In this article, Sachin Vats of Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law discusses the legal consequences of murdering someone out of grave and sudden provocation.

The act of killing a human being by another human being is known as Homicide. When the death of a human being is caused by the negligent, reckless and intentional act of the human being then it will be taken as a criminal homicide and there is provision for the punishment of such act in the law. We have various examples before us where the homicide is not punishable such as death sentence, self-defense, etc.

Blackstone has defined Crime as “an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it”. Crime is wrong done against the society at large. Any act of crime disturbs the whole equilibrium of the society and not only the individual who suffers the crime but the whole community gets affected.  

What amounts to Murder according to the Indian Laws

The Indian Penal Code,1860 defines the Murder as the culpable homicide committed with a high degree of intention or knowledge described under section 300 of the Code. Culpable Homicide is defined under Section 299 of the IPC as “Whoever causes death by doing an act with an intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide”.

There are different conditions given under section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 where culpable homicide leads to murder.

• When the death of a human being is caused due to the intentional act of another person to cause death then the accused will be liable for murder under section 300 (1) of the IPC. The Supreme Court in the case of Rawalpenta Venkalu v. State of Hyderabad stated that when the facts and condition clearly show the intentional act of the accused which lead to murder then they will be liable for murder. The facts of the case were as such that the accused persons locked the single room hut from the outside in which the deceased was sleeping. The house was poured with kerosene from outside and then set the hut on fire. The people who came to rescue the deceased were stopped by the accused with the help of lathis. So, the facts and conditions here clearly shows the intention of the accused too cause death which made all liable for murder.
• The person even after knowing the peculiar medical condition of someone causes such bodily injury to that person which could be fatal for the person suffering from the peculiar medical condition but it may be normal for any ordinary person. Such an act against the person of peculiar medical condition is taken as murder under section 300(2) of the IPC.
• Section 300(3) of the IPC contains the words “bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death” which means that death is the most probable result of such type of injury and any ordinary person could not survive that type of injury. The hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab” decided that “In the absence of any circumstances to show that the injury was caused accidentally or unintentionally, it had to be presumed that the accused had intended to cause the inflicted injury. Whether the injury intended by the accused and actually inflicted by him is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not, is a matter of objective determination which must be determined in each case on the basis of the facts and circumstances”.
• The person commits an act which so much dangerous that it will cause death or such bodily injury which is likely to cause death and such act is done without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death.

When Culpable Homicide is not Murder

There are some exceptions to the section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which states the situations when the culpable homicide will not be considered as murder. The accused person can claim for such exceptions provided under this section. If the accused is able to satisfy the Court that the reason behind the act done by him which caused Death to a person come under the exceptions of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Death caused due to grave and sudden provocation

The death happening due to acts done under the influence of grave and sudden provocation is an exception to the section 300 of the IPC. When the accused is suddenly provoked by any person and that provocation makes the accused to lose his control which ultimately leads to death of the person who provoked or any other person by mistake or accident then the accused will not be liable for murder but only for culpable homicide.

There should be no time gap between the provocation and the retaliatory action caused due to that provocation. The accused cannot take the plea of sudden or grave provocation if the death has been caused due to well managed plan and the main aim behind provocation was to commit murder.

Private Defense of Person and Property

When a person acting bonafidely exceeds his or her lawful limits of right to exercise self defense and that causes death of a person then it will not lead to murder but only culpable homicide. The pre-planned and well-managed plans to commit murder cannot be protected under this provision.

Public Servant acting for the advancement of Public Justice

The action of a public servant working for the advancement of justice causes death of any person during rendering the public service then the public servant will not be liable for murder but only for the culpable homicide.

Death in Sudden Fight

In a serious fight of two parties, causing death of one of the party due to the action taken by the accused party out of anger and sudden provoke. The accused will be liable only for the culpable homicide and not for the murder. Both the parties are held equally liable for the provocation of the fight. The aggrieved cannot take the plea that the provocation was made from the accused party. The important point here to ponder about is the action must be sudden and unpremeditated, the death must have been caused out of anger.

Death by Consent

If a person who is above eighteen years of age gives his consent voluntarily to undertake the risk of life in the hands of others then the death caused according to the wishes of the deceased. The person will be liable only for the culpable homicide and not for the murder. This provision reduces the extent of criminal liability of the person. We can take the example of mercy killing done with euthanasia which is illegal in India.

Nanavati Case: Three Shots that shook the Nation

The famous case of K.M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC (605) describes the time gap between the provocation and retaliatory action. If the sufficient period of time has elapsed after the provocation then the accused cannot take the plea that the death caused due to sudden anger or provocation.

In this case, a naval officer named K.M. Nanavati was accused of the murder of a businessman named Prem Ahuja who had illicit relations with his wife. The wife revealed about the illicit relationship with the businessman that caused extreme rage and anger to the naval officer. The officer went to the ship and took a semi-automatic revolver to kill the businessman. He went directly to the bedroom of Prem Ahuja and shot him with gun after some hot conversation.

The naval officer then asked for partial exemption from criminal liability on the ground that he acted in such a manner due to sudden provocation. The Court held that a significant amount of time had elapsed between the provocation and the retaliatory action done by the officer. The time elapsed was quite enough to cool down for a reasonable person. Hence, the court held the naval officer liable for the murder of the businessman Prem Ahuja.

This particular case ended the concept of jury system in India. It is considered as one of the most sensational case criminal case which questioned the Indian Jury system.    

Difference between Murder and Culpable Homicide

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 discusses about two types of culpable homicide. The culpable homicide amounts to murder if the death is of grave in nature but it does not amount to murder when the death has been caused under some situations and circumstances. The deaths happened according to the criteria given under Section 300 of the IPC create liability of murder. Section 302 deals with the punishment for murder while section 304 contains the provisions of the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Actually, murders are grave type of culpable homicides.

Honour Killings: Murder or Culpable Homicide

The Hon’ble Bench of Supreme Court of India comprising of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra stated that there is nothing honourable in honor killings and the person indulged in these type of crime should be awarded Capital Punishment. Honour killings is considered as the rare of the rarest crime in India. If anyone is not happy with the relationship developed by his or her daughter then one is free to cut off all his relations with her but one cannot take law in his hands to commit such crimes.

The society has seen many cases of honor killings such as Aarushi murder case and others. These crime are considered as very outrageous and uncivilized behaviour which affects the whole society. What people take honor in honor killings has not yet justified and only creates imbalances in the society.