Slapping Wife During Quarrel Attracts Section 304 Part-II IPC, Not Murder: Karnataka HC [Read Judgment]

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has set aside the life sentence imposed on a man for the murder of his wife under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and convicted him instead of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II, holding that the incident occurred in a quarrel in which he slapped her and she fell, and that, although the injury was not shown to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, he had the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death.

A Division Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice B. Pramod delivered the judgment on 29.09.2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2021, filed by Anjaneyalu against the State of Karnataka. The judgment was authored by Justice Mohammad Nawaz. The appellant had challenged the judgment dated 05.01.2021 and the sentence order dated 07.01.2021 of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, in Sessions Case No. 10016/2018, convicting him under Section 498A and Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 2,000 and to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 respectively.

According to the prosecution, the marriage between the appellant and his wife Nandini was a love marriage, and they had two children. It was alleged that he harassed her to go to work despite her thyroid illness and, about 15 days before the incident, assaulted her causing bleeding injuries to her nose. On 01.04.2016, between 10 and 11 a.m., he allegedly assaulted her after a quarrel, following which she collapsed and was declared dead at Sarathi Hospital. The case was registered on a complaint by her father, and the appellant was charged under Section 498A, Section 304-B and alternatively Section 302. The trial court held that no case was made out under Section 304-B as there was no dowry harassment, and the prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked sixteen exhibits.

The appellant's defence was that his wife suffered from thyroid and heart problems, that she had been advised valve replacement as per a discharge summary of M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, that she died of cardiac arrest, and that he was away at work and took her to hospital on finding her unconscious. His counsel argued that the prosecution had not established a homicidal death and that taking her to hospital showed his innocence.

The court found the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 clear and cogent on continuous harassment and cruelty, upholding the conviction under Section 498A. On the cause of death, it noted that the post mortem report, Ex.P9, recorded a 6 x 8 cm swelling over the temporo-parietal region, a deep cut wound over the right eyebrow and a black eye, and that PW-5, the doctor, opined that the death was due to cardio-respiratory arrest caused by severe traumatic impact and that such injuries could not have been caused by a fall on objects in the room. It held that the defence of a fall due to giddiness from a heart ailment was not established.

The court also relied on the evidence of PW-2, Nagalakshmi, who deposed that she heard the quarrel and that the accused told her that in the quarrel he had assaulted the deceased and she had fallen down, after which both took her to the hospital. Holding that the material showed the incident took place in a quarrel in which the accused slapped the deceased and she fell, and that PW-5's evidence did not show the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the bench concluded that the case did not fall within the definition of murder in Section 300, though the accused had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, bringing it under Section 304 Part-II.

The court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302, convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000, and in default simple imprisonment for six months. The conviction and sentence under Section 498A were confirmed, the sentences are to run concurrently, and the appellant is entitled to set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 468 of the BNSS, 2023). The trial court's direction on payment of compensation out of the fine and its reference to the District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru Rural, to decide compensation under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 were left unaltered.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Sri Krishnappa N.R., Advocate.

For the Respondent: Sri Vijaykumar Majage, SPP-II, along with Smt. Sowmya R., High Court Government Pleader.

Case Title: Anjaneyalu vs. The State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 398 of 2021 (2026:KHC:54138-DB)

[Read Judgment]