Vijay @ Vijayakumar vs State Represented by Inspector of Police

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

16 January 2025

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 1049 of 2021

Result

Partly allowed

Bench

J.B. Pardiwala, R Mahadevan

Citation

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 869 : 2025 INSC 90

Acts & Sections

IPC CrPC Evidence Act

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's act of causing the death of the deceased fell within the scope of "grave and sudden provocation" under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Penal Code (IPC), thereby reducing the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC.

Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 – Prerequisite to attract application of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC:

Held: Not each and every provocation, that results in loss of selfcontrol by accused, will convert an offence of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Only when the provocation is both “grave and sudden” will the accused be entitled to claim benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300, IPC – If either the gravity or suddenness is absent, the provocation will not reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. [Para 18 - 20] Penal Code, 1860 – Ingredients of Exception 1 to Section 300, IPC – Discussed:

Held: There are three core ingredients of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC: (i) sudden (i.e., ‘unexpected’ and interval between provocation and homicide being ‘brief’) and grave (to be determined applying “reasonable man test”) provocation; (ii) provocation caused accused to lose his power of self-control; and (iii) being deprived of his power of self-control, accused caused death of the victim – Reliance placed on Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1942 A. C. 1 [Paras 21 - 24]

Without disturbing the findings of decisions of both the courts below, the courts below could have invoked Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC if they intended to bring the present case within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Because as revealed from the facts, deceased abused and slapped Appellant (who was accompanied by his friends) which led to an altercation and Appellant hit deceased with a cement brick lying nearby – However, deceased’s death was neither pre-planned nor pre-meditated and the accused was also unarmed – This proved that Appellant did not take any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner – The conviction is affirmed but the sentence is reduced to period already undergone. [Paras 29 - 35]

Order 1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Madras dated 27-6-2019 in Criminal Appeal No.194/2012 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant – herein and thereby affirmed the Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court, i.e., Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam holding the appellant – herein guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter, referred to as “IPC”) and sentencing him to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment. It appears that the appellant was also held guilty of the offence

View Subscription Plans →