Culpable Homicide

লিগ্যাল ভয়েস

In the case of Devku Bhikha (ibid), the appellant had killed the victim inflicting 5/6 knife blows in quick succession. He was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which was upheld on appeal. Ultimately the Supreme Court of India altered the conviction to section 304 part 1 of the Indian Penal Code on the reasons:

"...It stands out prominently that the deceased was a member of a high caste and the appellant of a low caste. Unfortunately the appellant was subjected to repeated insults at the end which, when his tolerance broke down, he made use of the knife and inflicted repeated injuries on the deceased who had unabashedly and lecherously asked the appellant to make available his wife to him for immoral purpose. This part of the statement of the appellant cannot be doubted. It is also in evidence that there was a job available in the school of the "deceased head master and that the appellant wanted to apply for the same to the head master. This may have provided enough opportunity to the deceased to exploit the situation, as the appellant was unemployed in those days when the occurrence took place. Thus, from this analysis it becomes abundantly clear that the appellant was driven to the crime which was not premeditated and the occasion had sprung up at the moment, gradually leading to the point when the appellant lost his self control, and due to grave and sudden provocation, inflicted the injuries on the deceased, successively within seconds." (Paragraph 3) [AIR 1995 (SC) 2171]

Culpable Homicide

In Nawaz vs State (ibid), accused Nawaz had illicit relation with Ragila, wife of the murder victim. He quarreled with her and called her # 'prostitute' and told that she had converted their daughter also into a prostitute. The appellant asked him to stop quarreling. As he did not stop. the appellant slapped his face and both the accused throttled him to death, burnt the dead body to camouflage the occurrence and abandoned it elsewhere. After two days, the dead body was recovered and after about forty days, accused No.1 Ragila made an extra-judicial confession, which was recorded by a local school teacher. During the forty days, she tried to hide the offence by giving false explanation about the whereabouts of her husband. The accused were convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which was affirmed in appeal. Ultimately the Supreme Court of India altered the sentence on the grounds:

"...Since the Accused, because of the aforesaid conduct of the deceased calling Accused No. 1 and her daughter as prostitute, was deprived of the power of self-control. The sudden provocation by the deceased has resulted in the incident in question.

"The deceased provoked the Accused No. I by uttering the word 'prostitute'. In our society, no lady would like to hear such a word from her husband. Most importantly, she would not be ready to hear such a word against her daughters. The incident is a result of a sudden and grave provocation by the deceased..." (Paragraphs 12 and 13) [2019 (1) SCALE 718]

Culpable Homicide

"It is the central point in the prosecution case that the sudden assault was preceded by an abuse uttered by Parsini which would be regarded on all hands as foul and contemp tible. The innuendo which it contained would enrage and infuriate any husband and the words per se would amount to grave and sudden provocation causing deprivation of the power of self-control of a husband. It is important to emphasise that the impact of provocation on human frailty is to be judged in the context of the social position and environments of the person concerned. The restraint which is generally shown by sophisticated persons used to modern living is hardly to be expected in the case of a villager who still regards a wife as his personal property and chattel amenable at all times to his desire for sexual intercourse. The standard exacted by Courts in England in this respect is quite different from that what has been laid for the guidance of Indian Courts."(Paragraph 17) [1967 CrLJ (Vol 73 N. 469) 1697]

Culpable Homicide

Grave and sudden provocation and absence of any prior intention or premeditation were common. In spite of taking a longer period in commission of the occurrence by infliction of several injuries or throttling, the Supreme Courts of India and Pakistan and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana converted the offence and altered the sentence. [73 DLR 87]

Culpable Homicide

Grave and sudden provocation and taking a longer period in commission of the occurrence by infliction of several injuries or throttling, absence of any prior intention or premeditation and attempt to camouflage the occurrence are also present in the case in hand. The women's condition as reflected in those cases is remaining the same in our rural society even after laps of decades together. [73 DLR 87]

The offence committed by the accused, found aggressive with the intention of committing murder, is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling within exception No. 1 of section 300, Penal Code considering the state of his mind and it is a punishable offence under section 304 part-I of the Penal Code. Abdul Mazid vs State 58 DLR 355.