Tanvi Sinha
Bombay High court in an order passed earlier this month rejected a man’s appeal for reduction of sentence for the killing of his wife, on grounds of grave and sudden provocation. The High Court very clearly stated that a wife’s refusal to make tea for the husband cannot be accepted as grave and sudden provocation. The Court also observed that the wife is not a ‘chattel or an object.’
The High Court also believed that the couple’s 6-year old daughter’s testimony inspired confidence and thus, cannot be disregarded.
Justice Revati Mohite Dere has rejected the appeal of the man who stated that he had murdered his wife in a fit of rage when she refused to make him a cup of tea.
Grave and Sudden Provocation in the IPC stands not as a complete defence against homicide, but as an exception to murder (Section 300 (1) of the IPC), and something that is termed culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The sentence for the same is lesser than that of Section 300- Murder, a mere 10 years instead of Death or life imprisonment.
Bombay High court referred to the case as a proof of patriarchy still existing in society due to which this man had the audacity to treat his wife like property.
The court judged the facts of the case and noticed that the man had after assaulting his wife, not even tried to take her to the hospital and had instead wasted time in destroying the evidence.
Additionally, the judge noted that something like the woman refusing to make tea is not sufficient provocation, as marriage is supposed to be partnership based on equality and termed the appellant’s defence ludicrous.
