Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

32. Let us now deal with the contention urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for A-1, relating to sudden and grave provocation on account of sustained provocation, in order to bring it under Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C.

33. As per Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C., culpable homicide is not murder, if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of selfcontrol 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. In order to bring the case under Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C., it is necessary that the following facts should be established :

36. The Courts, through the decisions in A.I.R.1962 S.C. 605 (K.M. NANAVATI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA); I.L.R.2 MADRAS 122 (THE EMPRESS v. KHAGAYI); I.L.R.3 MADRAS 33 (BOYA MUNIGADU v. THE QUEEN); A.I.R.1957 MADRAS 541 (MURUGIEN, IN RE); A.I.R.1958 ANDHRA 235 (CHERVIRALA NARAYAN, IN RE); A.I.R.1938 ALLAHABAD 532 (BALKU v. EMPEROR); A.I.R.1960 ALLAHABAD 223 (BABU LAL v. STATE) and 1989 LAW WEEKLY (CRI.) 86 ( SUYAMBUKKANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU), have added one more exception, known as 'sustained provocation'. Admittedly, the word 'sustained provocation' is not available in Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. With these decisions, attempts have been made to bring sustained provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C.

37. There is a cardinal difference between provocation as defined under Exception 1 to Section 300 and sustained provocation. The only word which is common is 'provocation'. What Exception 1 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. The last incident may even be a trifling one. Therefore, while considering whether there are materials to indicate that there is a grave and sudden provocation as contemplated under Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C., the sustained provocation, on account of a series of acts more or less grave spread over a certain period of time, would be undoubtedly considered as an addition to 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.