Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. The position in the case at hand is no different. Between 1400 hrs when the appellant was given a grave provocation and 2130 hrs, the time when the appellant shot the deceased there were seven hours which period was sufficient for the appellant to cool down. A person who is under a grave and sudden provocation can regain his cool and composure. Grave provocation after all is a momentary loss of one's capacity to differentiate between what is right and what is not. So long as that critical moment does not result in any damage, the incident lapses into realm of memories to fuel his desire to take revenge and thus act as a motivation for the commission of a crime in future. But any such memory of a past event does not qualify as a grave and sudden provocation for mitigating the offence. The beating and humiliation which the accused had suffered may have acted as a motive for revenge against the deceased who had caused such humiliation but that is not what falls in Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC which is identical to Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Ranbir Penal Code applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir where the offence in question was committed by the appellant. We may, in this regard, extract the following passage from Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions: (AC p. 9) NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46879 ―It is not all provocation that will reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter. Provocation, to have that result, must be such as temporarily deprives the person provoked of the power of self-control as a result of which he commits the unlawful act which caused death. ... 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 R. v. Lesbini, 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 to (a) consider whether a sufficient interval 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.‖

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46879 control, on account of a grave and sudden provocation -- the answer must be the same, which is that the provision (Exception 1 to Section 300) cannot be attracted. Apart from a long-standing pre-existing dispute, what caused ―sudden‖ provocation to the appellants, has not been shown by them. Neither did they lead any evidence, to fall within Exception 1, nor did the evidence on record substantiate such a contention.

28. Speaking of what is grave and sudden provocation, this Court in K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra [K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 96 : 1962 Supp (1) SCR 567 : AIR 1962 SC 605] explained the standard of reasonableness for applying the ―grave and sudden‖ provocation, in the following manner : (AIR pp. 629-30, paras 84-85) ―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 that the accused regained his self-control and killed Ahuja deliberately.

85. The Indian law, relevant to the present enquiry, may be stated thus : (1) The test of ―grave and sudden‖ provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:46879 was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self- control. (2) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the First Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. (3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. (4) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation.‖