Murder conviction upheld where accused set victim on fire; lack of premeditation and later aid did not reduce liability.

The Supreme Court of India held that the conviction for murder was not to be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, because the evidence showed that the accused assaulted the deceased, poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The absence of premeditation and the later attempt to extinguish the fire did not reduce the gravity of the act. Even assuming absence of intent to cause death, the act fell within clause (iv) of Section 300 IPC as an imminently dangerous act likely to cause death. The concurrent findings of the courts below were supported by the evidence and disclosed no perversity, so the conviction under Section 302 was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code should be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the ground that there was no premeditation and that the accused later tried to extinguish the fire.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence, including the dying declaration and corroborating testimony, established that the accused assaulted the deceased, poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. The absence of premeditation did not dilute the act where the accused deliberately set the deceased on fire. The subsequent act of pouring water did not mitigate the gravity of the offence. Even if intention to cause death were assumed to be absent, the act squarely fell within clause (iv) of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code as an imminently dangerous act likely to cause death. The concurrent findings of the courts below were supported by the evidence and did not suffer from perversity.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld and no interference was called for.

---