Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. P.Ws.1 and 4 did not support the claim set up by accused No.1 that while abuses were given, the deceased kicked accused No.1 on his testicles and as a result, accused No.1 lost his self control and fired on the deceased. According to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, there was no incident of kicking on testicles by the deceased.

21. Accused No.1 stated that when the deceased kicked on his testicles his head hit back side and he received injuries. P.W.15 is doctor, who examined accused Nos.1 and 2. According to evidence of P.W.15, on examination of accused No.1, he found tenderness over left temporomandibular joint and abrasion/contusion over left lumber region and left thigh/hip. Ex.P.15 is the wound certificate of accused No.1.

38. The evidence of accused No.1 shows that the deceased persistently abused accused No.1 in filthy language, in spite of repeated requests of accused No.1 to keep quite. Even then, the deceased abused that the wife of accused No.1 as a prostitute and asked accused No.1 to send his wife to him. The deceased also abused the mother of accused No.1.

39. P.Ws.1 and 4 also supported that the deceased abused accused No.1 in filthy language. They also support that accused No.1 had been insisting the deceased to keep quiet, but the deceased continued to abuse accused No.1 in filthy language. P.Ws.1 and 4 did not say the exact words of filthy language used by the deceased. However, accused No.1, in his evidence, clearly stated that the deceased used the words touching the character of his wife and mother. According to accused No.1, he tolerated to such bad words, but when the deceased kicked him on his testicles, he lost self-control and took his revolver and fired one round. According to him, the second round of fire was misfired on account of twisting of his hands by P.Ws.1 and 4.

46. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that apart from uttering abusive words, the deceased kicked on the testicles of accused No.1, as a result of which, accused No.1 lost his self-control and took his licensed revolver and fired on the deceased.

47. In this regard, the decision of the Apex Court in K.M.Nanavathi v. State of Maharashtra4 is relevant and the relevant portion reads as under:

"84. Is there any standard of a reasonable man for the application of the doctrine of "grave and sudden" provocation? No abstract standard of reasonableness can be laid down. What a reasonable man will do in certain circumstances depends upon the customs, manners, way of life, traditional values etc.; in short, the cultural, social and emotional background of the society to which an Accused belongs. In our vast country there are social groups ranging from the lowest to the highest state of civilization. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any standard with precision: it is for the court to decide in each case, having regard to the relevant circumstances. It is not necessary in this case to ascertain whether a reasonable man placed in the position of the Accused would have lost his self-control momentarily or even temporarily when his wife confessed to him of her illicit intimacy with another, for we are satisfied on the evidence 1962 AIR 605 that the Accused regained his self-control and killed Ahuja deliberately.

52. The prosecution does not refer that injury No.1 on the left temporo-mandibular joint was sustained by accused No.1 in the first incident at Metropolis Dhaba. If accused No.1 had not suffered the said injury in the first incident, there is possibility of sustaining such injury in the second incident, since the first injury is on the left temporo-mandibular joint, which injury is parietal region, which is part of the head. In the absence of evidence for proof of injury on the left side of the lumbar region and left thigh in the first incident, probablizes the plea set up by accused No.1 that the deceased gave kick on his testicles. If such a kick is made, there is possibility of left thigh getting injured and when the back portion hit to the jeep such an injury is possible on lumbar region. Merely, because the injuries are absent on the back of the head, it cannot be said that the deceased had no occasion to kick accused No.1. In fact, the position of both accused No.1 and deceased probablizes plea set up by accused No.1 that deceased kicked him. The persistent abuses by deceased at accused No.1, in spite of accused No.1 requests to cool down would also demonstrate that the frustrated mind of the deceased and in that process there is a chance of losing temper and kicking accused No.1. This evidence, if closely examined, there is probability of the plea set up by accused No.1, with regard to kicking on his testicles.