<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld conviction of a man and sentence of life term awarded to him for murder of his wife, as he lighted a matchstick and threw it upon her by saying “you die" after she poured kerosene upon herself to deter him from assaulting her.</p> <p>A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal rejected a contention of appellant Anil Kumar that he can at best be convicted of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder since he neither had intention to kill and nor acted with pre-meditated mind.</p>.Supreme Court directs activist Teesta Setalvad, her husband to cooperate in misappropriation of funds case.<p>The bench said the FIR and the dying declarations on record clearly contained the deceased's statement that when she had poured kerosene upon herself to deter the appellant from fighting and assaulting, he lighted a matchstick and with the intention to kill her, threw it upon her by saying “you die”.</p> <p>"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 fight or quarrel but also without the offender taking “undue advantage” of the situation," the bench said. </p> <p>The bench said the acts of the appellant showed premeditated mind to kill the deceased. </p> <p>"The appellant cannot take advantage of the 4th Exception (to murder under Section 300 of IPC) only on the pretext that it was not on account of premeditated mind or out of a sudden fight or that his intentions were not bad as he tried his best to douse the fire and to save the life of the deceased wife for the reason that the benefit of the above exception would have been available to him, had he not taken undue advantage of the situation," the bench said.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld conviction of a man and sentence of life term awarded to him for murder of his wife, as he lighted a matchstick and threw it upon her by saying “you die" after she poured kerosene upon herself to deter him from assaulting her.</p> <p>A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal rejected a contention of appellant Anil Kumar that he can at best be convicted of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder since he neither had intention to kill and nor acted with pre-meditated mind.</p>.Supreme Court directs activist Teesta Setalvad, her husband to cooperate in misappropriation of funds case.<p>The bench said the FIR and the dying declarations on record clearly contained the deceased's statement that when she had poured kerosene upon herself to deter the appellant from fighting and assaulting, he lighted a matchstick and with the intention to kill her, threw it upon her by saying “you die”.</p> <p>"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 fight or quarrel but also without the offender taking “undue advantage” of the situation," the bench said. </p> <p>The bench said the acts of the appellant showed premeditated mind to kill the deceased. </p> <p>"The appellant cannot take advantage of the 4th Exception (to murder under Section 300 of IPC) only on the pretext that it was not on account of premeditated mind or out of a sudden fight or that his intentions were not bad as he tried his best to douse the fire and to save the life of the deceased wife for the reason that the benefit of the above exception would have been available to him, had he not taken undue advantage of the situation," the bench said.</p>
