Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

the goat belonging to the accused was eating the ragi stock in her land, thereby, it was a sudden provocation for the accused to pour kerosene due to the verbal altercation between the accused and the deceased, thereby, it is not a case which falls under the provisions of Section 302 of the IPC., but the case falls under Section 304 part II of the IPC. Thereby, he contended that learned Judge should have acquitted the accused on the ground that since two views are possible and the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt and thereby he sought to allow the appeal filed by the accused and dismiss the appeal filed by the State.

17. It is the case of the prosecution that, based on Ex.P.6-statement of the victim, a criminal case came to be registered on 25/11/2013 at 1.05 am, against the accused persons in Crime No.357/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 114, 504, 307 r/w 149 of the

- 28 -

Indian Penal Code. The substance of the case of the prosecution is that, the victim had abused the accused persons on the ground that the goats belonging to the accused had eaten away the ragi stock belonging to the victim. Keeping that in mind, on 24/11/2013 at 10.00 pm when the victim-Rajamma was in her house, Accused No.1 and his family members who belong to the same community as that of the victim, formed unlawful assembly and came to the house of the victim and altercation took place between them. The victim who had lost ragi stock, naturally abused the accused, in turn, the accused persons abused the victim in filthy language. In the altercation between the parties, who belong to the same community, the accused No.1 poured kerosene on the victim and lit the fire. The other accused persons instigated the accused No.1 to commit the offence. However, it cannot be lost sight that, the unfortunate incident has occurred when the accused lost the power of self control and by grave and sudden provocation, committed the offence. Thereby, the case clearly falls

- 29 -

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

Section 300- Murder:
xxx xxx xxx Exception 1- When culpable homicide is not murder- 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.
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.

18. In the present case, the cause for the unfortunate incident was that the goats belonging to

- 30 -

accused had eaten away the ragi stock belonging to the victim. If the deceased was calm and cool and sought compensation from the accused for the loss suffered by her and in turn, if the accused, with calm and cool behaviour had assured the victim to pay some compensation for the loss suffered by her on account of the action of the goats belonging to the accused, the unfortunate incident would not have happened, and both the parties could have lived happily. Unfortunately, for the mistake committed by goats belonging to the accused, the deceased-victim used filthy language against the accused and his family and in turn, the accused persons used filthy language against deceased. In the altercation, the accused No.1 at the instigation of accused Nos.2 to 6, lost the power of self control and poured kerosene on the victim and lit her on fire using the match stick. Thereby, it is a case, where the accused, lost the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation and caused the death of the deceased. It is nothing but culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, offence clearly falls