• GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION

There must be an instance of the grave and sudden provocation in order to take the plea of exception to Section 300. However, it has to be noted that this provocation should not be first initiated at the instance of the accused.

In the case of K.M. Nanavati {K.M.Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605} the following principles were laid down for the determination of grave and sudden provocation:

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 with the first exception of Sec.300, I.P.C.
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.”

• SELF DEFENCE

The person claiming this exception must have exceeded his right to private defence of person or property, provided he had exercised this right with bona fide intention.it should be noted that the injury inflicted must be in proportion to the attack of the deceased. “Right of private defence cannot be used to do away with a wrongdoer unless the person concerned has a reasonable cause to fear that otherwise death or grievous hurt might ensue in which case that person would have the full measure of right to private defence.” {Arun v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 5 SCC 530}

In the recent case of Prasad Swanker v. Ranjit Kumar {(2015) 16 SCC 411}, it was a case of Murder wherein the plea of right to private defence was raised. A cross version of dacoity by deceased persons was held to be credible. Recoveries from the place of occurrence, non-explanation of the injuries to the accused, made the cross versions to be found probable. The reversal of the conviction was confirmed.

• ACT of PUBLIC SERVANT

The essential ingredients of the exception 3 of Section 300 are as follows:

(i) The offence must be committed by a public servant or by a person aiding a public servant;

(ii) The act alleged must have been committed by the public servant in the discharge of his official duties;

(iii) He should have exceeded the powers given to him by law;

(iv) The act should be done in good faith;

(v) The public servant should have believed that his act was lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duties;

(vi) He should not have borne any ill-will towards the person whose death was caused

In Subha Naik v. R {(1898) 21 Mad. 249}, a constable caused death under orders of a superior, it is found that neither he nor his superiors believed that it was necessary for public security to disperse certain crowd by firing on them, it was held that he was guilty of murder since he was ‘not protected in that he obeyed the orders of his superior officer’

• WITHOUT PREMEDITATION

To avail the protection of this exception the accused must prove to the court that the fight between the accused and deceased is not one which was preplanned but, broke out suddenly. The Apex court in Surendar Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh {(1989) 2 SCC 217} summarised the principles as follows,

“To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely,

(i) it was a sudden fight;

(ii) there was no premeditation;

(iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and

(iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.”{Surendar Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh(1989) 2 SCC 217}

The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this Exception provided he has not acted cruelly.

• CONSENSUAL HOMICIDE

According to Exception 5 of Section 300, culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused being above the age of 18 years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

The points to be proved are:

1. The death was caused with the consent of the deceased;
2. The deceased was then above 18 years of age;
3. That such consent was free and voluntary and not given through fear;
4. or Misconception of facts.

The Apex court in Vijay alias Gyan Chand Jain v. State of MP{(1994) 6 SCC 308}, held as follows, “it may be noted that exception 5 to Section 300 I.P.C. must receive a very strict and not a liberal interpretation and in applying the said exception the act alleged to be consented to or authorised by the victim must be considered with very close scrutiny.”

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.