In a School Committee meeting, one X made remarks that the father and the uncle of the accused were monopolising all seats of authority and that they were dishonest…..

Question: In a School Committee meeting, one X made remarks that the father and the uncle of the accused were monopolising all seats of authority and that they were dishonest. The accused, on hearing this, went to his house which was about a furlong away and brought a gun. By that time the meeting had ended in disorder and the people were dispersing on the road. The accused asked those who were near X to move away because he wanted to shoot ‘X’, then he fired a shot but missed his aim. ‘X’ then started running to save himself.

In the meantime, the deceased who was the maternal uncle of the accused rushed towards the accused in order to prevent him from using the gun. The accused, however, pushed him back and fired at ‘X’ but the deceased came between the gun and X and was shot in the back and died. What offence was committed by the accused? Give reasons. [U.P.H.J.S. 1995]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [In a School Committee meeting, one X made remarks that the father and the uncle…]

Answer

Section.301 talks about the offence committed of culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person whose death was intended. In the present case, the accused’s plea of the grave and sudden provocation is not to be held sustainable, given the circumstances and the accused has committed an offence under Section 302 r/w Section 301 and not under Exception to the offence of murder as given under Section 304 part I.

Section 304: Exception I – Grave and Sudden Provocation as mitigation

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 Supreme Court in K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605), has extensively discussed the law relating to provocation in India and observed that –

1. The test of “grave and sudden” provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class to society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control.
2. Words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act under the exception.
3. The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence; and
4. The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from the provocation and not after the passion has cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving the accused room and scope for premeditation and calculation.

The facts of the present case are borrowed from the case Gyanendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. [AIR 1972 SC 502]. In this case, also, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the contention of the accused as correctly observed as under:

It may be the appellant (accused) had an irritable temper but there was no question of any grave provocation much less a sudden provocation. After all, during the course, of the meeting, all that X had said was that the father and the uncle of the accused were monopolising all seats of authority and they were dishonest. The appellant being a near relation may certainly resent such derogatory words addressed to his father and uncle. But they can hardly be said to be grave provocation having regard to the station in life. It is true that what is grave provocation in one set of society may not be a grave provocation in another.

But the words uttered by X to the effect that they were dishonest cannot be regarded as grave provocation under the circumstances. In any case, the provocation was far from being sudden. The appellant goes to his house which is about a furlong away and latches the gun. There was sufficient time for him to cool down. His action was deliberate. He asked those who were near X to move away because he wanted to shoot X. One shot missed its aim, the deceased came up to prevent him from filing another shot. The appellant pushed him and then fired the second shot. All this cannot be attributed to any grave and sudden provocation. The offence, therefore, is not under Section 304, Part-I and correctly held that the offence committed was one under Section 302 read with Section 301 I.P.C

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions