Gujarat High Court
Satyanarayan Singh vs Union Of India on 16 June, 2025
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1268 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SATYANARAYAN SINGH
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SHUSHIL R SHUKLA(5603) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 16/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA) Since this matter is heard by this Bench earlier finally and kept for orders today, the same is disposed of by the following judgment.
1. The petitioner - original sole accused has preferred this petition, in the form of criminal appeal, for quashment of the Page 1 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer in a proceeding of the General Security Force Court under the BSF Act, 1968, whereby the petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 15.01.2007.
2. The charge framed by the concerned Court is that the th petitioner, at BOP Lakhpat, at about 23:30 hours on 6 October, 2005, by firing shots from his SLR Butt No.314, Body No.DA 5110 at No.86076343 HC Mange Ram of the same unit, caused his death, thereby committed murder.
Therefore, a complaint is lodged by the complainant with regard to the said incident before the Chowk Bazar Police Station, Surat, which was registered as C.R.-I No. 142 of 2000 for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324, 143, 147, 148, 149, 337 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, collected relevant evidence and drawn various Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found material against the petitioner, charge came to be framed against him, by the Commandant 48 BN BSF vide order dated 03.06.2006. Accordingly, it is ordered by the Inspector General, FTR HQ BSF, Gujarat that the case is to be tried by a General Security Force Court on Page 2 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined 13.06.2006.
4. Upon committal of a case to the General Security Force Court, further proceedings have been initiated, wherein, the petitioner - accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and also produced 22 various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in the impugned order.
6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the petitioner - accused so as to obtain his explanation/answer. In the further statement, the petitioner - accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner - accused of the offence noted above, as the prosecution succeeded to prove the case.
7. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which is also rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.01.2007. Page 3 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined
8. Hence, this petition for quashment of the impugned order dated 07.07.2006 passed by the learned Gujarat Security Force Court.
9.1 Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the petitioner has submitted that twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution and all the witnesses have specifically admitted in their cross-examination that none of them have seen that firing was made by the petitioner on the deceased. On the contrary, all the witnesses have admitted in cross-examination that the relation between the deceased and the petitioner was good and fair and there was no occasion and justification for the petitioner to kill him. He has further submitted that it was not proved that SLR Butt No.314 was sent for Forensic Examination, but it was also not proved that dead body was sent for the postmortem. He has also submitted that inquest panchnama, recovery panchnama, spot panchnama, FIR, PM report, FSL report, Trouser and bed-sheet recovery panchnama was merely exhibited in the trial but that was not proved according to the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. He has also submitted that no personal hearing was given to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. He has also submitted that the charge of Section 302 was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and despite of that without considering the length of service and facts of the case, the learned Presiding Officer has awarded punishment of life imprisonment. He has further submitted that the members of jury were not competent to conduct the trial of Page 4 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined the petitioner.
9.2 He has further submitted that the petitioner has already undergone imprisonment of about 12 years. He has submitted that the petitioner may be given the benefit of Exception I and/or IV of Section 300 of the IPC, as the alleged incident has happened in a spur of moment and in sudden provocation and the murder was not pre-meditated by the petitioner. He has submitted that there was a scuffle and exchange of hot words between the petitioner and another person and thereafter, the deceased came at the place of incident and scolded to the petitioner for shouting and increase of voice at night hours which was disturbing the others. The deceased was a senior of the petitioner and therefore, when others were absent in the room, the alleged incident has happened. He has submitted that there is no eye-witness to the incident. Therefore, no one except the petitioner would know the exact last conversation between the petitioner and the deceased. The petitioner has put up 16 years of service without any stigma and record of the petitioner was near and clean.
9.3 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) 2017 (0) AIJEL 60052 - Surain Singh Versus State of Punjab
(ii) 2022 (0) AIJEL SC 69746 - Yatendrasingh Ajabsingh Chauhan versus State of Maharashtra Page 5 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined
(iii) 2012 (0) AIJEL (SC) 52527 - Budhi Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh
10.1 Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India - respondent has vehemently opposed this petition. It is submitted that the deceased was a superior officer of the petitioner, therefore, many a time, there were incidents to correct the petitioner by the deceased in performing the official duties. The deceased was on duty at BSF office. The petitioner has pre- meditated mind due to the earlier incidents regarding corrections in his official duties. There was no occasion with the petitioner to shoot the deceased. It is submitted that on the day of incident, when the petitioner was shouting with another colleague, the deceased came there and told the petitioner not to shout at that time as it was night hours. Thereafter, the petitioner told the deceased that he will tell about the incident in alone and therefore, they told other persons to vacate the place and thereafter, all the persons went to their room / barrack. After few minutes, they heard the voice of four gunshots, one after another, they rushed towards the place of incident and they saw that the petitioner fired gunshots on the deceased from his official rifle/gun and he handed over his gun to one officer and told as his extra judicial confession that he has murdered the deceased. It is submitted that at the place of incident, no one was there except the petitioner and the deceased, all the persons have been told to leave the place as the petitioner wanted to say something to the deceased alone. It is true that there was no eye-witness to the Page 6 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined incident, but it is also true that when all the persons have left the place of incident, the petitioner and the deceased were alone to talk something and after few minutes, heard the voice of gunshots of four round and when other persons rushed towards the place of incident, the deceased got murdered and the petitioner was with his official gun/rifle and told the persons while handing over the said weapon that he has murdered the deceased. Under such circumstances, it is nothing but the pre-meditated murder of the deceased by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has scuffled with another colleague and not with the deceased at that time, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he should be given benefit of exception of Section 300 would be irrelevant at this stage in these circumstances, as after the scuffle of the petitioner with another colleague, the petitioner has some time to cool his mind. It is also submitted that total four rounds were fired by the petitioner; two were at a time and another two were after a pause, therefore, the benefit of exception of Section 300 of the IPC would not be applied to the petitioner at all. If there was sudden provocation by the deceased, the petitioner should use one fire of gunshot, but, in the present case, he has used four rounds of gunshot, that too by after taking a little pause, therefore, such benefit should not be available to the petitioner.
10.2 It is further submitted that as per the provisions of the BSF Act and the Rules to be eligible to be appointed as a Member of a GSFC, the minimum qualification is that the officer Page 7 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined should be of the rank of Assistant Commandant or above and there is no provision under the BSF Act & Rules, which makes it mandatory to appoint only law qualified officers having qualifications equivalent to the qualifications of a District and Sessions Judge as members of a General Security Force Court. It is also submitted that the General Security Force Court is a Special Court constituted under the BSF Act, 1968, therefore, it has the power to try any person subject to the BSF Act for any offence thereunder and pass any sentence authorized under the BSF Act. It is also submitted that this petition may be dismissed. 11.1 We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. We have perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. We have also gone through the material available with the Court minutely. 11.2 The present petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a sole accused, for quashment of the order impugned by the trial Court i.e. the General Security Force Court under the Border Security Force Act, 1968. The charge against the petitioner was of murder, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the petitioner, at BOP Lakhpat, at about 23:30 hours on 6 th October, 2005, by firing shots from his SLR Butt No.314, Body No.DA5110 at no.86076343 HC Mange Ram of the same Unit, caused his death, thereby committing a murder. The petitioner was a Constable of 48 Bn BSF and the deceased was a Head Constable of the same Unit.
Page 8 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined 11.3 The trial Court has examined about 13 witnesses during the trial and considered about 22 documentary evidence while deciding the trial. All the witnesses are either the colleagues or the superior officers or the independent witnesses. Sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner to defend his case either personally or through advocates. The petitioner has represented his case through his advocates.
11.4.1 From the record, it transpires that, on 06.10.2005 at about 23:05 hours, the petitioner came after performing his sentry duty at the Coy's recreation room. He saw that his towel was used by Mr.Indraj Singh, a Constable of same Unit i.e. 48 Bn BSF. Therefore, the petitioner has quarrelled with Indraj Singh loudly regarding that towel which was spread on the floor and made it dirty. The petitioner was shouted at Mr.Singh for the same and used abusive language. On hearing the shouting of the petitioner, Head Constable Mr. Sharwan Ram also reached in the recreation room and after his intervention, the matter was reconciled and all the persons sat there to watch the television. 11.4.2 In the meanwhile, upon hearing the shouting, Head Constable Mange Ram - the deceased also came there and asked them as to why they were shouting during the night hours. There were altercations between the petitioner and the deceased - HC Mange Ram at that time.
Page 9 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined 11.4.3 Now the premeditated mind of the petitioner started to work. Since the deceased, being a superior officer, was keen to sort out the issue between the members of his Unit, the petitioner told the deceased that he was in tension and he would let him know in person when he would be alone. Therefore, the deceased has ordered all the persons to leave the recreation room. The recreation room was empty. There were only two persons in the said room i.e. the petitioner and the deceased - HC Mange Ram. All the Coy personnel left the said recreation room and went to their barracks to sleep. What was the conversation between the petitioner and the deceased was not known to any person except them. What happened between the petitioner and the deceased was also not known to any person except them. But, one thing is clear that no one is there in the said recreation room except the petitioner and the deceased. There were some altercations between them.
11.4.4 At about 23:30 hours, a sound of four shots was heard by the Coy Personnel. When they rushed towards that sound which has come from the recreation room, they immediately rushed towards the said room. When they, including the Officiating Coy Comdr SI Urba Datt, reached at the recreation room, the petitioner has, on his own, handed over his rifle to said SI Urba Datt and told that 'LO SAHIB RIFLE PAKDO. MAINE MANGE KO MAAR DIYA'. Further, the petitioner told him that 'SAHEB APPE MERE BAAP KE SAMAN HAI. MEINE MANGE RAM KO MAAR DIYA HAI. YE HAMESHA MUJHE KANOON Page 10 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined KE DAYRE ME LENE KI KOSHISH KARTA THA'.
11.4.5 Thereafter, the said Officiating Coy Comdr SI Urba Datt took over the rifle from the accused and the accused himself took the Officiating Coy Comdr towards the 'Q' store and indicated towards the dead body of Head Const Mange Ram. 11.4.6 There were two bullet injuries on the head of the deceased, one on the right shoulder and another on its back near the waist. At this juncture, it is required to be noted that the petitioner has not fired all the four rounds of gunshots together, but it was fired one after another by taking a short pause. It seems that the petitioner has time to re-shape his thoughts of murder, which he has already pre-meditated. 11.5.1 Assuming for a moment that the petitioner has murdered a deceased in a sudden provocation, then a question is paused that as to why he has told the deceased to vacate the room and as to why he has told the deceased to tell the details in alone. Further, there was no quarrel with the deceased. The deceased, being a superior officer, wanted to reconcile the issue between the petitioner and one Indraj Singh. If there was sudden provocation, then the petitioner would have killed said Indraj Singh and not HC Mange Ram.
11.5.2 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the provisions of Section 299 and exceptions of Section 300 of the IPC, Page 11 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined which reads as under :
"299. Culpable homicide.--Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. Explanation 1.--A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2.--Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3.--The causing of the death of a child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part Page 12 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.
300. Murder -- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
2ndly.--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-- 3rdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--
4thly.--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
Page 13 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined Exception 1.--When culpable homicide is not murder.--Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisos:--
First.--That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly.--That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
Thirdly.--That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanation.--Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.Page 14 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined Exception 2.--Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3.--Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
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.Page 15 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined Explanation.--It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5.--Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent."
In view of above, the petitioner's case does not fall under the exception of Section 300 of the IPC. 11.5.3 There are three essential ingredients of this; (i) the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous, (ii) the act must in all probability cause the death of such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and (iii) the act is committed without any excuse for incurring the risk and all these ingredients are satisfied on evaluation of the evidence, as referred to hereinabove and which has been rightly evaluated by the concerned trial court and passed the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. The provision of Section 302 of the IPC thus reads as under :
"302. Punishment for murder.--Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine."
11.6 The trial conducted by the trial Court i.e. the Gujarat Page 16 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined Security Force Court is just and proper and in accordance with law. The General Security Force Court is a Special Court constituted under the BSF Act, 1968. A special enactment passed by the Parliament, with power to try any person subject to the BSF Act, for any offence thereunder and pass any sentence authorised under the BSF Act.
11.7 Looking to the various testimonies of the witnesses, who are the independent witnesses, there is a consistent version about the entire episode. Though nobody is an eye-witness to the incident, but almost all the witnesses are the eye-witness of the pre-situation and pro-situation of the alleged incident. Further, the extra-judicial confession of the petitioner is also there. The petitioner himself has clearly stated that 'MAINE MANGE KO MAAR DIYA'. The said extra-judicial confession was before the persons who have immediately rushed towards the place of incident. Further, the petitioner himself has handed over the weapon i.e. rifle to the higher officer - SIR Urba Datt. Further, considering the facts emerging from the entire evidence that the deceased was in-charge officer of the BSF, more particularly the group under which the petitioner was working, which is a disciplined force and the petitioner had fired four rounds from his service rifle on the deceased without any sudden provocation by the deceased, therefore, the benefits of any exception under Section 300 of the IPC cannot be given to the present petitioner as none of the requirements is satisfied for such exception. Page 17 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined 11.8 Further, looking to the report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the rifle and cartridge, it is found that the firing was successfully done by bursting and four numbers of empty fired cases were found to be fired from the same rifle 7.62 mm SLR, which is handed over by the petitioner himself to SIR Urba Datt after the incident. Further, looking to the serological report of RFSL, Junagadh, the blood group of the blood stains found on the trouser of the petitioner and other articles removed from the dead body of the deceased were found to be of the same blood group i.e. 'B' group. It tilts the balance against the petitioner. On entire re-appreciation, it transpires that the deceased being an in-charge officer of the team, supposed to take care of events which are happening in his barrack, and therefore, has inquired with the present appellant about the incident occurred with the other BSF personnel, thereafter, both of them were talking in one room i.e. place of incident, the appellant has fired four rounds from his official rifle on the deceased and thereafter also informed the higher officer/s about the same by making an extra judicial confession that he has killed the deceased - Mange Ram. Therefore, upon appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, this is not a case of grave and sudden provocation. Therefore, it cannot be considered under exception I of Section 300 of the IPC. It is not that each and every provocation will reduce crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The provocation must be both grave and sudden. In order to invoke the benefit of exception to Section 300 of the IPC, it must be established that the act Page 18 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined committed by the accused was a simultaneous reaction of grave as well as sudden provocation which deprived him of the power of self control. The word 'sudden' is a prefix to both the words 'fight' and quarrel'. Therefore, if after a sudden quarrel, there is time for the person to cool down, the resultant fight cannot be a sudden fight. Hence, in a case where there is time to cool down after a sudden quarrel, Exception 4 will not apply. In the present case, the appellant and the deceased were talking in a room about the incident happened before few minutes with another person and the appellant had fired two rounds from his rifle and thereafter after taking a short pause, another two rounds were fired. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was a grave and sudden provocation of the appellant. On appreciation of entire evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution is able to prove its case as per charge against the accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence and beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, conviction to the accused is just and proper.
12. Under the circumstances, the trial Court has rightly observed and come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and rightly convicted the petitioner. There is no illegality or perversity in any of the findings given in the impugned order. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the documentary as well as oral evidence on record and convicted the petitioner. Further, this is a petition of the petitioner for quashment of the impugned order. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the relevant judgments of the Page 19 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay @ Vijayakumar Versus State Represented By Inspector Of Police reported in (2025) 3 SCC 671, more particularly paras 20 to 29 thereof, which read as under :
"20. It is not each and every provocation that will reduce the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The provocation must be both grave and sudden.
In order to invoke the benefit of the exception, it must be established that the act committed by the accused was a simultaneous reaction of grave as well as sudden provocation which deprived him of the power of self- control. If the provocation is grave but not sudden, the accused cannot get the benefit of this exception. Likewise, he cannot invoke the exception where the provocation though sudden is not grave.
21. In Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions reported in 1942 A.C. 1, Viscount Simon observed :
"It is not all provocation that will reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter. Provocation, to have that result, must be such as Page 20 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined temporarily deprives the person provoked of the power of self control, as the result of which he commits the unlawful act which causes death. In deciding the question whether this was or was not the case, regard must be had to the nature of the act by which the offender causes death, to the time which elapsed between the provocation and the act which caused death, to the offender's conduct during that interval, and to all other circumstances tending to show the state of his mind:
Stephen's Digest of the Criminal
Law, art. 317. The test to be applied
is that of the effect of the
provocation on a reasonable man, as
was laid down by the Court of
Criminal Appeal in Rex v. Lesbini 7,
so that an unusually excitable or
pugnacious individual is not entitled to rely on provocation which would not have led an ordinary person to act as he did. In applying the test, it is of particular importance (a) to consider whether a sufficient interval Page 21 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined has elapsed since the provocation to allow a reasonable man time to cool, and (b) to take into account the instrument with which the homicide was effected, for to retort, in the heat of passion induced by provocation, by a simple blow, is a very different thing from making use of a deadly instrument like a concealed dagger. In short, the mode of resentment must bear a reasonable relationship to the provocation if the offence is to be reduced to manslaughter.
22. In order to bring the case within Exception 1, the following conditions must be complied with:
(i) The deceased must have given provocation to the accused;
(ii) The provocation must be grave;
(iii) The provocation must be sudden;
(iv) The offender, by reason of the side provocation, shall have been deprived of his power of self-control;Page 22 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined
(v) He should have killed the deceased during the continuance of the deprivation of the power of self-
control; and
(vi) The offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or that of any other person by mistake or accident.
23. In other words, before Exception 1 can be invoke, the accused must establish the following circumstances :
(i) there was a provocation which was both grave and sudden;
(ii) such provocation had deprived
the accused of his power of self-
control; and
(iii) whilst the accused was so
deprived of his power of self-control, he had caused the death of the victim.
24. In order to bring his case under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC the following ingredients: Page 23 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined
(i) The provocation was sudden; (ii) the provocation was grave; and (iii) loss of self-control. These three ingredients may be considered one by one:
(i) Whether the provocation was sudden or not does not present much difficulty. The word sudden involves two elements. First, the provocation must be unexpected. If an accused plans in advance to receive a provocation in order to justify the subsequent homicide, the provocation cannot be said to be sudden. Secondly, the interval between the provocation and the homicide should be brief. If the man giving the provocation is killed within a minute after the provocation, it is a case of sudden provocation. If the man is killed six hours after the provocation, it is not a case of sudden provocation.
(ii) the main difficulty lies in deciding whether a certain provocation was grave or not. A bare statement by the accused that he regarded the provocation as grave will not be accepted by the court. The court has to apply an objective test for deciding Page 24 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined whether the provocation was grave or not.
A good test for deciding whether a certain provocation was grave or not is this:
"Is a reasonable man likely to
lose self-control as a result of
such provocation? If the answer is
in the affirmative, the provocation will be classed as grave. If the answer is in the negative, the provocation is not grave. In this context, the expression reasonable man means a normal or an average person. A reasonable man is not the ideal man or the perfect being. A normal man sometimes loses temper. There is, therefore no inconsistency in saying that, a reasonable man may lose self-control as a result of grave provocation. A reasonable or normal or average man is a legal fiction. The reasonable man will vary from society to society. A Judge should not impose his personal standards in this matter.
By training, a Judge is a patient man. But the reasonable man or Page 25 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined the normal man need not have the same standard of behaviour as the judge himself. The reasonable man under consideration is a member of the society, in which the accused was living. So, education and social conditions of the accused are relevant factors.
An ordinary exchange of abuse is a matter of common occurrence. A reasonable man does not lose self-
control merely on account of an ordinary exchange of abuses. So, courts do not treat an ordinary exchange of abuses as a basis for grave provocation. On the other hand, in most societies, adultery is looked upon as a very serious matter. So, quotes are prepared to treat adultery as a basis for grave provocation.
(iii) the question of loss of self-control comes up indirectly in deciding whether a particular provocation was grave or not. So, if it is proved that the accused did receive grave and sudden provocation, the court is generally prepared to assume that Page 26 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined homicide was committed while the accused was deprived of the power of self-control. In some cases, it may be possible for the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the murder with a cool head in spite of grave provocation. But such cases will be rare. So, when the accused has established grave and sudden provocation, the court will generally hold that he has discharged the burden that lay upon him under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.
25. What should be the approach of the court? The provocation must be such as will upset not merely a hasty and hot-tempered or hypersensitive person, but one of ordinary sense and calmness. The Court has to consider whether a reasonable person placed in the same position as accused would have behaved in the manner in which the accused behaved on receiving the same provocation. If it appears that the action of the accused was out of all proportion to the gravity or magnitude of the provocation offered, the case will not fall under the exception. The case can only fall under the exception when the court is able to hold that provided the alleged provocation is given, every normal Page 27 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined person would behave or act in the same way as the accused in the circumstances in which the accused was placed, acted.
26. In the words of Viscount Simon: "The whole doctrine relating to provocation depends on the fact that it causes, or may cause, a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, whereby malice, which is the formation of an intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm, is negatived. Consequently, where the provocation inspires and actual intention to kill, or to inflict grievous bodily harm the doctrine that provocation may reduce murder to manslaughter seldom applies"
27. Section 105 of the India Evidence Act, 1872 casts burden of proof on the accused. Being an exception, the burden of proving the circumstances covered by Exception 1 is on the accused. Where the prosecution prima facie proves that the act was committed by the accused which had resulted in the death of the deceased and the accused pleads that the case falls within one of the exceptions, it is for him to prove that.
Page 28 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined
28. It is for the accused who seeks to reduce the nature of his crime by bringing his case under Exception 1, to prove that the provocation received by him was such as might reasonably be deemed sufficient to deprive him of self- control, and that the act of killing took place whilst that absence of control was in existence and may fairly be attributed to it. (Ref.:Ratanlal and Dhirajlals Law of Crimes, 24th Edition)
29. If at all, the Trial Court and the High Court wanted to bring the case within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, then it could have invoked exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC. We say so because the incident was not pre-planned or pre-meditated. The appellant and his friends had gone to watch a movie. They were returning back home in the late night hours. It appears that after the movie was over and while returning, they decided to take some rest beneath the bridge. The deceased also happened to be sleeping beneath the bridge. However, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was in a drunken Page 29 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1268/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2025 undefined condition. In fact, there is nothing to indicate that the deceased was drunk. However, the eye-witnesses to the incident and that too none other then the friends of the appellant who were examined by the prosecution deposed that the deceased was in a drunken condition."
13. In view of above, this appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. The bail bond stands cancelled. Four weeks' time is granted to the appellant to surrender.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) (SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 30 of 30 Uploaded by M.H. DAVE(HC00193) on Mon Jun 16 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 16 23:57:17 IST 2025