Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25. He cited some authorities in order to substantiate his contention. In Suyambukkani v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1989 Mad LW (Crl) 86 it is held as under :-

"Though there has been here and there attempts in those decisions to bring the sustained provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300, I.P.C., 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 Section 300, I.P.C. Sustained provocation is undoubtedly an addition by Courts, as anticipated by the architects of the Indian Penal Code.

27. In Chandran, In re 1988 Mad LW (Crl) 113 another Division Bench of this Court, while considering the sustained, sudden and grave provocation, would hold as follows :-

"As the prosecution itself is relying on the confessional statement of the accused under Section Ex. P-13, we have no reservation in accepting the case of the accused that he cut the deceased on account of the sudden and grave provocation caused by the deceased and also on account of the sustained provocation the accused has been nurturing for a long period because of the conduct of the deceased in having illicit intimacy with his wife. Hence, we hold that the accused is entitled to Exception 1 to Section 300, I.P.C."

29. In Chinnan alias Chinnaswami v. State, (1995) 2 Mad WN (Cri) 178, another Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the decisions mentioned above, has held as under :-

"While we accept the suggestion that the last straw could be considered as grave and sudden in a series of provocations, we are of the opinion that the last straw should at least be in the nature of provocation referred to in the earlier case reported in 1988 Mad LW (Crl) 113."

A reading of these decisions would show that the Court could add the 'sustained provocation' as one of the Exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

30-A. Therefore, in the absence of Exception with reference to 'sustained provocation', whether the Court would add one more Exception which deals with "sustained provocation" ?

31. However, this Court has categorically observed in 1989 Mad LW (Crl) 86 (cited supra) and 1991 (1) Mad WN (Crl) 153 (cited supra) that Exceptions are not limitative and one more Exception could be added by the Courts themselves as regards sustained provocation in the facts and circumstances of the case.

32. But, in our view, we doubt very much whether Courts have got powers to add one more Exception along with other five exceptions in the absence of provision by making a new legislation. But in this case, on consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we could hold that the incident which took place on the fateful day was as a result of sudden and grave provocation.