474 of BNSS), the relevant Government may review this according to established principles and guidelines. It is the responsibility of the appropriate Government to make this decision based on the rules. As a result, the High Court dismissed the Appeal and maintained the conviction of the accused.
Cause Title: Raikishore Jena v. State of Odisha
