Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the provocation should be such as will upset not merely a hasty, hot tempered or hypersensitive person but one of ordinary sense and calmness.              

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Vijay @ Vijaykumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (2025). 

What was the Background of Vijay @ Vijaykumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police Case?   

• On 5^th November 2007, the appellant and his friends were returning home after watching a movie when they encountered a deceased person who was heavily intoxicated beneath a bridge. 
• During an altercation that ensued, the prosecution alleges that the appellant picked up a cement brick and struck the deceased on the head, causing fatal injuries.  
• Following the assault, the prosecution claims that the appellant set the deceased's body on fire in an attempt to destroy evidence.  
• The Village Administrative Officer (PW1) subsequently filed a First Information Report at the local police station.  
• The postmortem examination confirmed that the cause of death was head injuries. 
• During the legal proceedings, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and presented 24 documentary pieces of evidence.  
• The Trial Court found the appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, applying Exception 1 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) which relates to grave and sudden provocation. The court sentenced the appellant to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine.  
• The appellant challenged the Trial Court's verdict by appealing to the High Court, but his appeal was unsuccessful.  
• The High Court affirmed the original judgment and conviction. 
• Consequently, the appellant has now approached the Supreme Court with the present appeal, seeking a review of the previous court decisions 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• While determining whether in the present facts there was grave and sudden provocation the Court observed that Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) will be invoked. 
• It was observed that the burden of proof is on the accused as per Section 105 of IEA to prove that a particular act falls under Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC. 
• The Court held that in the present facts if the Trial Court and the High Court wanted to bring case within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting murder, they could have invoked Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC i.e. sudden fight. 
• The fact that the deceased uttered bad words and raised his hand on the appellant will alone not be sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of grave and sudden provocation. 
• However, the attack was not preplanned, and it occurred at a spur of a moment. Also, the appellant had no weapon in his hand, and he picked up a cement stone lying beneath the bridge and hit the deceased. It cannot be said that the appellant took any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 
• The Court thus, in these facts held that it is not inclined to disturb the finding of conviction.  

When is Grave and Sudden Provocation? 

• Exception one of Section 300 states that a culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. 
• In order to prove that there was grave and sudden provocation under Section 300 Exception 1 the following ingredients have to be proved: 
  • That the provocation was sudden. 
  • That the provocation was grave. 
  • There was loss of self control. 
• The Court observed in this case that the word ‘sudden’ involves two elements: 
  • The provocation must be unexpected. If the accused plans in advance to receive a provocation in order to justify the subsequent homicide, the provocation cannot be said to be sudden. 
  • The interval between the provocation and the homicide should be brief. If the man giving the provocation is killed within a minute after the provocation, it is a case of sudden provocation. 
• In deciding whether a provocation is grave following elements should be taken care of: 
  • A bare statement by the accused that he regarded the provocation as grave will not be considered by the Court. 
  • An objective test has to be applied in order to determine if the provocation is grave. 
  • A good test in this regard is to ask the question: “Is a reasonable man likely to lose self-control as a result of such provocation?” 
  • If the answer to the above question is in affirmative the provocation will be grave and if the answer to this question is in negative the provocation will not be grave. 
  • A reasonable man or normal or average man is a legal fiction. 
  • The reasonable man under consideration is a member of the society, in which the accused was living. So, education and social conditions of the accused are relevant factors. 
  • An ordinary exchange of abuse is a matter of common occurrence. A reasonable man does not lose self-control merely on account of an ordinary exchange of abuses 
  • So, courts do not treat an ordinary exchange of abuses as a basis for grave provocation 
  • On the other hand, in most societies, adultery is looked upon as a very serious matter. So, quotes are prepared to treat adultery as a basis for grave provocation. 
• The question of loss of self-control comes up indirectly in deciding whether provocation is grave or not. 
  • Thus, if it is proved that the accused did receive grave and sudden provocation the Court is generally prepared to assume that homicide was committed while accused was deprived of his power of self-control. 
• Thus, the provocation should be such as will upset not merely a hasty, hot tempered or hypersensitive person but one of ordinary sense and calmness.

What are the Important Case Laws on Grave and Sudden Provocation? 

• Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1942): 
  • The Court held that provocation in criminal law is not automatically grounds for reducing murder to manslaughter. 
  • The provocation must be so severe that it temporarily deprives the person of their self-control, leading them to commit an unlawful act resulting in death. 
  • When evaluating provocation, courts must carefully examine multiple factors, including the nature of the act causing death, the time interval between provocation and the fatal act, and the offender's conduct during that interval. 
  • Two critical elements are particularly important in assessing provocation: first, determining whether sufficient time has passed for a reasonable person to regain composure, and second, considering the instrument used in the homicide 
• KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961): 
  • In this the Supreme Court held that the test of ‘grave and sudden’ provocation under the Exception must be whether a reasonable person belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in a similar situation, would be so provoked as to lose his self-control. 
  • The conduct of the accused clearly shows that the murder was a deliberate and calculated one. 
  • The mere fact that before the shooting the accused abused the deceased, and the abuse provoked an equally abusive reply could not conceivably be a provocation for the murder. 
  • The fatal blow on the person giving a sudden and grave provocation should be immediately when he was provoked but not after the time which was sufficient for him to calm down or to cool down.