1. Conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and destroying evidence under Section 201 IPC following a fatal assault. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 209
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Vijay @ Vijayakumar - Appellant
Versus
State Represented By Inspector Of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1049 of 2021
Decided on : 16-01-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Ms. Deepa S., Adv. Mr. Sheikh F. Kalia, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Anand, Adv. Shagufa Khan, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Ms. Deepa S., Adv. Mr. Sheikh F. Kalia, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Anand, Adv. Shagufa Khan, Adv.
The court clarified that for Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC to apply, provocation must be both grave and sudden, leading to a temporary loss of self-control.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304 Part 1 and 201 - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Appellant convicted for causing death under grave and sudden provocation - Court affirmed conviction but reduced sentence to period already undergone - Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC discussed, emphasizing that provocation must be both grave and sudden. (Paras 1, 12, 33)
(B) Burden of proof - Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden lies on the accused to prove circumstances covered by Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. (Paras 27, 28)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, after watching a movie, engaged in an altercation with the deceased, resulting in the latter's death due to head injuries inflicted with a cement brick. The appellant was also found guilty of destroying evidence. (Paras 3, 4, 12)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the nature of provocation and circumstances of the case. (Paras 33, 34)
Issues: The main issues included whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide. (Paras 20, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the provocation must be both grave and sudden, and the appellant's actions did not demonstrate premeditation or undue advantage. (Paras 20, 31)
Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction upheld but sentence reduced to the period already undergone.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appeal against the conviction and sentence for culpable homicide and destruction of evidence. (Para 1 , 14 )
3. Analysis of grave and sudden provocation under Section 300 IPC, the reasonable man test, and the burden of proof under the Evidence Act. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
4. Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC requires provocation to be both grave and sudden, depriving the accused of self-control, as judged by a reasonable person. (Para 20 , 22 , 24 )
5. Conviction upheld, but sentence reduced to the period already undergone. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 )
6. What are the essential requirements to invoke Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC?
The deceased must have provided provocation that was both grave and sudden, which deprived the offender of their power of self-control, and the death must have been caused during the continuance of that deprivation. (Para 22 , 23 )
7. How is the element of suddenness evaluated in the context of provocation?
Suddenness involves two elements: the provocation must be unexpected, and the interval between the provocation and the resulting homicide must be brief. (Para 24 )
8. What objective test is used to determine if provocation is grave?
The court applies the reasonable man test, determining if a normal or average person, considering the accused's social conditions and education, would likely lose self-control as a result of such provocation. (Para 24 )
9. Who bears the burden of proof when an accused claims an exception to murder?
Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proving the circumstances that bring the case within a specific exception to Section 300 IPC lies with the accused. (Para 27 , 28 )
ORDER :
1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Madras dated 27-6-2019 in Criminal Appeal No.194/2012 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant – herein and thereby affirmed the Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court, i.e., Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam holding the appellant – herein guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter, referred to as “IPC”) and sentencing him to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment. It appears that the appellant was also held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo 2 years of rigorous imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
3. The appellant – herein along with his friends including `PW 11’ and `PW 12’ had gone to watch a movie on 5-11-2007. They were returning home in the mid night hours after watching the movie. While they were sleeping beneath a bridge, they found the deceased over there to be in an inebriated condition. It seems that the deceased was heavily drunk. The deceased picked up an altercation with the appellant – herein and his friends. According to the prosecution, at that point of time, the appellant picked up a cement brick which was lying at the place of occurrence and hit the deceased on his head. The deceased succumbed to the head injuries.
4. It is also the case of the prosecution that thereafter with a view to destroy the evidence, the appellant – herein set the dead-body of the deceased on fire.
5. The `PW 1’ in his capacity as the Village Administrative Officer lodged a First Information Report in this regard at the concerned Police Station.
6. The inquest panchnama of the dead-body was carried out.
Thereafter, the dead-body was sent for postmortem. The Postmortem Report reveals that the cause of death was due to head injuries.
7. At the end of the investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet. The case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter, referred to as “Code”).
8. The Trial Court framed charge against the appellant – herein for the offence enumerated above to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
P.W.1. Thiru Mohan, Village Administrative Officer
P.W.2 Tmt Rani
P.W.3 Tmt Vanitha
P.W.4 Tmt Kavitha
P.W.5 Dr M.S. Kadar
P.W.6 Tmt Gayathri, Scientific Assistant
P.W.7 Thiru Mohandoss
P.W.8 Thiru Srinivasan
P.W.9 Thiru Samarasapandiyan, Head Constable
P.W.10 Thiru Rajasekar, Inspector of Police
P.W.11 Thiru Ramu
P.W.12 Tmt Raji
10. The prosecution also relied upon the following pieces of documentary evidence:-
Ex.P.1 06.11.2007 Complaint given by Village Administrative Officer.
Ex.P.2 12.11.2007 Signature of P.W.1 in Statement of Accused.
Ex.P.3 12.11.2007 Signature of report by Village Administrative Officer.
Ex.P.4 28.11.2007 Viscera Report.
Ex.P.5 06.11.2007 Post Mortem Certificate.
Ex.P.6 06.11.2007 Signature of P.W.7 in Observation Mahazar. Ex.P.7 06.11.2007 Signature of P.W.7 in Mahazar.
Ex.P.8 06.11.2007 Signature of P.W.8 in Observation Mahazar. Ex.P.9 06.11.2007 Signature of P.W.9 in Mahazar.
Ex.P.10 06.11.2007 Printed F.I.R.
Ex.P.11 06.11.2007 Observation Mahazar
Ex.P.12 06.11.2007 Rough Sketch.
?X.?.13 06.11.2007 Mahazar.
Ex.P.14 06.11.2007 Inquest Report.
EX.P.15 06.11.2007 Special report for recovery of M.0.8.
Ex.P.16 12.11.2007 Accused Statement by Village Administrative
Ex.P.17 12.11.2007 V.A.O. report.
Ex. P.18 12.11.2007 Admissible Portion in Confession Statement
Ex.P.19 12.11.2007 Mahazar for recovery of M.O.1,2 and 9. Ex.P.20 12.11.2007 Alteration Report.
Ex.P.21 13.11.2007 Requisition for Chemical Examination Ex.P.22 14.11.2007 Court Letter for Chemical Examination. Ex.P.23 28.11.2007 Biology Report.
Ex.P.24 28.02.2008 Serology Report
11. On conclusion of the recording of the oral evidence, the further statement of the appellant – herein
