Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

31. The alternative argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first accused, by way of reply to the Additional Public Prosecutor in the appeal against acquittal, is that at any rate, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court that the offence is not a murder and only culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the occurrence had taken place in a sudden and grave provocation is perfectly valid. He would elaborate the said argument by stating that there are materials not only to show that there was sudden and grave provocation but also that the incident was on account of sustained provocation and, as such, Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. will apply to the facts of the case and consequently, the conviction for the offence under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. imposed by the trial Court may be sustained and the appeal by the State may be dismissed. He also cited 19 88 L.W.(CRL.) 113 (CHANDRAN, IN RE) and an unreported judgment of this Court in C.A.No.64 of 1991, dated 10.10.2000, to substantiate his submissions.

35. While interpreting the words "grave provocation" and "sustained provocation", a Division Bench of this Court has rendered a decision in Suyambukkani v. State (1989 L.W.(Crl.86), holding that though there is a difference between provocation as defined under Exception 1 and sustained provocation, 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 and, as such, the sustained provocation also is an addition to the ingredient of grave and sudden provocation, contemplated under Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C.

38. While considering Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C., the Courts have to analyse the materials in order to find out whether the provocation was sudden and grave. It means, if the provocation is not grave or not more serious in nature, it will not come under Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. But, for this proposition, there is some exception with reference to the applicability of sustained provocation. In other words, if the accused has been nurturing ill-will for a long period because of the conduct of the deceased, even in the long period, due to the series of acts, the last act which provoked the accused to attack the deceased on the spur of the moment might be a trifling one. Also, while considering the exception in relation to sudden and grave provocation, the Court has to consider not only the last incident, which is a trifling one, but also the series of incidents which took place earlier, due to which the accused was nurturing ill-will against the deceased.

41. In this case, if at all there is a chance for sudden and grave provocation for the first accused to get provoked and to do harm to the life of the deceased, it must be only when he saw the deceased in a compromising position with Poongodi, his wife. At that time, he had no provocation. Next day, he came and saw his wife writing letter in a note book to the deceased asking him to co me and take her. At that time also, there was no provocation. If at all there was any sudden and grave provocation for the first accused, it must be at that moment only by attacking the said Poongodi. But, that is not the case here. On the other hand, he went to the house of A2 and after a deliberation, he came home and took the knife and thereafter, proceeded to the house of Kannan with a design to kill him and on seeing him coming in the opposite direction, attacked him and caused his death. So, there is neither sudden and grave provocation nor anything happened at the time of the incident at the instance of the deceased so as to provoke him further to attack the deceased out of sustained provocation.