LexMUTHU versus STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1'"""' MUTHU A v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU NOVEMBER 2, 2007 B A [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.} l ./' Penal Code; 1860; Exception 1 and 4 to Section 300, Ss. 302 and 304 Part-II: c Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder-Deceased throwing rubbish into shop of accused-Accused stabbed knife in chest of deceased-Deceased succumbed to injury-Trial Court found accused guilty of committing offence punishable u/s.302 JPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment-Affirmed by High Court-On D >-- appeal, Held: Accused deprived of power of self-control due to grave J. t and sudden provocation given by deceased-Accused picked up knife from table in the shop and was not carrying it, thus, accused had no intention/motive to cause death of the deceased-In the facts and under the circumstances of the case, accused entitled to benefit of E Exception 1and4 to Section 300-Hence, offence covered under Part- II of S. 304 !PC-Accordingly, sentence reduced to simple imprisonment of jive years-Sentencing. According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, accused- r appellant who was working in a waste paper merchant shop was F , arranging the articles inside the shop. The deceased, who used to collect waste papers from the roadside threw the waste-papers inside the shop. On seeing this, the accused got angry and shouted at the deceased and pulled his hair. The deceased thereupon pushed the accused. Then the accused picked up a knife from the table in the G - shop and stabbed the deceased in the chest, who fell down and ---1~· succumbed to the injury. The trial court found the accused guilty of committing offence punishable under S. 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence was upheld by 911 H 912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. A the High Court. Hence the present appeal. B Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The case comes under Exception I to Section 300 IPC. [Para 5) [914-H; 915-A) 1.2. The accused was deprived ofthe power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation which led him to commit the offence. [Para 6] (915-C] 1.3. It is evident thatthe accused had no motive or intention to C cause the death of the deceased since the accused was not carrying the knife from before, and only picked it up during the scuffie with the deceased. [Para 6] [915-C] I ____,,, Kunhayippu v. State of Kerala, [2000] 10 SCC 307 and D Masumsha Hasana.sha Musa/man v. State of Maharashtra, (2000] 3 sec 557' relied on. J_ ( 1.4. There is a clear distinction between a case of pre-meditated attack with intention to cause death and a case where there was no such pre-meditated intention and death was caused in the heat of E the moment or-fit of anger.during an altercation or quarrel. [Para 10] [916-B] Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., [2006] 11 SCC 444, referred to. F 1.5. No doubt, even in the heat of the moment or fit of anger one should not attack somebody since human beings are different from animals inasmuch as they have the power of self-control. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in the heat of the moment and in a fit of anger people some times do acts which may not have been G done after premeditation. Hencethe.law provides that while those who commit acts in the heat ofthe moment or fit of anger should also be punished, their punishment should be lesser than that of premeditated offences. It is for.this reason that Exceptions I and 4 have been inserted in Section 300 IPC. [Para 11] [916-C-D] H .. r ~ MUTHU v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL 913 NADU 1.6. The present case also comes under Exception 4 to Section A 300 IPC since the ingredients of Exception 4 are all satisfied in the facts of the present case. [Para 13] (916-G] Pappu v. State of MP., (2006) 7 SCC 391, referred to. J 1. 7. Throwing waste and rubbish inside the house or shop of B f somebody is certainly a grave and sudden provocation. Everyone. wishes to keep his premises neat and clean, and is likely to loose his self-control in such a situation. The incident in question occurred in a sudden fight and a heat of passion by a sudden quarrel without the appellant having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or c unusual manner. Hence the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exceptions I and 4 and the case comes under Part-II of Section 304 IPC. The instant case will come under the second part of Sectio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.