Fictional depiction of a crime written by Diksha Sharma, a student at Government Law College, Mumbai
Paul versus the state of Kerala
Jessy, the applicant’s wife, was subjected to cruelty and brutality by the applicant and his mother. On October 11, 1998, the deceased was confronted by her mother-in-law with intolerable behavior, because of which she felt molested and offended. She left the house in search of her husband, whom she found drinking alcohol with his friends and who was attacked by him in front of everyone. She was then found dead that same night by throttling her neck. However, the husband had made a wrong case by calling death suicide. The appellant and his mother were acquitted by the court, and the Kerala Supreme Court found guilty under Section 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 / -. The state appealed the acquittal.
Is the applicant guilty of the murder?
• Section 300, The Indian Criminal Code – Murder
• Section 302, The Indian Criminal Code – Punishment for Murder
• Section 304, The Indian Penal Code – Penalty for culpable murder other than murder
• Section 105, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Burden of Proof
• § 313 StPO
Allegation of the complainant:
The learned attorney stated that Jessy had aborted a child and was suffering from depression. Although there was a dispute and it was believed that the complainant had set up a suicide site, he must be granted the benefit of Exemption 4 of Section 300.
Statement of the respondent:
The Respondent mentioned in her contribution that the deceased had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the complainant and his mother. After examining several witnesses and reports of chemical analyzes, various parts of the deceased’s body were rubbed and crushed. Hence, the decision of the High Court should stall.
Comments from the court:
The judgment found that the High Court had found an incomplete examination by the trial judge under Section 313 CrPc and indicated the need to consider Section 106. The complainant had asserted that at the time of the incident there was no one except himself in the bedroom, which placed the burden of proof on him under Section 105. Therefore, he apparently presented a false case depicting the deceased’s suicide. Even if the complainant was drunk, he is still liable for the measures he has taken. If that act had not resulted in murder, it would have been within the scope of Section 304. The bruise, abrasion, and bruise make the case more obvious.
The court concluded that the applicant had raised a false objection and caused his wife’s death by choking. The law constitutes murder as defined in Section 300 of the IPC and makes no exceptions to it.