Law of Crimes

Week 4
BBA LLB 2016
PROFESSOR ROHINI SEN
 Grave and Private
Sudden Defence
Provocation

Exceptions
to Murder
Exercise of
Consent Legal Power

Sudden Fight
Exceptions to Murder

 Stated in Section 300.

 Punishable under Section 304 and not 302.
 Reduce the gravity of offence but does not mean complete vindication of the
conduct of accused.
 Burden of Proof for offence lies on prosecution but to prove an exception will lie
on the defendant.
Exception 1: Grave and Sudden
Provocation
 If murder is adduced due to provocation caused by the deceased.
 Following conditions must be met-
1. The decease must have provoked the accused.
2. Provocation must be grave.
3. Provocation must be sudden.
4. Due to provocation the offender must have been deprived his power of self control.
5. Accused killed the deceased during the continuance of deprivation of power of self
control.
6. Offender caused death of person who caused provocation or any other by mistake
or accident.
Exception 1: Grave and Sudden
Provocation
 This exception is not available-
(i) If the accused gives the provocation or uses it as an excuse for assaulting another. Eg- A, under
the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills. Y, Z’s child.
This is murder;
(ii) If the act is legally done by a public servant in exercise of his legal right as a public servant
(Eg- A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the
arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done by
a public servant in the exercise of his powers);
(iii) If the act is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Eg- A attempts to pull Z’s nose,
Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A
is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much
as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
Exception 1: Grave and Sudden
Provocation
 Indian Courts have not maintained distinction between words and acts in the
application of doctrine of provocation, as is done in English law.
 For example a husband seeing his wife committing adultery has been held to
come within the exception of grave and sudden provocation (Boya Munigadu v.
Queen, ILR 1881 (3) Mad 323). Though there were no words, the act was held
enough to have caused the provocation.
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
 Husband, a naval officer, was enraged on finding out that his wife was having an affair with
another man, Ahuja. On coming to know from his wife he left home, went to the ship and took a
revolver on a false pretext with 6 cartridges, went to Ahuja’s flat and shot him dead after
exchange of a few words.
 Plea of grave and sudden provocation rejected by the Court. The Court held-
“(1) The test of “grave and sudden” provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the
same class of 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) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden
provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first Exception to Section 300 of the
Indian Penal Code.
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
4) The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from
that provocation and not after passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or
otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation.”
 Must be in continuance of the temporary loss of self control. Here he had 3 hours
between his wife telling him and him reaching Ahuja.
B. D. Khunte v. Union of India
 The accused was called by the deceased, who was his superior, into a store room where he
asked him to take his pants off with an intention to sodomise him. When the accused
resisted, he forced the accused by punching and kicking him and then making inappropriate
advances, but the accused managed to escape. This was in the afternoon. The same night the
accused was on guard duty and saw the deceased and then shot him in anger.
 The court held that the exception of grave and sudden provocation will not apply. The
provocation was not sudden and there had been a ‘cooling off’ period in between.
 “The argument that the incident that took place around noon on that day was a grave
provocation that continued to provoke the Appellant right through the day till 9.30 evening
when the Appellant shot the deceased, does not, therefore, appeal to us, not only because the
Appellant had settled for a lesser act of retaliation like beating of the deceased in the
evening by him and his colleagues when they assembled near the water heating point, but
also because the Appellant had performed his normal duties during the day time and even in
the evening except that he and some of his colleagues appear to have planned beating up the
deceased.”
Exception 2: Exceeding the Right of
Private Defence
“Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of
private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the
death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation,
and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such
defence.”
For example- Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A
draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other
means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder,
but only culpable homicide.
Exception 2: Exceeding the Right of
Private Defence
 There must be present an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm, either real or
apparent, such as to create an honest belief of an existing necessity; there must be no
safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat; and there must be a genuine need for
taking life. For example, if A kills B to prevent him from pulling his nose, this will not
attract the exception.
 If A wilfully kills B because he was trying to escape detection while house breaking
for theft, and killed after the house trespass had ceased, this exception would not apply.
It cannot apply when A himself was the aggressor and there was no need for killing the
deceased.
 Where A got into an argument with B and B shouted “I will kill you” and reached into
his pocket, if A shot B that may be accepted as within this exception. But where A and
B were just arguing and A wilfully stabs B, that would not be covered by this
exception.
Exception 3: Public Servant exceeding his
Powers
 Will not apply if the act is against public policy or if it is illegal. For example, if A
arrests B illegally and without authorisation and while this arrest if A kills B because of
a fight, then this will not come under this exception since the arrest was illegal.
 Meant to protect public servants. He must have believed in good faith that he was
performing his duty and without ill will towards the other person.
 Example- A, a railway constable, arrested B who was suspiciously standing near the
goods wagon. When the train moved a little, B jumped down from it and A followed
him with a rifle. While trying to catch him he shot C instead of B by accident. Here
Exception 3 would apply if the defence proves that A believed he was performing his
duty and acted on orders from superiors in good faith.
Exception 4: Sudden Fight

 Ingredients- Death must be caused-

1. In a sudden fight;
2. In the heat of passion without premeditation, arising out of a sudden quarrel;
3. Without the offender having taken undue advantage (eg- killing unarmed man with
knife who is just asking to stop the fight);
4. The offender should not act in a cruel or unusual manner;
5. The fight must have been with the person killed.
 There must be a fight meaning combat. An exchange of words followed by a stab
with a knife will not fall within this exception.
Exception 4: Sudden Fight

 For example, A and B are brothers and B suddenly asks A about the reason for
selling their property to which A replies that it was only his property and he could
dispose it any way he wanted. They got into a fight and in the heat of the moment,
A stabs B with a knife once. Since this was not premeditated and was sudden, it
will come within this exception.
 If in a heated discussion A spontaneously shoots B, this would amount to taking
advantage on A’s part and in this case A has acted in a cruel manner. The exception
will not apply.
Muthu v. State by Inspector

 Accused saw deceased throwing waste paper and trash in his shop and shouted at
him saying “why do you do this everyday?” and then pulled his hair. He deceased
then pushed the accused, after which the accused picked up a knife from a table
around him and stabbed the deceased.
 Court held both Exception 1 and 4 apply as the crime was committed on
provocation and in the heat of passion and was not premediated (since he wasn’t
even carrying the knife)
 Both exceptions were applied and it amounted to culpable homicide.
Exception 5: Consent
 Usually known as ‘euthanasia’.
 Does not exonerate the offender, since a person is not entitled to give up his life by
consent.
 For example, X decides to kill himself because he is depressed and recently failed an
exam. He tells his wife Y who asks him to kill her first. X kills Y accordingly but
gets arrested before he can kill himself. Here this exception applies as Y gave
consent which was not under a fear of injury or misconception of fact but voluntarily.
 Even under English law such cases fall under ‘suicide pact’ and get punished as
manslaughter and not murder.
 If A kills B because B has been suffering from serious diseases and is going to go
into f A took B’s consent.