Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 11 -

had taken PWs 5 and 6, his wife and daughter, even before his marriage with PW6 and that, it is not due to sudden provocation that the accused have killed Siddaraju. Thereby, he submits that the accused persons had taken law into their hands and have murdered deceased-Siddaraju and the said incident was witnessed by PWs 1 and 2. Their evidence clearly depicts that there was an intention of causing the injury resulting in death of the deceased. He would further contend the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is corroborated by the medical evidence and which clearly depicts the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal.

18. The material on record clearly depicts that when there was quarrel at 3.00 pm on 09.04.2016 between accused persons and deceased, panchayath was held and it was decided to perform the marriage between accused No.1 and P.W.6 on 13.04.2016. Inspite of the same, in the heat of passion and sudden provocation, the unfortunate incident has happened. Absolutely there is no motive for the offence. Thereby, this is a clear case falling under Exception I Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

- 26 -

19. Exception I to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, reads as under:

"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."

20. A careful reading of the said provision makes it clear that 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.

- 28 -

12. The question of loss of self-control by grave and sudden provocation is a question of fact. Act of provocation and loss of self-control, must be actual and reasonable. The law attaches great importance to two things when defence of provocation is taken under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC. First, whether there was an intervening period for the passion to cool and for the accused to regain dominance and control over his mind. Secondly, the mode of resentment should bear some relationship to the sort of provocation that has been given. The retaliation should be proportionate to the provocation. The first part lays emphasis on whether the accused acting as a reasonable man had time to reflect and cool down. The offender is presumed to possess the general power of self-control of an ordinary or reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the same situation in which the accused is placed, to temporarily lose the power of self-control. The second part emphasises that the offender's reaction to the provocation is to be judged on the basis of whether the provocation was sufficient to bring about a loss of self-control in the fact situation. Here again, the court would have to apply the test of a reasonable person in the circumstances. While examining these questions, we should not be short-