ANIL KUMAR  versus THE STATE OF KERALA
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 173, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 173 : 2023 INSC 965
173
CASE DETAILS
ANIL KUMAR 
v.
THE STATE OF KERALA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2697 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 01, 2023 
[ABHAY S. OKA AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether in the circumstances of the instant 
case, the appellant had any premeditated mind to kill the deceased or was 
it due to grave and sudden provocation which would not amount to murder 
or would at best be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder 
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 10 years 
or with ﬁ ne or with both u/s. 304 Part-II of IPC. 
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s. 304 Part-II – Prosecution case that 
the appellant, with the intention to kill his wife, lighted a matchstick 
and threw it upon her when she had already poured kerosene upon 
herself due to the quarrel with the appellant – Wife died – Appellant was 
convicted u/ss. 302 and 498-A IPC by both the courts below – Appellant 
contended that provisions of s.302 IPC are not applicable and at best 
he can be charged u/s. 304 Part-II of IPC – Propriety:
Held: The ﬁ rst dying declaration is in the form of the statement Ext.P1 
and the other statement which can be read as a dying declaration is Ext.P10 
– Both the statements, if read together, would reveal that on the fateful day, 
the appellant had assaulted the deceased wife under the inﬂ uence of alcohol 
– He even struck a blow on her chest and pushed her – When the assault of 
the appellant became
unbearable, she took the cane of kerosene from kitchen 
and poured it on her body whereupon her husband lighted a matchstick and 
burnt her – Magistrate-PW5, before whom one of the dying declarations 
was recorded, proves the correctness of the statement – Appellant was in
174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
habit of drinking alcohol and used to assault her frequently in inebriated 
condition – Victim also stated that various criminal cases are pending against 
the appellant in connection with similar kind of assaults – The above aspect, 
as stated by the deceased, was corroborated by the testimony of PW21 
(Investigating Oﬃ  cer) – On the day of incident, during their quarrel, a 
neighbour-PW1 had visited their house and the deceased wife had shown 
some injuries received by her during the assault – However, realizing the 
quarrel between the two, he left saying that he would come later on – It was 
thereafter that the incident of pouring kerosene and burning took place – 
So, there was suﬃ  cient time in between the two acts and it cannot be said 
that there was a sudden quarrel and provocation leading to burning – In the 
instant case, the appellant upon seeing the deceased drenched in kerosene 
clearly took advantage of the situation and lighted a matchstick and threw 
it upon her so that she can be burnt – The appellant having taken “undue 
advantage” of the situation cannot be extended the beneﬁ t of Exception 4 
to s.300 IPC so as to bring the case within the ambit of Part-II of s.304 IPC. 
[Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20 and 21]
LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2000) 10 SCC 324 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Criminal Appeal 
No.2697 of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2019 of the High Court of 
Kerala at Ernakulam in CRLA No.1217 of 2015.
Appearances:
Ms. Aparna Jha, Abhishek Yadav, Ms. Priyanka Mathur, Ms. Ipsita 
Behura, Ms. Pooja Singh, Ms. Geeta Verma, Ms. Jessy Kurian, Ms. Ruby 
Mohd. Wasim, Advs. for the Appellant.
Abraham Mathew, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, 
Advs. for the respondent.
175
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. The appellant Anil Kumar has been convicted under Sections 302 
and 498A of the Indian Penal Code1 by both the courts below and has been 
sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay ﬁ ne of Rs.50,000/-, and in default 
to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 302 IPC and 
rigorous imprisonment of one year under Section 498A IPC with direction 
that both the sentences would run concurrently. 
2. The incident is of 26.09.2010 and had taken place at 9:00 am in the 
morning at the house of the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant, 
with the intention to kill his wife, lighted a matchstick and threw it upon 
her when she had already poured kerosene upon herself due to the quarrel 
with the appellant. 
3. The FIR No.621/2010 dated 26.09.2010 was initially registered 
under Section 307 IPC wherein it has been stated that the deceased wife, 
due to unbearable mental and physical harassment caused to her by the 
appellant, poured kerosene upon herself to deter the appellant from causing 
further torture to her and that the appellant with the clear intention to kill 
her took advantage of the situation and lighted the matchstick and threw 
it on her body uttering “You Die”. Thus, the deceased wife was inﬂ icted 
with burn injuries at their residence by the appellant with clear intention of 
killing her. Subsequently, when the deceased wife died in the hospital, the 
case was converted
into that under Sections 302 and 498A of IPC. 
4. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, the appellant was charged for 
uxoricide.
5. There is a clear and clinching evidence on record that the appellant 
used to harass the deceased wife by making demands for dowry and that both 
of them used to quarrel a lot. The marriage between the two was solemnized 
about 11 years before the date of incident and from the wedlock they had 
1 
 “IPC”, for short
ANIL KUMAR v. THE STATE OF KERALA
176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
a boy and a girl. At the time of the incident, their children were playing in 
the courtyard and that the boy, though of a tender age, had deposed that 
appellant was in habit of beating his wife and there used to be frequent 
quarrels between his parents.
6. In the trial court as well as before the High Court, the defence of 
the appellant was that he is not at all guilty of burning his wife. She had the 
suicidal tendency and had tried to immolate herself on one earlier occasion 
and had once even tried to cut her veins. She herself had poured kerosene 
upon herself and set herself on ﬁ re. The appellant had simply tried to douse 
the ﬁ re by pouring water from the bucket. 
7. The defence so set up by the appellant was not accepted by either of 
the courts below in view of the overwhelming evidence on record regarding 
their frequent quarrel and the harassment meted out to the deceased wife. 
The ocular evidence of the witnesses clearly proved that on the date of the 
incident, there was again a quarrel between both of them though on a petty 
matter but the deceased wife, in order to avoid torture at the hands of the 
appellant and to deter him, went inside the kitchen and poured kerosene on 
herself. Thereafter, the appellant took advantage of the situation and set her 
on ﬁ re.
8. We had heard the learned counsel for the parties. 
9. Learned counsel for the appellant had argued that the appellant 
had no premeditated mind to
kill the deceased wife and that he had no 
intention even to kill her. Therefore, the provisions of Section 302 IPC are 
not applicable and at best he can be charged under Section 304 Part-II of 
IPC. 
10. The above submission has been strongly opposed on the ground that 
the appellant had burnt the deceased wife with a matchstick fully knowing 
that she was drenched in kerosene oil and that lightning of matchstick and 
throwing it upon her would certainly cause her death. 
11. In the case at hand, admittedly, there are multiple dying declarations 
on record. The ﬁ rst dying declaration is in the form of the statement Ext.P1. 
This statement of the deceased wife before her death was made before the 
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, i.e. PW5. The said statement 
clearly reveals the cause and circumstances of the death of the deceased wife.
177
12. The other statement which can be read as a dying declaration is 
Ext.P10 recorded by PW16, Head Constable, Kuruppampady Police at 
General hospital, Ernakulam, wherein also the deceased wife repeated the 
same narration as in Ext.P1 in relation to the incident of her death.
13. Both the above statements, if read together, would reveal that on 
the fateful day, the appellant had assaulted the deceased wife under the 
inﬂ uence of alcohol. He even struck a blow on her chest and pushed her. 
At the time of the said incident, the children were playing in the courtyard. 
When the assault of the appellant became unbearable, she took the cane of 
kerosene from kitchen and poured it on her body whereupon her husband 
lighted a matchstick and burnt her.
14. The Magistrate (PW5), before whom one of the dying declarations 
was recorded, proves the correctness of the statement and that when the 
statement of the deceased was recorded, she was coherent and oriented. He 
also accepted that there was no reason for him to believe that the deceased 
was not in a position to make the statement or that the statement made by 
her stands vitiated for any reason. The statement of PW5 was supported by 
that of PW14 (Dr. K. Venugopal). 
15. The statement of the deceased wife further categorically states 
that the appellant was in habit of drinking alcohol and used to assault her 
frequently in inebriated condition. She also stated that various criminal 
cases are pending against the
appellant in connection with similar kind of 
assaults. The above aspect, as stated by the deceased, was corroborated by 
the testimony of PW21 (Investigating Oﬃ  cer). Even the DW1 (Saji Mathew) 
also proved that the deceased, at the time of the admission in the hospital, 
narrated about her burn injuries and alleged that her husband assaulted her 
and that she had poured kerosene on herself whereupon her husband had 
set her on ﬁ re. The medical report reveals that the deceased had suﬀ ered 
96% burn injuries.
16. The incident was also proved by the oral testimony of PW1 
(Sahajan) and PW2 (Gopalakrishnan), the neighbours who took the deceased 
to the hospital in a jeep and have seen the deceased in burning state. 
17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the 
overwhelming evidence on record, there is no escape from the conclusion 
ANIL KUMAR v. THE STATE OF KERALA
[PANKAJ MITHAL, J.]
178 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
that the deceased died of burn injuries. She had herself poured kerosene 
upon her body and that the appellant set her ablaze and later tried to douse 
the ﬁ re by pouring water. The appellant also accompanied the deceased to 
the hospital. 
18. Now the only point for consideration is whether in the above 
circumstances, the appellant had any premeditated mind to kill the deceased 
or was it due to grave and sudden provocation which would not amount to 
murder or would at best be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to 
murder punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 
10 years or with ﬁ ne or with both under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 
19. In support of his above argument, learned counsel for the appellant 
relied upon Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan2 which was case of a similar kind 
in connection with uxoricide by burning. However, it would be relevant and 
material to refer to Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC which deﬁ nes “Murder” 
before extending the beneﬁ t of the above decision to the appellant. The said 
exception reads as under:
“Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed 
without premeditation in a sudden ﬁ ght in the heat of passion upon a 
sudden quarrel and without the oﬀ ender having taken undue advantage 
or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 
Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party oﬀ ers the 
provocation or commits the ﬁ rst assault.”
20. It is on the
strength of the above exception that from the side of 
the appellant it has been argued that the appellant is not guilty of murder as 
he had no premeditated mind and that the action of the appellant arose out 
of a sudden ﬁ ght. In the ﬁ rst place, the ﬁ ght was not sudden. The appellant 
and the deceased wife had a past history of quarrel and that they had been 
quarrelling on the fateful day also since before the actual incident. During 
their quarrel, a neighbour/(Sahajan) i.e. PW1 had visited their house and the 
deceased wife had shown some injuries received by her during the assault. 
However, realizing the quarrel between the two, he left saying that he would 
come later on. It was thereafter that the incident of pouring kerosene and 
2 
  (2000) 10 SCC 324
179
burning took place. So, there was suﬃ  cient time in between the two acts and 
it cannot be said that there was a sudden quarrel and provocation leading 
to burning. The appellant saw the deceased wife drenched in kerosene and 
was conscious that if lighted, she would be burnt to death even then ignited 
her to ﬁ re. This shows premeditated mind to kill her. More particularly, the 
appellant cannot take advantage of the 4th Exception only on the pretext 
that it was not on account of premeditated mind or out of a sudden ﬁ ght 
or that his intentions were not bad as he tried his best to douse the ﬁ re and 
to save the life of the deceased wife for the reason that the beneﬁ t of the 
above exception would have been available to him, had he not taken undue 
advantage of the situation. 
21. The exception clearly in unequivocal term states that it would 
be applicable where culpable homicide is committed not only without 
premeditated mind in a sudden ﬁ ght or quarrel but also without the oﬀ ender 
taking “undue advantage” of the situation. In the instant case, the appellant 
upon seeing the deceased drenched in kerosene clearly took advantage of 
the situation and lighted a matchstick and threw it upon her so that she can 
be burnt. The appellant having taken “undue advantage” of the situation 
cannot be extended the beneﬁ t of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC so as to 
bring the case within the ambit of Part-II of 304 IPC.
22. In view of the above legal position, the ruling
cited above, viz. 
Kalu Ram (supra) would not beneﬁ t the appellant.
23. The First Information Report and the dying declarations on record 
clearly contain the statement of the deceased that when she had poured 
kerosene upon herself to deter the appellant from ﬁ ghting and assaulting, 
he lighted a matchstick and with the intention to kill her, threw it upon her 
by saying “You Die”. 
24. The aforesaid evidence clinches the issue and establishes beyond 
doubt that the appellant is guilty of the oﬀ ence of culpable homicide 
amounting to murder and is not entitled to beneﬁ t of the Exception 4 to 
Section 300 IPC.
25. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the courts below have not 
committed any error of fact or law in convicting and sentencing him to a 
maximum punishment of life imprisonment. 
ANIL KUMAR v. THE STATE OF KERALA
[PANKAJ MITHAL, J.]

180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
26. The appeal accordingly lacks merit and is dismissed. However, 
we would observe that the appellant who is in jail may, in usual course, be 
at liberty to apply for remission in accordance with the prevailing policy 
of the State.
Headnotes prepared by:  
Appeal dismissed.
Ankit Gyan