Crimes of passion or cold-blooded murder?

 A M Prasad

In recent weeks, India has been shaken by the horrors of deeply disturbing murder cases that go beyond individual tragedies, pointing to a deeper malaise. The first one was the reported murder (April 20, 2025) of Omprakash, a retired DGP, allegedly by his wife, Pallavi, at their home. The brutality of the attack left him with numerous stab injuries, causing him to bleed to death.

Barely a month later, a second case emerged. Raja, on his honeymoon with wife Sonam in Sohra (Cherrapunji), Meghalaya, went missing on May 23, 2025. His decomposed body was discovered in a deep gorge near a waterfall on June 2, bearing brutal wounds inflicted by a sharp object. On June 9, his wife, Sonam, surrendered to the police in Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh. So far, five individuals, including Sonam and her alleged boyfriend, Raj Kushwaha (20 years), have been arrested.

These incidents raise a disturbing question: why do couples choose a path of malice, vengeance and retribution when there are easier ways to end a relationship?

From a legal perspective, we seek to examine whether all killings involving the murder of a spouse are crimes of passion and, therefore, should be considered under exceptions that reduce punishment. A crime of passion refers to a violent crime, particularly homicide, committed under intense emotions such as anger, jealousy or heartbreak, rather than as a premeditated murder. It is a defence used to reduce the severity of a charge, like from murder to culpable homicide, because the offender acted in the heat of passion. The offender’s emotional state becomes so disturbed that he/she temporarily loses the ability to think rationally. Thus, defence in a crime of passion can lead to mitigation but not exculpation in the framing of the charge. Over years, jurists and legal practitioners have relied upon the M’Naghten Rule to decide a criminal defendant’s mental state. The test focuses on whether a criminal defendant knew the nature of the crime and whether they understood right from wrong at the time the offence was committed.

In several judicial pronouncements, the crucial point for ascertaining the state of mind of the accused is the time when the offence was committed (Dayabhai vs State). The Court held that if the words and actions of the accused clearly demonstrate that he is quite capable of understanding the nature of his activities during the commission of the crime, he cannot take the plea of insanity (S K Nair vs State). In another verdict, the Court ruled that once a person is suffering from a mental disorder or mental deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory and self-control, at all relevant times by way of all documentary/oral evidence, the person concerned would be entitled to seek resort to the general exceptions from criminal liability (State of Rajasthan vs Shera Ram). The Supreme Court examined whether the act was right or wrong in the context of exceptions (Ss.84 IPC/SS.22 BNS) and concluded that certain unusual acts committed in the past or that he was liable to recurring fits of insanity or that he was subject to getting epileptic fits but there was nothing abnormal in his behaviour, or his behaviour was queer, cannot be sufficient to attract this section (Bapu vs State of Rajasthan). The Appellant has been able to create sufficient doubt that he is entitled to the benefit of exception (Ss.84 IPC/SS.22 BNS) because of the preponderance of his medical condition at the time of occurrence, as revealed from the material and evidence on record. The prosecution cannot be said to have established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The appellant is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequential acquittal (Devidas Loka Rathod vs State of Maharashtra).

The factor which distinguishes culpable homicide from murder is the presence of strong mens rea, which consists of mental attitudes. The Supreme Court rightly observed that unless such a mental attitude is attributable to the act constituting the offence, it is not murder (Rajwant vs State). The question of whether the accused had the requisite knowledge or his act was likely to cause death, as in the case of intention, is a question of fact depending on the circumstances of each particular case, i.e., the weapon used, the part of the body where injuries were inflicted, the number of injuries caused, the deliberateness of the act committed, etc. (Mausumshau vs State). Therefore, the fact that a person was conscious of the act being unlawful, a clear mens rea or criminal intent, is discernible. The conduct before and after the incidents becomes the determining factor in ascribing the motive. The burden of proof lies on the accused when claiming applicability of exceptions (T N Lakshmaiah vs State). 

(The writer is a retired DGP)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.