IMPORTANT POINT
The doctrine of sudden and grave provocation is incapable of rigid construction leading to or stating any principle of universal application. This will always have to depend on the facts of a given case.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 302-Prosecution of appellant accused for causing death of deceased by inflicting injuries on him by means of an axe-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal- From the prosecution evidence, it was not established that accused had the intention to kill the deceased or it was a premeditated crime-No dispute that accused came out with a tobru but, at the same time, it was also clear that this was the most easily available weapon in that part of the hills and was used regularly by the communities- Beyond this factor, there was no evidence of animosity, premeditation or intention to kill- The accused did give a blow by tobru on the head of the deceased which proved fatal- This was result of the grave and sudden provocation where father of both the deceased and the accused was being abused, assaulted and ill- treated by the deceased, who was in a drunken state-Hence held that in the facts of the instant case, a sudden and grave provocation took place which would bring the offence within the ambit of exception 1 of Section 300 IPC and hence under Section 304 Part I IPC as the accused had caused such bodily injury to the deceased which, to his knowledge, was likely to cause death as he had inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased-Accused held guilty of an offence under Section 304 Part I IPC-Appeal disposed of (Paras 19 to 21)
        Doctrine of sudden and grave provocation -Scope and ambit of-The doctrine of sudden and grave provocation is incapable of rigid construction leading to or stating any principle of universal application- This will always have to depend on the facts of a given case- While applying this principle, the primary obligation of the Court is to examine from the point of view of a person of reasonable prudence if there was such grave and sudden provocation so as to reasonably conclude that it was possible to commit the offence of culpable homicide, and as per the facts, was not a culpable homicide amounting to murder.- An offence resulting from grave and sudden provocation would normally mean that a person placed in such circumstances could lose self-control but only temporarily and that too, in proximity to the time of provocation- The provocation could be an act or series of acts done by the deceased to the accused resulting in inflicting of injury (Para 13)
       Facts of the Case :
        Appellant accused was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by inflicting injuries on him by means of an axe. Trial Court convicted appellant for said offence. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court,
        B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        From the prosecution evidence, it was not established that accused had the intention to kill the deceased or it was a premeditated crime.No dispute that accused came out with a tobru but, at the same time, it was also clear that this was the most easily available weapon in that part of the hills and was used regularly by the communities. Beyond this factor, there was no evidence of animosity, premeditation or intention to kill. The accused did give a blow by tobru on the head of the deceased which proved fatal. This was result of the grave and sudden provocation where father of both the deceased and the accused was being abused, assaulted and ill- treated by the deceased, who was in a drunken state.Hence held that in the facts of the instant case, a sudden and grave provocation took place which would bring the offence within the ambit of exception 1 of Section 300 IPC and hence under Section 304 Part I IPC as the accused had caused such bodily injury to the deceased which, to his knowledge, was likely to cause death as he had inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased-Accused held guilty of an offence under Section 304 Part I IPC.
       Result : Appeal disposed of

JUDGMENT :-

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd August, 2004 vide which the appeal preferred by the accused, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for life was dismissed and the same was affirmed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief can be usefully noticed. Ganga Ram and Budhi Singh were sons of Bala Ram. Ganga Ram along with two minor sons Ramnath, aged about 11 years and Mohan Lal was living in a room in a house owned by Bala Ram in Village Chowki, District Kullu. Budhi Singh was living with his parents in a separate room of the same building. Ganga Ram was married, but his wife Smt. Indra Devi had deserted him – had settled with one Dolu Ram as his wife.

2. On 9th November, 2000, Bala Ram, who was examined as DW1 was grazing sheep and goats in the field adjoining his house. Ramnath, who was examined as PW9, was washing clothes in the courtyard of the house. At about 4 p.m., Ganga Ram came to the house under the influence of liquor. As he entered the house, he started pelting stones on the roof of the house and abused his father, DW-1. A quarrel took place between Ganga Ram and his father. During the fight between the father and the son, DW1 struck a danda blow to Ganga Ram, then he shouted for help and called his son Budhi Singh who was inside the house. On hearing the shouts of his father, Budhi Singh came to the spot armed with a tobru (small axe) in his hands. Budhi Singh inflicted tobru blow on the skull of Ganga Ram as a result of which Ganga Ram suffered injuries on his head and fell down in the field. The wounds of Ganga Ram were profusely bleeding. Budhi Singh, accused and his father, DW1 went to their house leaving Ganga Ram in the injured condition in the field. After some time they came back to the field and carried Ganga Ram to the verandah of their house, but by that time, Ganga Ram had died due to injuries inflicted upon him. This incident occurred at about 4 p.m. After some time, PW9 son of the deceased went to the nearby house of PW1, Surat Ram and narrated the incident of killing of his father by his uncle namely Budhi Singh. PW1 and some other residents of the village gathered in the house of Bala Ram and found the dead body of the deceased lying there. In the night, some of the persons who had come to the house of Bala Ram also informed Khimi Ram, Member Zila Parishad, who was examined as PW2, of the occurrence. He telephonically passed the information of murder of Ganga Ram to the Police Post, Bhunter. The information was recorded by PW6, Head Constable, Ram Swarup in the Roznamcha, Ext. PW6/A at Police Chowki, Bhunter. PW6 also informed the SHO Roshan Lal of Police Station, Kullu in regard to the occurrence. Upon receiving directions from PW6 investigation was started and police officials were deputed at the place of occurrence. When the Investigating Officer, PW10 reached the place of occurrence, DW1 disclosed to him that Ganga Ram was murdered by him with Danda blow though PW9, the minor son of the deceased, informed PW10 that his father, Ganga Ram, was murdered by the accused with tobru blows. PW10 recorded the statement, Ext. PW9/A, of PW9 under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the CrPC”) and sent the same to the police station. On the basis of this, the First Information Report (FIR), Ext. PW7/B, was recorded at about 2.45 p.m. on 10th November, 2000 by Muharrar Head Constable Bhagat Ram, PW7. PW10 inspected the spot, took blood stained earth and bunch of hair of the deceased from the spot vide Ext. PB prepared in the presence of PW1. PW10 prepared the inquest report, Ext. PA and took the photographs of the dead body of Ganga Ram. Then the body of Ganga Ram was sent to District Hospital for post mortem. The post mortem of the body was performed by Dr. Bhupender Chauhan, PW5 and he prepared his report Ext. PW5A. According to the post mor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 906

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SWATANTER KUMAR & MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ. Budhi Singh Versus State of H.P. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1801 OF 2009 Decided on : 13-12-2012

IMPORTANT POINT The doctrine of sudden and grave provocation is incapable of rigid construction leading to or stating any principle of universal application. This will always have to depend on the facts of a given case.

Cases Referred (11)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SWATANTER KUMAR & MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.
Budhi Singh
Versus
State of H.P.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1801 OF 2009
Decided on : 13-12-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
The doctrine of sudden and grave provocation is incapable of rigid construction leading to or stating any principle of universal application. This will always have to depend on the facts of a given case.