Case Note & Summary
The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against the High Court's judgment converting the respondent's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC. The respondent had been convicted by the trial court for shooting the deceased, Rakesh, during a panchayat, due to a grudge that the deceased had an evil eye on his wife. The High Court held that the respondent acted under grave and sudden provocation when the deceased arrived at the scene. The Supreme Court examined the facts and found that the respondent had a pre-existing grudge and no overt act by the deceased at the time of the incident. The Court held that the provocation was voluntary and not grave and sudden, thus Exception I to Section 300 IPC was not applicable. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's conviction under Section 302 IPC and life imprisonment, directing the respondent to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Exception I to Section 300 IPC - Grave and Sudden Provocation - The respondent shot the deceased due to a grudge about the deceased's alleged relationship with his wife. The Supreme Court held that the provocation was not grave and sudden but voluntary, as the respondent had a pre-existing grudge and no overt act by the deceased at the scene. The First Proviso to Exception I bars such a claim. (Paras 6-8)
B) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Life Imprisonment - The Supreme Court restored the trial court's conviction under Section 302 IPC and life imprisonment, setting aside the High Court's reduction to Section 304 Part I IPC. The Court held that the respondent must serve the remaining sentence despite having undergone 10 years. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in converting the conviction of the respondent from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC on the ground of grave and sudden provocation under Exception I to Section 300 IPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment. The respondent was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.
Law Points
- Exception I to Section 300 IPC requires grave and sudden provocation not voluntarily sought
- First Proviso to Exception I bars claim where provocation is voluntarily provoked
- Murder under Section 302 IPC requires intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death
- Section 304 Part I IPC applies when act is done with intention of causing death but falls within exceptions to murder
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (2) 132
Criminal Appeal No. 1842 of 2012
L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjay Kishan Kaul
V. Shekhar (Senior Counsel for Appellant), D. K. Garg (Counsel for Respondent)
The State of Uttar Pradesh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal by the State against High Court's reduction of conviction from murder to culpable homicide.
Remedy Sought
State sought restoration of trial court's conviction under Section 302 IPC and life imprisonment.
Filing Reason
High Court converted conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC on ground of grave and sudden provocation.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court convicted respondent under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment; High Court converted to Section 304 Part I IPC with 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
Issues
Whether the High Court erred in applying Exception I to Section 300 IPC to reduce the conviction from murder to culpable homicide.
Whether the provocation was grave and sudden or voluntarily sought by the respondent.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (State): The High Court erred in converting conviction; the provocation was not grave and sudden but voluntary, and the First Proviso to Exception I bars the claim.
Respondent: The High Court correctly found grave and sudden provocation; the respondent lost self-control due to the deceased's arrival; the incident occurred 18 years ago and respondent has served 10 years.
Ratio Decidendi
For Exception I to Section 300 IPC to apply, the provocation must be grave and sudden and not voluntarily sought by the offender. Where the accused has a pre-existing grudge and no overt act by the deceased at the scene, the provocation is voluntary and the exception does not apply. The First Proviso to Exception I expressly bars such a claim.
Judgment Excerpts
According to Exception I to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if the offender causes the death of the person who gave the provocation, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation.
No overt act is alleged against the deceased by which it can be stated that the Respondent was provoked. From the proved facts of this case it appears that the provocation was voluntary on the part of the offender.
The High Court committed a serious error in converting the conviction of the Respondent from under Section 302 IPC to under Section 304 Part I IPC, without proper appreciation of the scope of Section 300 IPC.
Procedural History
The respondent was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court. The High Court converted the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 304 Part I, 300, Exception I to Section 300, First Proviso to Exception I, 34
