Bench comprising of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan
The Supreme Court dealt with whether grave and sudden provocation can reduce an offense from murder to culpable homicide. The case involved an altercation where the appellant, after being slapped and abused by the deceased, struck the latter on the head with a cement brick, causing his death.
Facts
The appellant, along with his friends, was sleeping under a bridge when the deceased, who was drunk, started an argument.
The deceased slapped the appellant and used abusive language, prompting the appellant to pick up a cement brick and strike the deceased on the head.
The Trial Court and the High Court applied Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Issues:
- Whether the provocation (the slap and verbal abuse) was "grave" and "sudden" enough to invoke Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, thereby reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide?
- Whether the appellant's actions fell within the scope of "sudden fight" as per Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which could potentially lead to a lesser charge?
Contentions of Petitioner
The appellant argued that the provocation was both grave and sudden, justifying a reduction from murder to culpable homicide. He contended that his response was impulsive due to the verbal and physical abuse by the deceased.
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog]
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Contention of Respondent
The prosecution maintained that while the provocation was sudden, it wasn’t grave enough to make the appellant lose self-control. Further contended that the provocation did not meet the threshold for reducing the charge to culpable homicide.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court emphasized that not every provocation is sufficient to reduce a charge from murder to culpable homicide. The suddenness of the provocation was accepted, but the Court concluded that the provocation was not grave enough for the appellant to lose self-control, especially given the nature of the altercation (slapping and verbal abuse). The Court also considered that Exception 4 (sudden fight) might be applicable, as the act was spontaneous and there was no premeditation.
Conclusion:
The Court found that Exception 1 did not apply due to the lack of grave provocation but suggested that Exception 4 (sudden fight) was more fitting.
The appellant’s sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, considering the impulsive nature of the act.
This case highlights how grave and sudden provocation is evaluated based on whether a reasonable person would lose control, and how sudden fights are dealt with under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
