Orissa High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304-II IPC: “Child Witness Testimony Sufficient to Establish Guilt Even in Absence of Clear Motive”

Court’s Decision:

The Orissa High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower court’s judgment of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 10,000. The appellant’s plea that his act was exempted by Section 86 of IPC due to intoxication was rejected, as there was no evidence of involuntary intoxication.

Facts:

On February 11, 2018, the appellant, in an inebriated state, engaged in a heated argument with his wife, which escalated into violence. During the quarrel, he poured kerosene on his wife and set her on fire using a matchstick, despite their son’s protests. Neighbors responded to the commotion and shifted the victim to the hospital. However, the victim succumbed to her injuries on February 27, 2018, while under treatment at home due to the family’s inability to afford further medical care.

The police registered a case against the appellant for offenses under Sections 324, 326, and 307 of IPC, which were later modified to Sections 498-A and 302 during the course of the investigation. The trial court, however, convicted the appellant under Section 304-II IPC, concluding that the death resulted from his reckless conduct without any intent to murder.

Issues:

1. Whether the appellant was guilty of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-II IPC.
2. Whether the defense of intoxication under Section 86 IPC could be applied to reduce the criminal liability of the appellant.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The appellant argued that:

1. There was no direct evidence to establish his guilt except for the testimony of their son, a child witness, whose evidence should not be relied upon due to inconsistencies and potential bias.
2. The appellant was heavily intoxicated at the time of the incident, and therefore, he lacked the requisite intention or knowledge to commit the crime, making him eligible for protection under Section 86 IPC.
3. The prosecution failed to prove the motive, making the case doubtful.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The State contended that:

1. The testimony of the child witness, despite being a single testimony, was reliable, corroborated by other witnesses and supported by the principle of res gestae.
2. The appellant’s intoxication was voluntary and did not absolve him of his criminal liability, as established under Section 86 IPC.
3. There was overwhelming evidence that the appellant caused the victim’s death through his reckless act.

Analysis of the Law:

The court observed that under Section 304-II IPC, the offender must have knowledge that his act is likely to cause death. In this case, the appellant’s conduct of pouring kerosene and setting the victim ablaze was sufficient to infer such knowledge. The Court held that even though the appellant was intoxicated, Section 86 IPC only protects individuals if they were involuntarily intoxicated or intoxicated against their will. Since the appellant failed to provide evidence of involuntary intoxication, his plea was rejected.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court referenced various judgments to affirm that:

1. The testimony of a single witness, if reliable, is sufficient for conviction.
2. A child witness’s testimony must be scrutinized carefully, but it cannot be discarded solely on the ground of age.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court reasoned that the testimony of the child witness (their son) was credible, firm, and consistent, despite being a single piece of direct evidence. The corroborative evidence from neighbors arriving immediately after the incident strengthened the prosecution’s case under the principle of res gestae. Moreover, the court emphasized that the absence of a clear motive does not vitiate the prosecution’s case when direct evidence establishes guilt.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the appellant’s reckless act of setting his wife on fire, knowing it could likely result in her death, amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-II IPC. The court found no reason to interfere with the lower court’s judgment.

Implications:

This ruling underscores that voluntary intoxication does not mitigate criminal liability for offenses involving knowledge under Section 304-II IPC. It also reaffirms the legal position that the evidence of a single child witness, if credible and corroborated, can form the basis for conviction in serious offenses.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Restores Suit Challenging Illegal Termination of Contract and Wrongful Invocation of Bank Guarantee — Suit Restored as Remedy Lies Elsewhere; Arbitration Not Applicable