Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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.

47. This is a case where the first accused went to his home and took the lengthy knife with a plan to kill the deceased and proceeded towards his house and when the deceased was coming in a bicycle near the Sub Registrar's Office, he gave a heavy stab on the stomach which cut the mesenteric vessels. This definitely indicates the intention of the first accused to use the knife and cause serious injury cutting the mesenteric vessels in order to murder the deceased.

48. When there is no material whatsoever for coming to the conclusion that the incident took place in a sudden and grave provocation or sustained provocation, in the absence of any incident causing further provocation to attack the deceased, the trial Court, in our view, ought not to have acquitted the first accused in respect of the major offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and simply convicted him for the lesser offence.