The main legal point established in the judgment is that loss of self-control under the influence of liquor and on grave and sudden provocation can lead to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:
self-defence - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 304 - The court found the accused guilty under the first part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, ruling that the accused had lost self-control under the influence of liquor and on grave and sudden provocation, leading to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for stabbing to death one John alias Thambi. The appellant denied the incriminating circumstances and put forward a case of self-defence and grave and sudden provocation offered by the deceased.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty under the first part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, ruling that the accused had lost self-control under the influence of liquor and on grave and sudden provocation, leading to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused's actions constituted murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's loss of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation from the deceased, combined with the influence of liquor, led to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the first part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, found the accused guilty under the first part of Section 304, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years.

Judgment :-

B.M. THULASIDAS, J.

The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was alleged to have stabbed to death one John alias Thambi on 1-10-1989, at about 8.00 p.m., from near the Arrack shop of P.W. 3, whom he was alleged to have abused following his refusal to give arrack on credit that the deceased heard as he came there and tried to reason with him to send him away. The First Information statement, Ext. P1 was given by P.W. 1, an eye witness, to P.W. 9, on the basis of which Crime No. 154 of 1989 of Rajapuram Police Station was registered. P.W. 10 investigated the case. He held inquest from the mortuary of the Government hospital, Kanhangad on 2-10-1989 and as per Ext. P7 report he recovered M.O. 12 to M.O. 16. As per Ext. P2 scene mahazar, M.Os. 1 to 11 were seized. Postmortem was conducted by P.W. 6, who issued Ext. P4 certificate. The deceased had (antemortem)

"An incised wound eliptical in shape 4 cm x 2 cm obliquely placed on the front of the right side of chest. It is 6 cm below the right Sternoclavicular joint and 4 cm, to the right of the midline, upper and of the wound is slightly rounded compared to lower end which is more sharp. On probing wound is directed downward and medially and is entering the thoracic cavity."

He also found :

"The intercostal muscles below the 3rd rib is cleanly cut. The 4th rib is sharply cut at the sternocostal junction. On opening the thoracic cavity, a cut of 2 cm length is seen on the medial border of the right lung overlying the heart, in line with the external wound. There is incised wound on the pericardium overlying the right auricle (alrium) 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. and some collection of blood in the pericardial cavity. There is an incised wound 2 cm x 0.4 cm; over the upper and anterior part of right alrium and has entered the right alrial cavity. Right thoracic cavity contains about 600 ml of blood. Right lung is adherent to the thoracic wall due to fibroses of the upper part of lung and is smaller in size."

and opined that the deceased died of haemorrhage and shock due to the injury to the heart, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and maintained that M.O. 1 could have caused it. The accused was arrested at 3.00 p.m. on 4-10-1989 from the road at Chemberi in Panthady Village and as per Ext. P8 statement, M.O. 1 was seized under Ext. P5 mahazar. M.Os. 2 and 3 were also seized from him under Ext. P3. After completing the investigation he laid the charge-sheet.

2. P.Ws. 1 to 10 were examined, Exts. P1 to P9 and M.Os. 1 to 7 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the incriminating circumstances and put forward a case of self-defence and grave and sudden provocation offered by the deceased. No witness was examined in defence. Ext. D1 was marked.

3. We heard counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor.

4. That death of John alias Thampi was homicidal following the fatal stab injury caused by the accused in the incident that happened at 8 p.m on 1-10-1989 is not in controversy. The place of incident had been identified by P.W. 10. Ext. P3 is the scene mahazar. There were telltale marks of the occurrence at the place. P.Ws. 1 to 3, who are familiar with the accused and the deceased, had given acceptable evidence about the incident. P.W. 3 who was employed in the arrack shop deposed that on 1-10-1989, around 8 p.m. the accused came consumed 100 ml. of arrack and paid Rs. 5/- being the price. He left the shop but soon returned and wanted him to give 100 ml. more on credit, that he refused since Rs. 4.50 was already due from him in connection with a prior transaction. He went away but came again and after showing a five rupee note demanded 100 ml. of arrack that he gave him. But he did not pay the price, told him to collect it if he could and left showering abuses to which he did not respond but said that he shall speak

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis