Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

26. Now coming to the other leg of defence of the accused to the effect that under the circumstances of the case, the complainant/injured and his mother were very much responsible for causing grave and sudden provocation to the accused. It was argued on behalf of the accused at the stage of the final arguments that as was deposed by the accused as a defence witness (DW1), the scuffle in question between the accused and the complainant/ injured took place after the mother of the complainant/ injured had slapped the mother of the accused. It was contended on behalf of the accused that this incident of slapping the mother of the accused was such that the accused could get a grave provocation, and thus, in such a case, the accused was entitled to the benefit of the defence of Grave and sudden provocation. It was argued by Ld. Defence counsel that as the occurrence has taken place out of sudden provocation and so, the ingredients of Section 335 IPC alone are made out and the same would inexorably result in acquittal of the accused in respect of offence punishable under section 325 IPC.

27. Before, adverting to discuss the above stated defence of the accused, so as to find out as to whether the offence attracted is under Section 325 IPC or under section 335 IPC, it is proper to incorporate section 335 IPC, as follows:

"Section 335: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation:
Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to four years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation: The last two sections are subject to same provisos as Exception 1, section 300."

28. As far as the plea regarding sudden provocation and maximum case under Section 335 IPC is made out against the accused is concerned, I do not agree with the contention of learned defence counsel in this regard. The accused has not taken this plea since beginning. The whole burden was lying upon the accused to prove this plea. It was his duty to put suggestions to the witnesses of fact, especially, PW1 and PW2, that the crime was committed by him due to sudden and grave provocation done by the complainant/ injured or his mother. He has not taken this plea in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C., no defence evidence has been produced in this regard and now this plea was taken for the first time, during the course of the Final arguments. At the same time, it is pertinent to mention here that, the defence of the accused which could be deciphered from the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses was that the injured/ complainant had entered into an scuffle with the accused and when the persons, who were present at the spot, had tried to separate the accused and the complainant, the complainant had fallen down and had received injuries. Thus, the defence of accused was that the injuries were not intentional but accidental in nature. Similarly, at the stage of recording of plea at the stage of section 313 Cr. P.C., statement, the accused again reiterated that the injuries received by the complainant/ injured were accidental in nature. Further there was nothing on the part of injured Kartik Pahwa, by which the accused was deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation. To take the benefit of plea of grave and sudden provocation, it has to be proved by the accused himself through the evidence of prosecution witnesses or his defence witnesses that the act of the injured was such which caused such provocation to the accused to constitute that offence and this provocation should be such as to cause a reasonable man to loose his power of self-control and should have actually caused in the accused a sudden and temporary loss of self-control. Provocation is an external stimulus which can be objectively gauged but loss of self-control is a subjective phenomenon and can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, the manner in which the accused reacted to the circumstances and accused's own description of his mind which can be verified with reference to relevant objective facts by the court imaginatively reconstructing the psychological situation in which the accused found himself. The applicability of the doctrine of provocation, thus, rests on the fact that it brings about a sudden and temporary loss of self-control. Each little provocation cannot be called grave simply because the consequences ensuing from that provocation have been grave. The provocation must be such as will upset not merely a hasty, hot tempered and hyper-sensitive person but would upset also a person of ordinary sense and calmness. In the absence of such proof the atrocity of the offence will not be mitigated and the offender will not be able to escape the legal consequences of his act. In this case in a very ordinary way, altercations/ arguments had taken place between the injured Kartik Pahwa and his mother on one hand and accused and his mother on the other hand. This was not the matter which might cause any provocation to the accused to inflict fist blow(s) on the mouth and cause type of injury to the injured/ complainant. The accused has not been able to prove any role of injured Kartik Pahwa by which accused was deprived of the power of self-control. It would not be out of place to mention here that during the stage of cross examination of PW1 and PW2, it was suggested by the accused that it was the injured Kartik Pahwa, who had slapped the mother of the accused on the day of the incident. However, at the stage of defence evidence, when the accused himself entered the witness box, he somersaulted and deposed that it was the mother of the complainant/ injured, who had slapped the mother of the accused. Thus, the version of the accused that he got enraged and acted in the manner as alleged, due to the fact that his mother was assaulted by the complainant/ injured does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of acceptance. Thus, in my opinion, there is no ground to reach the finding that the occurrence has taken place out of sudden provocation and so, the ingredients of Section 335 IPC alone are made out.