A wife asking her hungry husband to wait for some time for food is not serious and sudden provocation which would prompt him to murder her, the Orissa High Court had to observe while dealing with a murder case.

A bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash made these observations on October 28 while upholding the conviction of a man for murdering his wife.

The court made the observation while rejecting the argument of the husband’s lawyer that it would be a case of culpable homicide not
amounted to murder because the husband acted on gross and sudden provocation by the wife.

The court clarified that gross and sudden provocation is a mixed question of law and fact. Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC states that a culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without intent in a sudden fight in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner.

“There is neither quarrel nor fight in this case. A housewife cannot be said to have caused serious and sudden provocation to her hungry husband when she asks him to wait for a while as the preparation of food is in process. It is clear in this case that on the day of the incident nothing had happened to cause sudden provocation serious enough to make the appellant lose his temper and mercilessly beat his helpless wife in front of his minor daughter,” read the order.

Raikishore Jena had appealed for relief from the court order that had convicted him of murdering his wife.

According to the details of the case, Jena returned home and asked his wife to serve him food. The wife asked him to wait for a while as the preparations were still going on.

Upset with her wife’s response, he brought a katuri (sharp weapon) and assaulted his wife repeatedly on vital organs like head, face, neck, ear etc. The wife died on the spot.

The district court convicted him based on the evidence of his minor daughter, the autopsy report and the testimony of the doctor.

“The appellant may have been hungry when he returned from the field and it is said in the Panchatantra Verse 4.16 that ‘Bubhuksitah Kim Na Karoti Papam, ie a hungry person can commit any sin’ and Jean de La Fontaine quotes, ‘a hungry stomach has no ears”, but the manner in which the appellant reacted and brought “katuri” from inside the house and assaulted the deceased on vital parts of the body like face, head, neck, ear etc., and inflicted as many as nine counts of extensive lacerations sufficient in nature to cause death, shows his intent to commit murder, the court said. order read.