SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(All) 210

V.G.OAK, S.S.DHAVAN
MAHMOOD – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.C.Chaturvedi, S.D.Pandey

OAK, J.

( 1 ) I agree with my learned brother that Mahmoods conviction under Section 302,. P. C. should be upheld, but Ms sentence should be reduced to imprisonment for life- I would like to add a few words to explain the proper approach in cases of homicide committed under provocation.

( 2 ) IN order to bring his case under Exception 1 to Section 300. P. C. , an accused has to establish the following ingredients :

(i) The provocation was sudden; (ii) the provocation was grave; and (iii) loss of self control these three ingredients may be considered one by one. (i): Whether the provocation was sudden or not does not present much difficulty. The word sudden involves two elements. Firstly, the provocation must be unexpected. If an accused plans in advance to receive a provocation in order to justify the subsequent homicide, the provocation cannot be said to be sudden. Secondly, the inter val between the provocation and the homicide should he brief. If the man giving the provoca- tion is killed within a minute after the provocation, it is a case of sudden provocation. If the man is killed six hours after the provocation, it is not a case of sudden provocation.

(ii) The main difficulty






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top