• Call Us+91 7388255933
  • Email Uslawgiconivisam@gmail.com
LaWGiCo
  • Home
  • Law Updates
    • PIL is not maintainable in service matters: Supreme Court
  • About Us
  • Features
  • FAQ
  • Contact Us
Login Register

SC settles: Throttling spouse attracts Section 302—Exceptions 1 & 4 to Section 300 not attracted; intoxication no shield

SC settles: Throttling spouse attracts Section 302—Exceptions 1 & 4 to Section 300 not attracted; intoxication no shield

Case Name: Paul v. State of Kerala
Date of Judgment: JANUARY 21, 2020
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2020; 2020 INSC 69

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

Held: The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s act of throttling his wife clearly fell within the ambit of murder under Section 300 IPC. The defence plea that the death occurred due to suicide was found false, and the alternate contention for conversion to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC was rejected as neither Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation) nor Exception 4 (sudden fight without premeditation) was attracted. The Court reiterated that intoxication cannot negate the requisite mens rea unless it renders the person incapable of forming intent.

Summary: The appellant was charged with murdering his wife Jessy by throttling her in October 1998. Though acquitted by the trial court in the first round, the High Court reversed the acquittal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration from the stage of Section 313 CrPC. Upon retrial, the Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, which was affirmed by the High Court. In appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant restricted his plea to alteration of conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC. He argued that the incident occurred in a sudden quarrel under intoxication and without premeditation. The Court, however, noted medical evidence of multiple ante-mortem injuries consistent with throttling, rejected the suicide theory, and emphasized that no grave provocation by the deceased was established. Further, the appellant’s attempt to rely on intoxication was dismissed, as Section 86 IPC presumes knowledge of consequences unless intoxication was involuntary. Applying settled law from Rayavarapu Punnayya and other precedents, the Court held that the case fell squarely within Section 302 IPC.

Decision: The conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- was affirmed. Appeal dismissed.

Click here to Read/Download the Order

If You Need Any Help Contact LaWGiCo

+91 7388255933

Contact us today!

image

Whether you’re a litigant, a legal counsel, or a corporation — LaWGiCo bridges the gap between law and accessibility.

Quick Links

  • Home
  • Features
  • FAQ
  • Law Updates
  • Contact Us

Resources

  • About us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Contact us

268 GR FLR HIMSHIKHA COLONY PANCHKULA C.R.P.F. Pinjore Panchkula Haryana India 134104

+91 7388255933

lawgiconivisam@gmail.com

Open Time

Opening Day:
Monday - Friday: 8am to 6pm
Saturday: 9am to 5pm

Vacation:
All Sunday's

Copyright © 2025 LaWGiCo | All Rights Reserved

Design by: H T Logics PVT. LTD