CASE TITLE : VIJAY @ VIJAYAKUMAR V. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
The Supreme Court (recently on January 16) observed that not every sudden provocation would reduce the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. For reference, exception 1 to Section 300 (murder) of IPC states that culpable homicide is not murder when the accused is deprived of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation caused by the deceased person.
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan explained that to invoke this exception, there must be a simultaneous reaction of the grave as well as a sudden provocation.
“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.,” the Court said.
Moving forward, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala, delved into the ingredients of this exception. It explained that firstly, the provocation must be unexpected. It should not involve any planning and there must be a brief interval between the provocation and the homicide.
“If the man giving the provocation is killed within a minute after the provocation, it is a case of sudden provocation. If the man is killed six hours after the provocation, it is not a case of sudden provocation.,” the Court said.
Secondly, to determine the graveness of any provocation, an objective test must be applied. That is to say, the Court must question “Is a reasonable man likely to lose self-control as a result of such provocation?”. While explaining what reasonable man means, the Court also noted that the education and social conditions of an accused must be taken into consideration. Elaborating, the Court said that while an exchange of abuses is not a grave provocation, however, in some societies, adultery is a serious matter and thus the same can be a basis for grave provocation.
“A reasonable man is not the ideal man or the perfect being. A normal man sometimes loses temper. There is, therefore no inconsistency in saying that, a reasonable man may lose self-control as a result of grave provocation. A reasonable or normal or average man is a legal fiction. The reasonable man will vary from society to society. A Judge should not impose his personal standards in this matter. By training, a Judge is a patient man. But the reasonable man or the normal man need not have the same standard of behaviour as the judge himself.”
Lastly, on the issue of losing self-control, the Court said that only in rare cases can it be proved that an accused committed the murder with a cool head. Thus, proving the above two conditions would suffice in order to discharge the accused’s burden of bringing his case under this exception. It also said that as per the India Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the accused to bring his case under the exception.
In the present case, the prosecution’s case was that while the appellant and his friends were sleeping beneath a bridge, the deceased, who was heavily drunk, picked up an altercation with them. Consequently, the appellant picked up a cement brick and hit the deceased on his head. The Trial Court granted him the benefit of Exception 1 of the Section 300 IPC. The same was affirmed by the High Court. Against this background, the matter reached before the Supreme Court.
At the outset, the Court, taking a cue from the above-made observations, marked:
“What should be the approach of the court? 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.”
Shifting its focus on the facts of the case, the Court said that the incident took place in spur of the moment as the deceased uttered some bad words and slapped the appellant. However, that by itself may not be sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of grave and sudden provocation., the Court said.
While stating this, the Court also opined that instead exception 4 (Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight) could have been invoked. To support this, the Court pointed out that the incident was not pre-planned or pre-meditated.
“The incident occurred at a spur of a moment. The act was not pre-planned or pre-meditated. What is important to note is that the 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.”
Notwithstanding, the Court did not disturb the sentence; however, it reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
Case Name: VIJAY @ VIJAYAKUMAR V. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
