Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The learned senior counsel further contended that the entire act of the accused in the homicidal death of the deceased is due to the sudden provocation and there is no premeditation and it happened on the spur of moment when they were discussing with regard to divorce. Due to verbal exchange of words, he was provoked and the incident happened. Therefore, he sought to allow the appeal.

12. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHRI MURLI ALIAS DENNY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in AIR 1994 SC 610 to the effect that murder on sudden provocation falls under Exception I to Section 300 of the IPC and thereby, the Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to convict the accused under Section 304 (Part I) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years.

21. It is also not in dispute that according to the prosecution, the accused has called P.W.19- Advocate at 3:15 P.M., when he was in the Court premises and stated that during discussion with regard to divorce, he assaulted his wife and P.W.19 advised him to take her to the Hospital. During discussion between the deceased and the accused, quarrel would have taken place and on sudden provocation, the accused has caused the homicidal death of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that it was inter-caste marriage between them and there was no issue. It is also not in dispute that though the accused has seen the deceased with Prakash inside his house, he did not react and take action and the deceased lent Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/- by pledging ornaments to Prakash and the accused lodged the complaint. It is also not in dispute that after such incident happened, the deceased and the accused agreed for divorce, but the deceased has put specific condition that subject to payment of alimony of Rs.3,00,000/- and auto-ricksaw. During discussion with regard to divorce, he might have provoked, lost self control and due to heat of passion in a sudden quarrel, murdered the deceased is not premeditated and it falls under the provisions of Exception-I of 300 of the IPC and it is not a case which falls under Section 302 of the IPC as held by the learned Sessions Judge and the accused is liable to be convicted under the provisions of Section 304 (Part I) of the IPC.

23. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5-brothers of the deceased, P.W.3-mother of the deceased, P.W.4- sister of the deceased, P.W.18-P.S.I and P.W.19- Advocate clearly depict that there was frequent quarrel between the husband and the wife with regard to divorce. The material on record clearly depicts that on the fateful day, while coming to Advocate Office for discussion with regard to divorce, there was verbal exchange between the deceased and the accused and when the deceased tried to assault the accused, he reacted and assaulted the deceased, thereby involved in the homicidal death of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the prosecution seized the knife, used by the accused for commission of the offence, under Ex.P.11. P.Ws.6 and 8 are the panch witnesses to the seizure mahazar-Ex.P.10. On the next day of conducting Ex.P.10, the Police along with the accused took them near Bangalore University, where the accused stopped the vehicle on the main road, walked for a distance of 20-30 feet from the main road and took out a knife from the bush, which was blood stained and same is seized under Ex.P.11 and the same is identified by them as M.O.12. The relationship between the deceased and the accused as husband and wife is not in dispute. The homicidal death is also not in dispute and there is no eyewitness to the incident and the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence clearly proved that it is the homicidal death of the deceased caused by the accused due to sudden provocation and there was no premeditation. Therefore, the case would fall under Exception-I of 300 of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC as stated supra.

24. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHRI MURLI ALIAS DENNY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in AIR 1994 SC 610 which reads as under:

"5. Having examined the circumstances on record, we are satisfied that it was the accused who inflicted injuries on the deceased person, as a result of which he died. But the learned senior counsel, Shri Sibal submits that there are any number of circumstances indicating that the accused acted on a grave and sudden provocation and, therefore, exception No.1 to S.300 is attracted. We find considerable force in this submission. To start with, the prosecution evidence itself indicates that the deceased was a man of violent nature and had no regard for law and was creating terror and fear in the minds of common people. In such an aggressive mood, he must have gone to the shop of the accused. As to what exactly preceded the attack is not borne out by the evidence. However, there is a clear indication in the first statement given by the accused himself which formed the FIR in this case to the effect that the deceased in an aggressive manner went to the shop of the accused and showered virulent abuses. It may be mentioned here that we are not using the statement of the accused before the SHO for any purpose in favour of prosecution and against the accused. The only admission which we find in the statement in favour of the accused is being taken into account to examine whether the case falls under exception No.1 to S.300, IPC, particularly, in view of the fact that there is no other evidence disclosing as to how the quarrel ensued and attack took place. Having carefully considered the entire material, we are of the view that Exception No.1 to S.300 is attracted in this case. The Exception lays down:-