Not Every Provocation Will Reduce The Crime From Murder To Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder: SC Explains Grave & Sudden Provocation Exception To Section 300 IPC

The Appeal before the Supreme Court challenged a Madras High Court Order affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment. 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.

The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan clarified, “It is well established that Exception 1 to Section 300 can apply when the accused is shown to have deprived of power of self- control by grave and sudden provocation which is caused by the person whose death has been caused.”

Factual Background

The incident dates back to the year 2007 when the appellant along with his friends had gone to watch a movie. On their way to the home in the midnight hours, they took rest beneath a bridge and there they found the deceased to be in an inebriated condition. The deceased picked up an altercation with the appellant and his friends. According to the prosecution, 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. It was also the case of the prosecution that thereafter to destroy the evidence, the appellant set the dead body of the deceased on fire.

The Village Administrative Officer lodged a First Information Report in this regard at the concerned Police Station. The Trial Court took the view that the case was one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellant went in appeal before the High Court. His appeal failed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Reference was made to Exception One of Section 300 which states that a culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

The Bench further explained, “It is not each and every provocation that will reduce the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The provocation must be both grave and sudden. In order to invoke the benefit of the exception, it must be established that the act committed by the accused was a simultaneous reaction of grave as well as sudden provocation which deprived him of the power of self-control. If the provocation is grave but not sudden, the accused cannot get the benefit of this exception. Likewise, he cannot invoke the exception where the provocation though sudden is not grave.”

As per the Bench, before Exception 1 can be invoked, the accused must establish the following circumstances: there was a provocation which was both grave and sudden; such provocation had deprived the accused of his power of self-control; whilst the accused was so deprived of his power of self-control, he had caused the death of the victim. “The case can only fall under the exception when the court is able to hold that provided the alleged provocation is given, every normal person would behave or act in the same way as the accused in the circumstances in which the accused was placed, acted”, it said.

The Court also made it clear that Section 105 of the India Evidence Act, 1872 casts the burden of proof on the accused. Being an exception, the burden of proving the circumstances covered by Exception 1 is on the accused.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench stated that if the Trial Court and the High Court wanted to bring the case within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, then it could have invoked exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC as the incident was not pre-planned or pre-meditated. The deceased was said to have uttered some bad words and it appeared that he also raised his hand & slapped the appellant herein. However, that by itself may not be sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of grave and sudden provocation, the Bench mentioned.

The Court further noted, “The incident occurred at a spur of a moment. The act was not pre-planned or pre-meditated. What is important to note is that the appellant had no weapon in his hands. He picked up a cement stone which was lying beneath the bridge and hit the same on the head of the deceased. Therefore, it could be said that the appellant did not take any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

Thus, partly allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court be reduced to the period already undergone.

Cause Title: Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 90)

Click here to read/download Order