LexVIJAY @ VIJAYAKUMAR versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 869 : 2025 INSC 90 Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 1049 of 2021) 16 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant's act of causing the death of the deceased fell within the scope of "grave and sudden provocation" under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Penal Code (IPC), thereby reducing the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Prerequisite to attract application of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC: Held: Not each and every provocation, that results in loss of self- control by accused, will convert an offence of murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Only when the provocation is both “grave and sudden” will the accused be entitled to claim benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300, IPC – If either the gravity or suddenness is absent, the provocation will not reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. [Para 18 - 20] Penal Code, 1860 – Ingredients of Exception 1 to Section 300, IPC – Discussed: Held: There are three core ingredients of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC: (i) sudden (i.e., ‘unexpected’ and interval between provocation and homicide being ‘brief’) and grave (to be determined applying “reasonable man test”) provocation; (ii) provocation caused accused to lose his power of self-control; and (iii) being deprived of his power of self-control, accused caused death of the victim – Reliance placed on Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1942 A. C. 1 [Paras 21 - 24] Without disturbing the findings of decisions of both the courts below, the courts below could have invoked Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC if they intended to bring the present case within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Because as revealed 870 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports from the facts, deceased abused and slapped Appellant (who was accompanied by his friends) which led to an altercation and Appellant hit deceased with a cement brick lying nearby – However, deceased’s death was neither pre-planned nor pre-meditated and the accused was also unarmed – This proved that Appellant did not take any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner – The conviction is affirmed but the sentence is reduced to period already undergone. [Paras 29 - 35] Case Law Cited Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1942 A. C. 1 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Evidence Act, 1872. List of Keywords Sudden and grave; Provocation; Culpable homicide not amounting to murder; Section 300, IPC; Exception 1 to Section 300, IPC; Exception 4 to Section, 300 IPC; Pre-meditated; Pre-planned; Cruel manner; Advantage; Self-control. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1049 of 2021 From the judgment and order dated 27.06.2019 of the High Court of judicature at Madras in CRLA No. 194 of 2012 Appearances for Parties M.P. Parthiban, Adv. for the Appellant. D. Kumanan, Ms. Deepa S., Sheikh F. Kalia, Veshal Tyagi, Chinmay Anand, Shagufa Khan, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Madras dated 27-6-2019 in Criminal Appeal No.194/2012 by [2025] 1 S.C.R. 871 Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant – herein and thereby affirmed the Judgment and Order passed by the Trial Court, i.e., Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam holding the appellant – herein guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter, referred to as “IPC”) and sentencing him to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment. It appears that the appellant was also held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo 2 years of rigorous imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:- 3. The appellant – herein along with his friends including 'PW 11' and 'PW 12' had gone to watch a movie on 5-11-2007. They were returning home in the mid night hours after watching the movie. While they were sleeping beneath a bridge, they found the deceased over there to be in an inebriated condition. It seems that the deceased was heavily drunk. The deceas
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.