The Karnataka High Court has reduced a husband’s murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, holding that a slap in a quarrel, after which his wife fell and died, did not meet the test for murder.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has set aside a husband’s conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him instead of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, holding that the evidence showed he slapped his wife in a quarrel and she fell, but did not show that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Court reduced the sentence to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and confirmed his conviction for cruelty under Section 498A IPC [Anjaneyalu v. State of Karnataka].
A Division Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice B. Pramod partly allowed the appeal against the judgment of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, which had convicted the husband under Sections 498A and 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The judgment was authored by Justice Nawaz.
The case
The couple had a love marriage and have two children. According to the prosecution, the husband kept insisting that his wife resume work even though she was unwell with a thyroid condition, and about 15 days before her death he assaulted her with his hands, causing bleeding injuries to her nose. On 1 April 2016, the prosecution alleged, he picked a quarrel with her at home between 10 and 11 a.m. and assaulted her, after which she collapsed. She was taken to hospital, where she was declared dead. Her father lodged the complaint that led to the FIR and the charges under Sections 304-B, 498A and, alternatively, 302 IPC.
The trial court found no case of dowry harassment and did not proceed under Section 304-B, but convicted the husband of cruelty and murder. Before the High Court, the husband said his wife had thyroid and heart problems, that she had been advised valve replacement, and that she fell because of giddiness. He argued that the prosecution had not proved a homicidal death and that taking her to hospital showed he was innocent.
What the Court said
The Bench relied on the post-mortem findings, which recorded a swelling over the temporo-parietal region of the head, a deep cut wound over the right eyebrow and a black eye. The doctor who conducted the autopsy opined that death may have been due to cardio-respiratory arrest caused by syncope following a severe traumatic impact on the left temporo-parietal region. In view of the injuries, the Bench held that the defence that she was injured because of a fall caused by her heart ailment “cannot be accepted and same is not established”.
The Court also noted the evidence of a neighbour, who deposed that she heard the quarrel and that the husband then told her that in the quarrel he had assaulted his wife and she had fallen down. The two of them then took the wife to hospital. The Court observed that the cut wound on the eyebrow could be explained by the wife falling after she was assaulted, since there was no case that a weapon was used. On the question whether the offence was murder, it held:
The above material on record goes to show that the incident took place in a quarrel and in the said quarrel, the accused slapped the deceased, as a result of which she fell down. As per medical evidence, the deceased has sustained a swelling over the left temporo parietal region. The evidence of PW.5 does not reveal that the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. However, the accused had the knowledge that the said act committed by him was likely to cause the death.
The Court therefore held that the act amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. On cruelty, it accepted the evidence of the deceased’s father and two other witnesses as “clear and cogent” as to continuous harassment, including the assault about 15 days before her death, and confirmed the Section 498A IPC conviction.
The directions
The Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC and convicted the husband under Section 304 Part II IPC, sentencing him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000, with six months’ simple imprisonment in default. The Section 498A IPC conviction and sentence were confirmed. The sentences will run concurrently and he is entitled to set-off under Section 428 of the CrPC (Section 468 of the BNSS, 2023). The trial court’s direction that compensation be paid out of the fine, and that the District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru Rural District, decide the quantum under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011, was left undisturbed.
ALSO READ: Courts Can’t Convict On Surmises: Supreme Court Faults HC Reasoning In Feud Killing
Why the judgment matters
The ruling turns on the line between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Here the Bench found that the prosecution had proved an assault in a quarrel and a resulting fall, but had not led medical evidence that the head injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. That gap took the case out of the murder limb and into Section 304 Part II, which rests on knowledge that the act is likely to cause death rather than on intention to cause it.
The judgment also shows the Court separating the two charges: the finding on the cause of death was reduced, while the evidence of continuing harassment during the marriage was held proved and the cruelty conviction was left intact.
Case Title: Anjaneyalu v. State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2021 (C)]
Bench: Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice B. Pramod, Karnataka High Court
Date of Judgment: September 29, 2026
Appearances: Krishnappa N.R., Advocate, for the appellant; Vijaykumar Majage, SPP-II, with Sowmya R., HCGP, for the State.