Discuss the law relating to "grave and sudden provocation" as laid down in Indian Penal Code and state the extent to which it may mitigate the responsibility of the accused for the offence of murder. Refer the case law to illustrate your answer.

Question: Discuss the law relating to "grave and sudden provocation" as laid down in Indian Penal Code and state the extent to which it may mitigate the responsibility of the accused for the offence of murder. Refer the case law to illustrate your answer. [UPJS 2023]

Find the answer to the mains question of IPC only on Legal Bites. [Discuss the law relating to "grave and sudden provocation" as laid down in Indian Penal Code and state the extent to which it may mitigate the responsibility of the accused for the offence of murder. Refer the case law to illustrate your answer.]

Answer

Section 299 of Indian penal code defines the offence of culpable homicide. Section 300 explains when culpable homicide amounts to murder. In the penal code, culpable homicide is used as a generic term and exhaustively divided into two parts: culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 300 Clauses 1 to 4 and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 299 and exceptions to Section 300.

Exception 1 to Section 300 reads as:

“When culpable homicide is not murder. — 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.”

This Exception talks about a situation of an irresistible impulse where the accused was deprived of his power to self-control and, out of extreme anger, caused the person's death. An essential requisite in this condition is that the provocation must be grave and sudden, rendering a person incapable of reasoning. Through this Exception, the accused does not get full defence rather this is a case of diminished responsibility.

In this Exception, the importance of “sudden” is that if the provocation is not sudden, the impact will not be as much upon the mind as to make him lose self-control. As the time gap after the provocation increases, the chances of regaining the power of self-control will increase. In other words, the accused will have a more significant cooling-off period.

The leading authority of this principle is K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605, which lays down that:

“.......The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from the provocation and not after the provocation which had cooled down by lapse of time or otherwise giving room or scope for premeditation and calculation....”.

While talking about grave and sudden provocation, it is empirical to talk about R. v. Duff, (1949) 1 All ER 932, where Devlin, J. gave the classic definition, which was recognised in this case. He explained provocation as an act or a series of acts that might include spoken words, which would make any reasonable man a sudden and temporary loss of self-control. That loss of self-control renders him so subject to the passion that he is, for that moment, not the master of his mind.

The other provisions in the Indian Penal Code relating to grave and sudden provocation are as under:

Section 153: Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot – if rioting be committed –if not committed:-

Whoever malignantly or wantonly by doing anything which is illegal gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting be committed shall if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may be extended to one year or with fine or with both and if the offence of rioting be not committed with imprisonment of either description for a term which may be extend to six months or with fine or with both.

To invoke Section 153 of Indian penal code the provocation given must be such as would be likely to cause the offence of rioting. It depends on the temper and feeling of the person subjected to provocation and knowledge of this by the accused. The illegality of the act must be ascertained according to the general law governing the rights of person and property.

Section 334: Voluntarily causing to hurt on provocation

Whoever voluntarily causes hurt on grave and sudden provocation if he neither intended nor knows himself to be likely to cause hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.

Grave and sudden provocation mitigates voluntarily causing of hurt if he (offender) does not intend or himself knows that he is not likely to cause such hurt or grievous hurt to any other persons. The provocation received must be both sudden and grave. It must be received from the person assaulted and below should be directed against his provocation.

Section 335: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation.

Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the person who gave the provocation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to four years or with fine which may be extend to two thousand rupees or with both.

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams