On April 1, 2026, the Telangana High Court upheld the conviction of a wife for culpable homicide not amounting to murder after she stabbed her husband during a sudden argument, on the spur of the moment. She said that he had threatened and verbally abused her family in filthy language, which led to their fight.
Initially , the trial court sentenced her to four years’ in prison along with a Rs 500 fine, but the high court took a more lenient stance, reducing her sentence to just Rs 500 fine and eliminating any jail time.
So,what went down in this case?
To sum it up. they had been living separately in their respective homes for about a month for reasons that weren’t disclosed. One day he showed up in her house with some dates to give to their children. But as soon as he saw her, he began shouting at her and things escalated to him using filthy language against her parents as well.
In that moment of anger, she grabbed a knife and stabbed him. Hearing the commotion, a neighbour came running to her house and by the time he came, he (husband) had died and was lying on the floor.
The neighbour said that he heard him scream ‘Amma’ and that is the last word he allegedly spoke before dying from the stab wound.
The neighbour also called his mother who rushed to the house on hearing the news and found him lying there. She then contacted the police and lodged a complaint. The police conducted their investigation and performed a post-mortem.
The doctor who did his post-mortem, discovered a deep wound on the front of his neck extending internally into the muscles, vessels, clavicle, rib and lung, with the cause of death likely being a stab injury into his internal organs.
She didn’t deny the knife stabbing incident. So, she was accused and found guilty of stabbing him in broad daylight. Given the circumstances, the police filed the charge-sheet under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
When the case went to trial at the Asifabad sessions court’s (trial court) the court convicted her on September 8, 2011 under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced her to four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs 500 and if she defaults, then additional simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
She paid the fine and then appealed the conviction and sentence in the High Court, which overturned the Asifabad sessions court’s judgement on April 1, 2026.
The Telangana High Court stated that for a conviction under Section 304-II of the IPC, it’s enough to show that the accused knew their actions could lead to the death of the deceased husband.
In this case, it’s clear that she stabbed the deceased (husband) with a knife, knowing fully well that it could result in an injury to the deceased (husband). However, at that moment, she likely didn’t realize that it could lead to the husband’s death since she had acted impulsively.
Therefore, the Telangana High Court said that the offence under Section 304-II of IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and there is nothing wrong in the trial court’s decision to hold the conviction under Section 304-II of IPC as against the accused (wife) .
However, the trial court had sentenced the accused wife to four years of imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 500, and further sentence in case of default.
The Telangana High Court said: “In these facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the circumstances in which the act has been committed by the accused No. 1 (wife), this Court takes a lenient view and converts the sentence to that of only fine…”
Her lawyer argued before the high court that there were no direct eyewitnesses and this incident happened in the spur of the moment, when he allegedly turned up naked, abused her family members in filthy language, and behaved abnormally. Her lawyer argued that under these circumstances, she had not acted with the intention or knowledge of murdering him.
The Telangana State Government told the high court that the prosecution has proved their case through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including recovery of the knife, medical evidence, and testimony of the surrounding witnesses, reported LiveLaw.
When the high court examined witness number 2, who is her neighbour, the neighbour said that he heard commotion from the house at around 2 pm and later heard him cry out “Amma” in pain. Hearing this, when the neighbour went to their house, he saw her husband lying on the floor with a stab injury on his neck and immediately informed his mother.
There were other witnesses also and the high court heard them all. The high court also heard the doctor’s statement who conducted the post-mortem on his body.
Telangana High Court order
The Telangana High Court (case number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1154 OF 2011) said that the act committed by the accused (wife) is not in dispute, but the only defence raised is with regard to the contention that she must have committed the act in a spur of the moment.
The high court noted that the circumstances further say that they both were living separately for about a month. On the day of the alleged stabbing incident, he went to her parents house where she was staying and gave a packet of dates to their children.
But as soon as he saw her, he allegedly started abusing her family members whereupon some ‘galata’ had taken place between him and her family members. He left the place, and immediately, went back to her house in a naked state and started abusing her family in filthy language, after which, it is alleged that she stabbed him with a knife.
The high court said that there is no plausible explanation from her to hold it otherwise that it was some other person who committed the said act. The recovery of the material object/knife following her confession proves that she had stabbed him with a knife, causing internal injuries which resulted in his death.
The high court said that the circumstances of the quarrel among the family members and the way he had approached her and her family members indicate that during the quarrel, she must have acted in a fit of anger and stabbed him.
The high court said that for this reason, the trial court has convicted her for the offence under Section 304-II of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC.
However, the high court said that this case squarely falls under exception ‘y’ of Section 300 of the IPC which reads as: “Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”
Order: “In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction passed by the trial Court under Section 304 Part II of the IPC is upheld. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for four years is set aside and modified to a fine of Rs 500 only, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any filed in this appeal, shall stand closed.”
