1. Conviction under Section 302, Penal Code — Fatal axe blow delivered by husband after deceased attempted to forcibly take away his wife. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 612
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Faizan Uddin : N.P.Singh
Bonda Devesu
Versus
State Of A.P.
Case No. : of 1995
Date of Decision : 4/28/95
An act committed under grave and sudden provocation, such as when a spouse is being forcibly taken away, falls under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Penal Code, reducing the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code - Section 300 Exception 1 and Section 304 Part 1 - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Grave and sudden provocation - Deceased attempting to forcibly take away the wife of the accused - Act of the deceased constitutes grave provocation, especially considering the accused is a tribal - Conviction under Section 302 set aside and modified to Section 304 Part 1 - Sentence reduced to seven years. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The deceased had been misbehaving with the wife of the accused, claiming he would marry her. On the day of the incident, the deceased caught hold of the wife's hand and attempted to take her away. After the wife escaped and informed the accused, the accused attacked the deceased with an axe, resulting in the deceased's death. The trial court and High Court had previously convicted the accused under Section 302.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the actions of the deceased, specifically attempting to take away the accused's wife, would normally cause grave provocation to the accused, particularly in the context of the accused being a tribal.
Issues: Whether the act of the accused amounted to murder under Section 302 or fell under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Penal Code due to grave and sudden provocation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when the prosecution's own case establishes that the deceased was misbehaving with and attempting to forcibly take away the accused's wife, such an act constitutes grave provocation. Consequently, the offense is covered under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Penal Code, reducing the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Result: Appeal allowed to the extent of convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part 1 and sentencing him to seven years imprisonment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Nature of the offence — Whether the act constitutes murder under Section 302 or falls under an exception to Section 300, Penal Code. (Para 3 )
3. Attempt to forcibly take away a spouse constitutes grave and sudden provocation, particularly considering the cultural context of tribal behavior. (Para 5 )
4. An act committed under grave and sudden provocation falls under Exception I to Section 300, Penal Code, reducing murder to culpable homicide. (Para 5 )
5. Conviction under Section 302 set aside; appellant convicted under Section 304 Part 1 with a sentence of seven years imprisonment. (Para 5 )
6. Does an attempt to forcibly take away a spouse constitute grave provocation?
Yes, the court held that when a person attempts to take away another's wife by catching hold of her hand, it is bound to cause grave provocation in the normal course of events. (Para 5 )
7. How does grave and sudden provocation affect a charge of murder under the Penal Code?
If an act is committed under grave and sudden provocation, it falls under Exception I to Section 300 of the Penal Code, meaning the offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder under Section 302. (Para 5 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE sole appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the trial court. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court was confirmed by the High court.
(3) THIS court issued notice to the respondent-State on 29/7/1993, on a limited question in respect of nature of the offence committed by the appellant. Pursuant to the said notice the respondent-State has appeared.
(4) FROM the judgment of the trial court, it appears that the prosecution case itself is that the deceased used to tell the wife of the appellant that he will carry her away and marry her. On 4/6/1989, at about 8 in the morning, the wife of the appellant had gone to fetch water from a water kundi. While the wife of the appellant was taking water the deceased caught hold of her hand and asked her to come with him. Somehow, she got herself released and ran away to her house and informed the appellant about the incident. The appellant went to the deceased and it is alleged that the appellant gave an axe blow to the deceased which proved fatal.
(5) THE prosecution had alleged participation by other persons also but they have been acquitted by the trial court. We are informed that the appellant is a tribal. The behaviour of the tribals, in situation in which the occurrence has taken place is well known. When prosecution case itself is that the deceased used to misbehave with the wife of the appellant and on the date of occurrence he was actually taking her away by catching hold of her hand, in the normal course it was bound to cause grave provocation to the appellant, because of which the offence was committed. In this background, the appellant cannot be convicted for an offence under Section 302. His case is covered under Exception I to Section 300 of the Penal Code. Accordingly, we set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and convict him under Section 304 Part 1. So far as the sentence is concerned, we direct imprisonment for a period of seven years. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.
