Law of

Crimes
-Avaantika Chawla
 Exceptions to S. 300

General Exceptions Exceptions

under Chapter 4 under S. 300
 Exceptions to S. 300
 Exception 1- 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.

 The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-

 First- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse
for killing. or doing harm to any person.
 Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a
public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
 Thirdly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right
of private defense.

 Explanation- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence
from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
 Onus is on the accused to prove, doesn’t have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt
though.
Ingredients:
 Provocation: GRAVE (Such nature that it causes alarm) and SUDDEN
 So grave and sudden that it deprived him of the power of self control and while
deprived of the power, he caused the caused the death of the victim
 Simultaneous reaction leads to the death of the provoke/any other person by
mistake or accident
 No cooling period, must be in continuation from when the act that incited the
provocation occurred to when the act was done by the accused.
 Reasonable mans test, not someone who is easily provoked/extra sensitive
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills. Y,
Z's child.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither
intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z.
(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest,
and kills Z.
(d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of A's
deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and
kills Z.
(e) A attempts to pull Z's nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defense, lays hold of A to
prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills
Z.
(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take
advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose. B
kills Z with the knife.
KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
Facts:
Affair between Ahuja and Sylvia (accused’s wife). Sylvia confessed to Nanavati of
her illicit intimacy with Ahuja. On the day of the incident, he drove his wife, two of
his children and a neighbour's child in his car to a cinema, dropped them there and
promised to come and pick them up at 6 P.M. when the show ended. Enraged at the
conduct of Ahuja, Nanavati went to his ship, took from the stores of the ship a semi-
automatic revolver and six cartridges on a false pretext, loaded the same, went to the
flat of Ahuja entered his bed-room, , called him a filthy swine and asked him whether
he would marry Sylvia and look after the children. The deceased retorted, "Am I to
marry every woman I sleep with ?“ and shot him dead.
Judgement

SC cited Viscount Simon: “It is not all provocation that will reduce the crime of murder to
manslaughter. Provocation, to have that result, must be such as temporarily deprives the person
provoked of the power of self-control as the result of which he commits the unlawful act which causes
death. The test to be applied is that of the effect of the provocation on a reasonable man”
“The whole doctrine relating to provocation depends on the fact that it causes, or may cause, a sudden
and temporary loss of self-control, whereby malice, which is the formation of an intention to kill or to
inflict grievous bodily harm, is negatived. Consequently, where the provocation inspires an actual
intention to kill, or to inflict grievous bodily harm, the doctrine that provocation may reduce murder to
manslaughter seldom applies.“
circumstances which induce a desire for revenge are inconsistent with provocation, since the conscious
formulation of a desire for revenge means that the person has had time to think, to reflect, and that
would negative a sudden temporary loss of self- control which is of the essence of provocation.
Questions to consider: Whether there was time for passion to cool and for reason to regain dominion
over the mind? whether the mode of resentment bears some proper and reasonable relationship to the
sort of provocation that has been given?
Test for exception 1
(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 s.
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 the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise
giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation.
 302 upheld
 B.D. Khunte v. Union of India and others
 Accused was resting in his bunk after lunch when the deceased Sub Randhir Singh came to the Appellant's
cot in an inebriated state, slapped him mildly twice and asked the Appellant to follow him. Thinking that
he was being called for some kind of duty, the Appellant followed the deceased to the store room where the
deceased bolted the door from inside and asked the Appellant to remove his pant suggesting thereby that
the deceased intended to sodomise the Appellant. When the Appellant declined, the deceased punched him
and kicked him repeatedly and asked him to put up his hand and hold the side beams of the top berth of the
double bunk in the store room. The Appellant's further case is that the deceased thereafter made
unwelcome and improper advances like kissing his body, cheeks and stomach. While this was going on,
two other personnel viz. Hadgal Vilas and Anil Gadge knocked at the door of the store room. The deceased
opened the store room door and asked them to go away and shut the door again only to continue the
Appellant's torture for half an hour. The Appellant somehow managed to free himself and return to his
barrack, shaken and crying inconsolably. He told people but no complaint was lodged. He reached his duty
station with hid rifle loaded. While on duty he saw someone approaching him. As per the prevailing drill
and procedure the Appellant claims to have challenged the approaching person, but the person paid no
heed to the warning and continued to approach till the Appellant could recognise him to be Sub Randhir
Singh. Seeing the deceased and still seething with anger he opened fire upon him from his service weapon.
Sub Randhir Singh was hit and dropped dead on the spot.
 Appellant appears to have borne the assault without any retaliation against the deceased-superior and somehow
managed to escape from the room. The critical moment when the Appellant could perhaps loose his cool and
equilibrium to take retaliatory action against the deceased was thus allowed to pass uneventfully, grave and sudden
provocation for any such action notwithstanding.
 The term grave only adds an element of virulent intensity to what is otherwise likely to provoke retaliation.
 The whole doctrine relating to provocation depends on the fact that it cause, or may causes, a sudden and temporary
loss of self-control, whereby malice, which is the formation of an intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm, is
negatived. Consequently, where the provocation inspires an actual intention to kill, or to inflict grievous bodily harm,
the doctrine that provocation may reduce murder to manslaughter seldom applies.
 e 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.
 when the Appellant shot the deceased there were seven hours which period was sufficient for the Appellant to cool
down. A person who is under a grave and sudden provocation can regain his cool and composure. Grave provocation
after all is a momentary loss of one's capacity to differentiate between what is right and what is not. So long as that
critical moment does not result in any damage, the incident lapses into realm of memories to fuel his desire to take
revenge and thus act as a motivation for the commission of a crime in future. But any such memory of a past event
does not qualify as a grave and sudden provocation for mitigating the offence. (Used Nanavati as precedent)
 Conviction under 302 upheld.
 Muthu v. State
 The accused (appellant herein) was working in that shop and after opening the shop
he was arranging the articles kept inside the shop. At that time, the deceased Siva
who used to collect waste papers from the roadside, collected the waste-papers and
cardboard boxes and threw them inside the shop of the accused. On seeing this the
accused got angry and shouted at Siva "why do you do this everyday?" and pulled
his hair. The deceased thereupon pushed the accused. Then the accused took a knife
from the top of a table in the shop and stabbed Siva in the chest. Siva fell down due
to this injury and died.
Judgement
We are satisfied that the accused was deprived of the power of self- control by grave
and sudden provocation which led him to commit the offence. If rubbish is thrown
into one's house or shop one would naturally get very upset.
In our opinion, throwing waste and rubbish inside the house or shop of somebody is
certainly a grave and sudden provocation. Everyone wishes to keep his premises neat
and clean, and is likely to loose his self-control in such a situation. The incident in
question occurred in a sudden fight and a heat of passion by a sudden quarrel without
the appellant having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Hence the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exceptions I and 4 and the case comes
under Section 304 (part 2) IPC.
 Principle of sustained provocation
 The last provocation has to be considered in light of the previous provocative acts or words, serious
enough to cause the accused to lose his self-control
 The cumulative or sustained provocation test would be satisfied when the accused's retaliation was
immediately preceded and precipitated by some sort of provocative conduct, which would satisfy the
requirement of sudden or immediate provocation
 This principle does not do away with the requirement of immediate or the final provocative act, words
or gesture. Further, this defence would not be available if there is evidence of reflection or planning as
they mirror exercise of calculation and premeditation –
 The provocation may be an act or series of acts done by the deceased to the accused resulting in
inflicting of the injury.*
 The gravity of the provocation can be assessed by taking into account the history of the abuse and
need not be confined to the gravity of the final provocative act in the form of acts, words or gestures.
*DAUVARAM NIRMALKAR versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
 CRTICISM BY ALISON YOUNG
 The insistence on the need for a "sudden explosion" as culmination of the provocation:
 This perfectly exemplifies the masculine model of emotion that characterizes juridical debate about
provocation. As Edwards notes: "Defenses to homicide are founded on particular versions of typical
people and typical situations. These ... are very much predicated on violent behavior which men consider
reasonable, and exclude women's definitions of motive.“
 The "particular versions" are masculine ones, with emphasis on masculine metaphors of temperature,
speed, and pressure. Another expression used is "the heat of the moment" which is always counterposed,
explicitly or implicitly, to murder "in cold blood." Anger is said to "build up." The effect is to establish
that the loss of control was out of the individual's control.
 Provocation, in this conceptualization, lights a fuse which can ignite violence. Just as the lighting of fuses
and the exploding bomb are tropes which feature in male action movies which exclude the perspectives of
women, this characterization of anger does not include the emotions experienced by many battered
women.
 The law appears to characterize violent acts resulting from a sudden loss of self-control as naturally more
acceptable than violence which arises when self-control is lost in any other way.
 Far from inquiring into the "sensitivity or otherwise" of battered women as defendants in
provocation cases, as Smith and Hogan claim, the courts refuse to accept that there is any
uniqueness or specificity in battered women's experience and treat battered women under the
same generic standards as the man in a street fight or an isolated argument between strangers.
 Women who plead provocation as a defence to a murder charge face the enormous obstacle of
the legal construction of reason within marriage. While men have been allowed to assault and
sometimes (far more frequently than women do) kill their partners, women are always
constructed as already victimized within the relationship. Victimization, within legal
discourse, is woman's destiny. The battered woman who kills is explicitly rejecting that
destiny and is perceived as attempting to usurp the position of dominance which is reserved
for men in marriage.
 Violence within marriages is thus normalized by the judiciary, as long as the violence is being
done by the man to the woman. To this extent, it would appear that the marriage licence is
indeed a "hitting licence." The "reasonable man" is quite likely to beat his wife. It is not,
within the construction of the law, generally reasonable for a woman to respond to that
violence with lethal force. These, then, are the difficulties that will face a battered woman
who attempts to plead that she was provoked into killing her abusive partner.
Exception 2.—Excessive 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.
 Illustration 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.
Things to establish:
 First, whether the right to private defence
 Whether they exercised the right in good faith and without premeditation and
 without any intention of doing more harm than was necessary for private defence.
Exception 3.— Public Servant exceeds his powers
 Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant
acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death
by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of
his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Ingredients:
 Offence must have been done by public servant or a person aiding a public servant
 The act must have been committed in discharge of their official duties
 The Act exceeds the powers given to him by law
 Act should have been done in good faith
 The public servant believed the act to be lawful and necessary for the discharge of his duty
 Public servant should not have had ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
This will not cover illegal orders being carried out by subordinates such as an encounter. (State of West
Bengal v. Shew Mangal Singh AIR 1981 SC 1917)
 A police officer was chasing a suspected thief, the thief ran into a train and was at
such distance that he could not be apprehended. The police officer shot at him and
ended up killing him.
Exception 4.— Sudden Fight
 Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a
sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender
having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
 Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or
commits the first assault.
Ingredients:
 No premeditation
 In a sudden fight (No time interval that is sufficient for the passion to subside)
 Mutual provocation and aggression
 Both parties on equal footing as immaterial who is the provoker
 The person committing the act should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel manner
What is a fight?
Has to be more than a verbal argument.
Exchange of blows.
Mutual attack in which both parties participate.

What is the difference between Exception 1 and 4?

 Both are based on the same kind of acts i.e. those that aren’t pre-meditated.
 The first relies on loss of self-control and the latter on heated passion that eclipses
reason.
 The first does not include instances where the accused causes the provocation
whereas the latter does.
 Abhay is cheating on his boyfriend, Amey with Ajay. Ajay reads texts on Abhay’s
phone and finds out about the affair. He then texts Ajay from Abhay’s phone and
asks him to meet him at Honey Hut. When they meet outside Honey hut, Ajay sees
Amey and panics. Amey approaches him and says that he just wants to understand
what happened and Ajay pushes him, a quarrel ensues and both continue to hit each
other. Ajay picks up a rock next to him and hits Ajay on his head and Ajay dies on
the spot.
 A quarrels with his wife, B as she refuses to go to visit his ailing father. A fight
ensues. He stabs her and then puts kerosene on her and lights her on fire.
Exception 5.— Consent
 Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above
the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
 Illustration A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of
age to commit suicide.
Ingredients:
 Death caused by consent of deceased
 Deceased aged above 18 years
 Consent is free and voluntary, not through fear/misconception of facts
 Includes death pacts
Do you think the Burari case would fall under the exception?
 The Burari deaths were a ritual mass suicide of eleven family members of the
Chundawat family from Burari, Delhi, India, in 2018. Ten people were found
hanged, while the oldest family member, the grandmother, was strangled. The
bodies were found on 1 July 2018, in the early morning after the death. The police
have ruled the deaths were motivated by shared delusion or psychosis.
 A’s father is suffering from stage 4 cancer, he asks his son B to give him a high
dose of sleeping pills so he can die peacefully. B does so and A dies.