Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Mahesh Chandra and M. H. Beg, JJ.
AKHTAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 1620 Of 1962
Decided On : 11/11/1963
CRIMINAL LAW - CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER - GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION - INTERPRETATION OF EXCEPTION 1 TO SECTION 300 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT - DISTINCTION BETWEEN ENGLISH AND INDIAN LAW ON THE SUBJECT - RELEVANCE OF CULTURAL, SOCIAL, AND EMOTIONAL BACKGROUND IN DETERMINING THE GRAVITY OF PROVOCATION - ASSESSMENT OF THE ACCUSED'S CONDUCT BEFORE AND AFTER THE PROVOCATION - CASE ANALYSIS INVOLVING VERBAL ABUSE, GRAPPLING, AND KNIFE ATTACK.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Akhtar, was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for stabbing his brother, Sabir, to death. The prosecution alleged that Akhtar acted with the intention to kill Sabir, while the defense argued that Akhtar was provoked by Sabir's abusive language and aggressive behavior, and thus his actions fell under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, reducing the offense to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Akhtar was subjected to a grave and sudden provocation by Sabir, who used filthy and highly unbecoming language against Akhtar and his father in the presence of others. The court also found that Sabir aggressively advanced towards Akhtar and grappled with him, further escalating the situation. The court held that Akhtar's actions in stabbing Sabir twice with a knife were committed while he was deprived of the power of self-control due to the provocation.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant, Akhtar, was deprived of the power of self-control due to a grave and sudden provocation, thereby reducing the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Whether the abusive language and aggressive behavior of the deceased, Sabir, constituted a grave and sudden provocation in the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and held that the test for determining whether a provocation is grave and sudden is objective, based on the norms and standards of the accused's social group, rather than subjective, based on the accused's individual characteristics or mental state. 2. The court distinguished the English law on grave and sudden provocation from the Indian law, emphasizing that Indian law places greater emphasis on the cultural, social, and emotional background of the accused in assessing the gravity of the provocation. 3. The court held that the abusive language and aggressive behavior of the deceased, Sabir, constituted a grave and sudden provocation in the circumstances of the case, considering the background of bickering and quarrels between the brothers, the use of foul and filthy language, and the aggressive advance and grappling by Sabir. 4. The court found that Akhtar acted under the stress of the provocation and lost control over himself, leading to the stabbing of Sabir. The court held that Akhtar's conduct before the provocation was reasonable and proper, and there was no evidence of a cooling time or opportunity for deliberation between the provocation and the stabbing.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of Akhtar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and convicted him under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court sentenced Akhtar to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
( 1 ) THE appellant, Akhtar has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Rampur under section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has appealed to this Court from jail, and, he is unrepresented here. However, Sri P. C. Srivastava, the learned Assistant government Advocate, has placed the whole case before us very fairly and completely, and has contended that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, I. P. C. is erroneous. The learned Assistant Government Advocate contends that this is a case in which the appellant is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder inasmuch as the appellant acted under the stress of a grave and sudden provocation which deprived him of the power of self-control, so that he stabbed his own brother, Sabir, with a knife twice, and thereby caused his death. The submission made by the Assistant Government Advocate is not free from difficulties, and, therefore, we propose to examine these difficulties.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, the appellant is one of the five sons of Chanda (P. W. 8), and Chanda himself lodged the first information report at 8 P. M. , on 22-11-1961, soon after the incident which took place about 6. 30 P. M. on the same day. All the sons of Chanda except shamshuddin, the youngest son, were married. Chhoti (P. W. 1), the wife of Sabir, deceased, is alleged to be a woman of ungovernable temper and of extremely quarrelsome nature. Both chhoti (P. W. 1) and her husband Sabir, deceased, appear to have been addicted to the vicious habit of using foul and filthy language. It is also in evidence that, at the time of the occurrence, the wife and the children of Akhtar, the appellant, were not living with the appellant and had left for the house of Akhtars father-in-law. Both Akhtar and Sabir, deceased, lived in what appears to have been practically one house, in their respective residential quarters which were separated only by a short wall. In the light of the fact that the two brothers were living side by side, practically overlooking into each others quarters, and that Chhoti (P. W. 1), the wife of the deceased, has been described by prosecution witnesses as an extremely quarrelsome woman, who could not get along with anybody, the daily bickerings and squabbles between Chhoti and sabir on one side and Akhtar and his wife and children on the other side, can be imagined.
( 3 ) IT is in evidence that on 22-11-1961, the date of occurrence, in the evening, Akhtar was cooking his food alone in his part of the house, and that Chhoti (P. W. 1) was also nearly in sabirs quarters. It is in evidence that Shamsuddin (P. W. 10) together with Chhunnu, the brother-in-law of Ramzani (P. W. 7), went to the house of Akhtar and saw him cooking his own food. And, thereupon, Chhunnu, the brother-in-law of Ramzani (P. W. 7), cracked a joke by asking Akhtar for the reason why he did not get his food cooked by Srimati Chhoti (P. W. 1 ). At this, Srimati Chhoti flared up, with the result that abuses were exchanged between her and shamshuddin (P. W. 10 ). Apparently, Akhtar, the appellant, took no part in all this and controlled himself. A little later, Sabir, the deceased, who was older than Akhtar, Ramzani and Shamshuddin, came back from work to his house. Thereupon, his wife, Srimati Chhoti (P. W. 1), smarting under the effects of the encounter she had had with Shamshuddin and Chunnu, appears to have complained bitterly to Sabir against the conduct of his youngest brother, Shamshuddin, and set him up to go and reprimand and punish Shamshuddin. As a result of this instigation, Sabir, the deceased went to the house of his father, Chanda (P. W. 8), a few houses removed from there, and he started abusing everybody there. Sabir is also alleged to have threatened to tear Shamsuddin asunder by his legs, and Shamsuddin, who used to live with his father, is, reported to have hidden himself in the house due to fear. But, Chanda (P. W. 8) and Ramzani (P. W. 7) c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
