1992 JTR(SC) 725
1993 AIR(SC) 203 ; 1992 AIR(SCW) 2902 ; 1993 1 APLJ 83 ; 1992 CriLR 736 ; 1992 3 Crimes(SC) 619 ; 1992 CrLJ 3857 ; 1993 EastCrC(SC) 51 ; 1992 6 JT 116 ; 1992 2 OLR 562 ; 1992 3 Scale 65 ; 1993 Supp1 SCC 719 ; 1993 SCC(Cri) 409 ; 1993 1 UJ 210 ; 1993 KHC 650
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.
Raghavan Achari and Njoonjappan, Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 600 of 1992 (arising out of S.L.P. (Cri) No. 1684 of 1992)
Decided on 12-10-1992.
Act Referred :INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.100, S.300
(A) The relevant statutory provisions include Indian Penal Code Sections 300 and 100. Section 300 defines murder and outlines exceptions, one of which is found in Exception 1 to Section 300, covering cases where the offender, deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, commits culpable homicide. Section 100 defines the right of private defence of the body, allowing the voluntary causing of death or harm to an assailant if there is a reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt will result from such an assault. In this case, the accused was tried for murder under Section 302 but convicted under Section 304, read with Part 1. The applicability of Section 100 was pivotal, as the accused acted in response to a grave and sudden provocation involving the compromised position of his wife and subsequent grievous injuries inflicted by the deceased, bringing the exception to murder under Section 300 and the private defence under Section 100 into direct play.
(B) Key legal principles include: culpable homicide not being murder when committed under grave and sudden provocation (Exception 1, Section 300, IPC); the right of private defence extending to causing death or grievous harm when reasonably apprehended (Section 100, IPC); and the assessment of whether the accused's response exceeded the bounds of reasonable defence. The case also underscores that prior restraint is not expected of a citizen defending against an assault resulting in grievous injury.
Facts of the case:
The accused, a goldsmith, was married to Bhavani, who had an illicit relationship with the deceased, Krishna Pillai. The accused was aware of this affair, and there were frequent quarrels. On 12th February 1990, the accused attended a marriage. At approximately 2.30 p.m., the deceased visited his rubber plantation near the accused's house, requested sexual relations with the accused's wife, who initially refused but eventually succumbed. While they were on a cot, naked, the accused entered, witnessed the scene, and was shocked. The deceased then sprang at him, and a tussle ensued. The deceased allegedly hit the accused with a lamp, causing multiple injuries including lacerations and a crack fracture to the 5th metatarsal, classified as grievous. The accused, using a chopper, caused the deceased to fall and die instantaneously.
Findings of Court:
Both the trial and High Court found that the case did not amount to murder, but convicted the accused under Section 304, Part 1, of the Indian Penal Code. The courts acknowledged the injuries sustained by the accused and treated the metatarsal fracture as serious. The High Court noted the compromising position of the deceased with the accused's wife and the injuries inflicted during the altercation.
Issues:
Whether the accused's act constituted murder or fell under the exception of grave and sudden provocation; whether the accused was entitled to exercise the right of private defence under Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code; and whether the response was proportionate and within the bounds of reasonable defence.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that the accused was deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation from discovering the deceased's immoral act and suffering grievous injuries. This triggered Exception 1 to Section 300. Furthermore, the right of private defence under Section 100 was available as the accused had a reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt, and his actions did not exceed the bounds of that defence, given the deadly weapon used by the deceased and the injuries sustained.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
(A) The relevant statutory provisions include Indian Penal Code Sections 300 and 100. Section 300 defines murder and outlines exceptions, one of which is found in Exception 1 to Section 300, covering cases where the offender, deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, commits culpable homicide. Section 100 defines the right of private defence of the body, allowing the voluntary causing of death or harm to an assailant if there is a reasonable apprehension that death or grievous hurt will result from such an assault. In this case, the accused was tried for murder under Section 302 but convicted under Section 304, read with Part 1. The applicability of Section 100 was pivotal, as the accused acted in response to a grave and sudden provocation involving the compromised position of his wife and subsequent grievous injuries inflicted by the deceased, bringing the exception to murder under Section 300 and the private defence under Section 100 into direct play.
(B) Key legal principles include: culpable homicide not being murder when committed under grave and sudden provocation (Exception 1, Section 300, IPC); the right of private defence extending to causing death or grievous harm when reasonably apprehended (Section 100, IPC); and the assessment of whether the accused's response exceeded the bounds of reasonable defence. The case also underscores that prior restraint is not expected of a citizen defending against an assault resulting in grievous injury.
Facts of the case:
The accused, a goldsmith, was married to Bhavani, who had an illicit relationship with the deceased, Krishna Pillai. The accused was aware of this affair, and there were frequent quarrels. On 12th February 1990, the accused attended a marriage. At approximately 2.30 p.m., the deceased visited his rubber plantation near the accused's house, requested sexual relations with the accused's wife, who initially refused but eventually succumbed. While they were on a cot, naked, the accused entered, witnessed the scene, and was shocked. The deceased then sprang at him, and a tussle ensued. The deceased allegedly hit the accused with a lamp, causing multiple injuries including lacerations and a crack fracture to the 5th metatarsal, classified as grievous. The accused, using a chopper, caused the deceased to fall and die instantaneously.
Findings of Court:
Both the trial and High Court found that the case did not amount to murder, but convicted the accused under Section 304, Part 1, of the Indian Penal Code. The courts acknowledged the injuries sustained by the accused and treated the metatarsal fracture as serious. The High Court noted the compromising position of the deceased with the accused's wife and the injuries inflicted during the altercation.
Issues:
Whether the accused's act constituted murder or fell under the exception of grave and sudden provocation; whether the accused was entitled to exercise the right of private defence under Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code; and whether the response was proportionate and within the bounds of reasonable defence.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that the accused was deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation from discovering the deceased's immoral act and suffering grievous injuries. This triggered Exception 1 to Section 300. Furthermore, the right of private defence under Section 100 was available as the accused had a reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt, and his actions did not exceed the bounds of that defence, given the deadly weapon used by the deceased and the injuries sustained.
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
JUDGMENT
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.:—Special leave granted.
2. The appellant before us was tried for an offence under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he murdered one Krishna Pillai at about 2.30 p.m. on 12th February, 1990 at his premises at Kattampakku Kara within the jurisdiction of Kaduthuruthy Police Station. The trial Court, however, found, him guilty under S. 304, Part 1 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years The High Court, on appeal, confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to three years.
3. The accused is a goldsmith. He has a wife Bhavani. They have four children. Bhavani was having illicit relations with the deceased. The accused was also aware of the extra-marital relationship of his wife and there used to be quarrels between the appellant and his wife. There was even a scandal that Abhilash is the son of Krishna Pillai and Abhilash was sent to reside with the parents of the appellants wife.
4. On 12th February, 1990 the accused left his house in the morning to attend a marriage. The children had gone to school. At about 2.30 p.m. the deceased came to his rubber plantation, which is near the house of the appellant and called his wife and expressed his desire to have sex with her. She refused but ultimately succumbed. While they were sitting on a cot and the deceased Krishna Pillai was totally naked, unexpectedly, the appellant entered his house and was shocked to see the unholy scene. Instead of the deceased running away, he sprang at the appellant and fisted on his forehead. There was a tussle between them. The deceased, it is alleged, hit the appellant with a lamp and the appellant sustained injuries which are mentioned in Ext. P 7. It shows that the appellant had sustained -- (1) a lacerated injury on the lower lip, (2) contusion above left eye, (3) contusion on the dorsum of left hand and (4) avulsion of lower lip of the lower gum margin with a lacerated injury. The appellant was treated by the Civil Surgeon from 12th February, 1990 to 27th February, 1990. The Discharge Certificate, Ext. P. 13, further shows that the appellant had multiple injuries on lower lip, left side of scalp and crack fracture on the 5th metatarsal. The trial court and the High Court ascribed the injury on the metatarsal a serious injury.
5. The appellant after having suffered the aforesaid grievous injuries made use of the chopper as a result of which the deceased fell down and died instantaneously.
6. Both the courts have found that it is riot a case of culpable homicide yet the courts convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code. It will be noticed that exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code provides:
"Cuplable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, ............."
The exception is subject to three provisos and admittedly it is not covered by any of the said three provisos.
7. Again Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code provides the right of private defence of body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right, may cause a reasonable apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such an assault or such assault may cause reasonable apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault.
8. We have already noticed the injuries received by the appellant vide Ext. P. 7 as well as those confirmed at the time of discharge, Ext. P. 13. There can be no doubt also that the compromising position in which appellant found the deceased with his wife it gave the appellant the grave and sudden provocation. This provocation was further aggravated when the appellant found the deceased taking further offence of causing grievous injury of the nature referred earlier to him and in the circumstances the right as envisaged under Section 100 became available to the appellant. No court expects the citizens not to defend themselves particularly when they have already suffered grievous injuries. It is clear that though the appellant has a chopper in his hand he did not initially use it against the deceased and it was only when the deceased succeeded in using the oil lamp, which is described as dangerous weapon by the High Court, which caused multiple injuries, including grievous injury, that the appellants provocation got further aggravated and it cannot be said on the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant has exceeded his right of private defence.
9. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted.
Appeal allowed.
For citation: (1993) 2 SCC 203