VINODSHASHIKANT INGLE and ANR. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. STATION OFFICER, BORGAON MANJU STATION,
Culpable Homicide vs. Murder: Provocation, Intention, and Common Intention under the Indian Penal Code - Analysis of Evidence and Application of Legal Principles.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:14304-DB
Decision Date: 15-12-2025
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Facts: Vinod Ingle assaulted Arun Ingle (the deceased) following a quarrel stemming from Pooja Ingle (Vinod's wife) throwing garbage near Arun's house. Arun later died from his injuries. The Sessions Court convicted Vinod and Pooja under Section 302 read with 34 (murder with common intention) and Section 452 read with 34 (house-trespass with common intention) of the IPC.
- Procedural Posture: Vinod and Pooja appealed the Sessions Court's judgment to the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench.
- Issue: (1) Did Vinod Ingle commit murder, or does his act fall under culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to grave and sudden provocation? (2) Did Pooja Ingle share a common intention with Vinod Ingle to commit murder? (3) Were both accused guilty of house-trespass?
- Holding: (1) The High Court altered Vinod Ingle's conviction to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) due to grave and sudden provocation. (2) The High Court acquitted Pooja Ingle of the murder charge under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC, finding no evidence of common intention. (3) The High Court upheld the conviction of both accused under Section 452 read with 34 of the IPC for house-trespass.
- Reasoning: The Court found that Vinod acted under grave and sudden provocation after learning that the deceased had assaulted his wife, Pooja. The weapon used (a stick) was not dangerous and was picked up at the scene, indicating a lack of premeditation. The Court emphasized that the intention to cause death is a pivotal factor in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide. Regarding Pooja, the Court found no evidence that she shared a common intention with Vinod to cause Arun's death. The Court maintained the conviction for house-trespass, as both accused had entered the deceased's house unlawfully. The Court referenced K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605) and Ajmal vs. State of Kerala ((2022)9 SCC 766) to clarify the distinction between murder and culpable homicide and the application of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC. It also cited Vijay vs. State, MANU/SC/0085/2025, for the ingredients of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.
🔒 For Members Only