The appellant was previously found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and destruction of evidence by a lower court and the High Court. The case revolves around an incident where the appellant struck and killed an intoxicated individual who allegedly provoked him, and then attempted to burn the body. The document focuses heavily on the legal interpretation of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines grave and sudden provocation as a factor that can reduce murder to culpable homicide. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence based on the time already served and the circumstances of the unplanned incident.
(A) Penal Code, 1860, Section 304 Part I – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Nature of offence – Sentence – Incident was not pre-planned or pre-meditated – The appellant and his friends had gone to watch a movie – They were returning back home in the late night hours and they decided to take some rest beneath the bridge – The deceased also happened to be sleeping beneath the bridge – However, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was in a drunken condition – In fact, there is nothing to indicate that the deceased was drunk – However, the eye-witnesses to the incident and that too none other than the friends of the appellant who were examined by the prosecution deposed that the deceased was in a drunken condition – The deceased is said to have uttered some bad words and it appears that he also raised his hand & slapped the appellant herein – However, that by itself may not be sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of grave and sudden provocation – The incident occurred at a spur of a moment – The act was not pre-planned or pre-meditated – Appellant had no weapon in his hands – He picked up a cement stone which was lying beneath the bridge and hit the same on the head of the deceased – Therefore, it could be said that the appellant did not take any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner – Held that not inclined to disturb the conviction of the appellant – Ends of justice would be met if the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is reduced from 5 years to the period already undergone i.e. 4 years.
(Para 29 to 33)
(B) Penal Code, 1860, Section 300 Exception I – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Application of Exception – Held that Exception 1 to Section 300 can apply when the accused is shown to have deprived of power of self- control by grave and sudden provocation which is caused by the person whose death has been caused – It is not each and every provocation that will reduce the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder – The provocation must be both grave and sudden – In order to invoke the benefit of the exception, it must be established that the act committed by the accused was a simultaneous reaction of grave as well as sudden provocation which deprived him of the power of self- control – If the provocation is grave but not sudden, the accused cannot get the benefit of this exception – Likewise, he cannot invoke the exception where the provocation though sudden is not grave.
(Para 19 and 20)
(C) Penal Code, 1860, Section 300 Exception I – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Grave and sudden provocation – Held that the provocation must be such as will upset not merely a hasty and hot-tempered or hypersensitive person, but one of ordinary sense and calmness – The Court has to consider whether a reasonable person placed in the same position as accused would have behaved in the manner in which the accused behaved on receiving the same provocation – If it appears that the action of the accused was out of all proportion to the gravity or magnitude of the provocation offered, the case will not fall under the exception – The case can only fall under the exception when the court is able to hold that provided the alleged provocation is given, every normal person would behave or act in the same way as the accused in the circumstances in which the accused was placed, acted.
(Para 25)
(D) Penal Code, 1860, Section 300 Exception I – Evidence Act, 1872, Section 105 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Grave and sudden provocation – Burden of proof – Section 105 of the Act, 1872 casts burden of proof on the accused – Being an exception, the burden of proving the circumstances covered by Exception 1 is on the accused – Where the prosecution prima facie proves that the act was committed by the accused which had resulted in the death of the deceased and the accused pleads that the case falls within one of the exceptions, it is for him to prove that – It is for the accused who seeks to reduce the nature of his crime by bringing his case under Exception 1, to prove that the provocation received by him was such as might reasonably be deemed sufficient to deprive him of self- control, and that the act of killing took place whilst that absence of control was in existence and may fairly be attributed to it.
(Para 27 and 28)
Vijay @ Vijayakumar V. State Represented By Inspector Of Police
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 90: (DoJ 16-01-2025)
