The Supreme Court questions MP High Court over its reduction of a husband’s murder conviction, calling the High Court’s treatment of the evidence cryptic and issuing notice on why the Section 302 IPC conviction should not be restored.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has questioned the Madhya Pradesh High Court for reducing a man’s conviction for murdering his wife from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, and has issued notice asking him to show cause why the Trial Court’s murder conviction should not be restored [Rampal Parteti v. State of Madhya Pradesh].
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 15290 of 2026 on Thursday, October 8, 2026. The notice is returnable on November 18, 2026.
The case
The Sessions Court at Sausar, Chhindwara, had convicted the petitioner under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine. The prosecution alleged that he assaulted her on December 28, 2021, that she suffered serious head injuries and that she died on December 30, 2021. It also alleged that she told her father and sister that her husband had assaulted her over petty domestic issues. These are the prosecution’s allegations as recorded in the proceedings.
In his appeal (CRA No. 9510 of 2024), the Madhya Pradesh High Court partly allowed the appeal and altered the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, holding that the case fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
What the Supreme Court said
The Bench found that the High Court had dealt with the evidence in a very cryptic and very casual manner. It noted that the High Court had not given due weight to the evidence of the deceased’s sister (PW-7), an important witness to the alleged oral dying declaration.
Expressing surprise that the High Court had thought fit to partly allow the appeal, the Court questioned how the conviction could fall under Section 304 Part II IPC. It observed that the conviction “at the most could have been under Section 304 Part I of the IPC” and that there was no question of bringing the case within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
ALSO READ: Courts Can’t Convict On Surmises: Supreme Court Faults HC Reasoning In Feud Killing
The directions
Indicating that it was inclined to interfere, the Court issued notice to the accused, returnable on November 18, 2026, calling on him to show why the Trial Court’s murder conviction should not be restored. The State has been directed to serve the notice through the Superintendent of Jail, Chhindwara, and the order is to be translated into Hindi for the accused.
Why the order matters
The order is a preliminary one. It is a notice stage observation, and the Court has not finally decided whether the conviction will be restored. The petitioner’s case remains untested at this stage, the Court has expressed no final view on the merits, and the presumption of innocence continues to apply until guilt is finally established by a court of law.
The order signals the Court’s scrutiny of High Court decisions that downgrade murder convictions without engaging closely with the evidence, including a dying declaration made to relatives.
Case Title: Rampal Parteti v. State of Madhya Pradesh [SLP (Crl.) No. 15290 of 2026]
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 8, 2026
Appearances: For the petitioner: Ms. Kumud Lata Das (AOR), Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ms. Pooja Rathore, Mr. Ashutosh Saini, Mr. Harsh Ajay Singh and Mr. Puneet. For the respondent: Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah (AOR), Mr. Shantanu Singh and Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh.