B.D. KHUNTE versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 447 · Decided: 30-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2014) 11 S.C.R. 447 
B.D. KHUNTE 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2012 etc.) 
OCTOBER 30, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND 
. R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Raribir Penal Code: 
A 
B 
c 
s.300, Exception 1, and s.302 of RanbirPenal Code and 
s. 69 of Army Act - Appel/ant-Jawan shot dead his superior 
because of an earlier incident of beating and humiliation -
. Conviction and life sentence affirmed by High Court -
The 
beating and humiliation which accused had suffered may 0 
have acted as a motive for revenge against deceased who 
had caused such humiliation but that is not what falls in 
Exception 1 to s.300 /PC which is identical to Exception 1 to 
s.300 of Ranbir Penal Code -
Conviction and sentence 
upheld. 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.300, Exception - 'Sudden provocation' and motive -
Explained. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
E 
F 
HELD: 1.1. For a case to fall under Exception 1 to 
s.300 IPC, the provocation must not only be grave but 
sudden as well. Grave provocation within the meaning of 
Exception 1 is a provocation where judgment and reason 
G 
take leave of the offender and violent passion takes over. 
[para 11 and 14] [456-A; 458-8] 
R. v. Duffy [1949] 1 All E.R. 932 - referred to 
447 
H 
448 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. • 
A 
1.2. In the instant case, the incident that took place 
around noon cannot be said to be a grave provocation 
that continued to provoke the appellant right through the 
day till 9.30 in the evening when the appellant shot the 
deceased, because the appellant had performed his 
8 normal duties during the day time and even in the 
evening he and some of his colleagues appear to have 
settled for and planned a lessor act of retaliation like 
beating up the deceased. Between 14:00 hrs. when the 
appellant was given a grave provocation and 21 :30 hrs., 
C the time when the appellant shot the deceased there were 
seven hours which period was sufficient for the appellant 
to cool down. A person who is under a grave and sudden 
provocation can regain his cool and composure. Grave 
provocation after all is a momentary loss of one's 
capacity to differentiate between what is right and what 
D is not. So long as that critical moment does not result in 
any damage, the incident lapses into realm of memories 
to fuel the desire to take revenge and thus act as a 
motivation for commission of a crime in future. But any 
such memory of a past event does not qualify as a grave 
E and sudden provocation for mitigating the offence. By 
their nature such provocation even when sudden and 
grave cool off with passage of time, often lapsing into 
what would become a motive for taking revenge 
whenever an opportunity arises. The beating and 
F humiliation which the accused had suffered may have 
acted as a motive for revenge against the deceased who 
had caused such humiliation but that is not what falls in , 
Exception 1 to s. 300 of the IPC which is identical to 
Exception 1 to s. 300 of the Ranbir Penal Code. [para 13, 
G 16 and 18] [958-F, G; 460-C-G; 457-E] 
. 
H 
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605 
- relied on 
• 
B.D. KHUNTE v. UNION OF INDIA 
449 
Mancini v. Director for Public Prosecutor [1941] 3 All 
A 
E.R. 272 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
[1949] 1 All E.R. 932 
referred to 
1962 SC 605 
relied on 
[1·941] 3 All E.R. 272 
referred to 
para 15 
para 17 
para 18 
CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
B 
No. 242 of 2012 
c 
From the Judgment & Order dated 26.10.2009 of the 
Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 
5 of 2009. 
WITH 
Crl. A. No. 2328 of 2014. 
Pallav Sisodia, Ranji Thomas, V.N. Raghupathy for the 
Appellant. 
J.S. Attri, Anil Antil, R. Balasubramanian, Santosh Kumar, 
B.V. Balaram Das for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
T.S. THAKUR, J. 
Criminal Appeal No.242 of 2012: 
D 
E 
F 
1. High Court of Delhi has, while dismissing writ petition 
No.4652 of 2010 filed by the appellant, affirmed the orders 
G 
passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, New Delhi and that 
passed by the Summary General Court Martial holding the 
appellant guilty for an offence punishable under Section 69 of 
the Army Act read with Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code 
H 
450 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R .• 
A and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life besides 
dismissal from service. 
2. Enrolled on 3oth July, 2004, the appellant was posted 
at Razdan in Baramulla Sect
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.