Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

37. Now, we have to examine whether the act of accused would fall within the ambit of any one of the Exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

38. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the act of the accused would fall within the First Exception to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code. He would further submit that four months ago, the deceased had attacked the father of the appellant/A1. This was also a provocation for the appellant. Only after that occurrence, on seeing the http://www.judis.nic.in deceased, 1st appellant/accused got provoked further and out of the said sustained provocation, the 1st appellant/accused had caused the death of the deceased.

41. Now, on considering the said submission, it is true the said judgment is considered to be a landmark Judgment and a great contribution made by this Court in the development of the Criminal Law. In the said case, Hon'ble http://www.judis.nic.in Dr.Justice David Annoussamy, while speaking for the Bench, analyzed the entire Indian Scenario and held that the Indian Courts have added one more Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, known as "sustained provocation". The Division Bench took into account K.M.Nanavati's case [K.M.Nanavati Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1962 SC 605] and held that the said decision is not the first one to take into consideration trie situation of sustained provocation. The Division Bench further went on to say on sustained provocation as follows:-

"Though there has seen here and there attempts, in those decisions to bring the sustained provocation under Exception 1 to Sec.300, IPC, there is a cardinal difference between provocation as defined under Exception I and sustained provocation. The only word which is common is 'Provocation'. What exception I contemplates is a grave and sudden provocation whereas the ingredient of sustained provocation is a series of acts more or less grave spread over a certain period of time, the last of which acting as the last straw breaking the camel's back may even be a very trifling one. We are therefore far from grave and sudden provocation contemplated under Exception 1 to Sec.300, IPC. Sustained provocation is undoubtedly an addition by Courts as anticipated by the architects of the IPC.

43. Therefore, absolutely, there is no material to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant/A1 had acted on account of the loss of self-control due to sustained provocation. Thus, the act of the appellant/A1 was not either out of grave and sudden or out of sustained provocation. Thus, the appellant/A1 is liable to be punished under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. http://www.judis.nic.in