Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

54. In re SUYAMBUKKANI [1989 L.W.(Crl) 86], this Court has occasion to consider this proposition as to provocation in the Indian Criminal Law. Dr.Justice David Annousamy while referring to the eloquent submission of Mr.N.T.Vanamamalai, Senior Advocate, who appeared for the appellant/accused that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the act of the accused did not amount to murder within the meaning of I.P.C., the learned Judge observed as under:-

21. It is clear from the opinion of the important architects of the Indian codification that Anglo Indian Codes, which were the first experiments in English language in the art of codification, inspite of their immense value, are far from being perfect and were intended to be overhauled from time to time. Therefore, though technically the Exceptions to Section 300 I.P.C. appear to be limitative they can no longer be considered so, after the efflux of time. In fact, Courts have added one more exception known as 'sustained provocation'. The leading decision in that field is the well known Nanavati's case. AIR 1962 S.C.605. That decision is not the first one to take into consideration trie situation of sustained provocation. There are previous decisions, which are reviewed in that case are: The Empress V. Khagayi, I.L.R. 2 Mad. 122 Boya Munigadu v. The Queen, I.L.R. 3 Mad, 33, Murugien. In re. (1957)2 MLJ.9: 1957 M.L.J.(Crl) 271: 1957 Crl.L.J. 970: ILR 1957 Mad 908: AIR 1957 Mad, 541, Chervirala Narayan. In re.,(1958)1 An.W.R., 149: AIR 1958 Mad, 235, Balku v. Emperor, AIR 1938 All, 532 and Babu Lal V. State, AIR 1960 All.223. Thereafter, several decisions have been pronounced and recently by this Court dealt with the same subject in the following unreported cased C.A.No.70 of 1981, dated 15.12.1982, Lakshmi J. State, C.A.No.417 of 1985, dated 10.02.1986, Dhaman V. State, C.A.No.184 of 1983, dated 06.2.1983, Dsvanthan @ Mani v. State, C.A.No.301 of 1984, dated 04.08.1988, Gopal V. State. Though there has seen 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 1 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 I.P.C.

57. In AHLUWALIA (supra), the appellant pleaded for substitution of her conviction for manslaughter for that of murder. The English Court started looking at the past provocative incidents as relevant provocation. Lord Justice Talyor of Gosforth, C.J. addressing the appellant's submission that expert evidence showed that women who have been subjected frequently over a period to violent treatment may react to the final act or words by slow burn reaction rather than by an immediate loss of self-control held that we accept that the subjective element in the defence of provocation would not as a matter of law be negatived simply because of the delayed reaction in such cases, provided that there was at the time of the killing a 'sudden and temporary loss of self-control' caused by the alleged provocation. The English Court do accepted the Indian innovative principle of sustained provocation as cumulative provocation in their criminal jurisprudence.

59. Recently, in POOVAMMAL vs. STATE, REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, V.K.PURAM POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT [2012(2)MLJ (Crl)482], this Court referred to the offence of manslaughter in English Law, an offence committed during provocation and observed as under:-

30. Under the English Criminal Law, the provocation must be grave and also sudden. But, by way of judicial thinking, the Indian Criminal Law has gone ahead.(K.M.Nanavati v. State of Maharastra(supra). In our system, there is the concept of sustained provocation. It is concerned with the duration of the provocation. There may be incidents/occurrences, which are such that they may not make the offender suddenly to make his outburst by his overt Act. However, it may be lingering in his mind for quite sometime, torment continuously and at one point of time erupt, make him to loss his self control, make his mind to go astray, the mind may not be under his control/command and results in the offender committing the offence. The sustained provocation /frustration nurtured in the mind of the accused reached the the end of breaking point, under that accused causes the murder of the deceased.

61. Subsequently, in SANTOSH SATISH BHUSAN vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [2009(6)SCC 498] faced with kindred situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed VASHRAM (supra).

62. Thus, in the backdrop of the law relating to provocation, particularly sustained provocation, when we look at the facts of the present case it comes to light that as between the accused and the deceased there was continued strained relationship. The reason being the illegal intimacy of wife of the accused with her colleague Senthil. Besides that in order to safeguard the future of his children the accused kept the children away from her and because of her persistent demand for her children, the accused was apprehensive of loosing the children also. On the occurrence day, prior to the commission of the offence, there was wordy altercation between the accused and the deceased. At about that time, the accused remarked about her behavior and in these circumstances, he had beaten her to death.