Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide Due to Grave and Sudden Provocation: Markash Jajara vs. State of Assam (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 3 November 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1015

Judges: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta.

Can a father who kills his son-in-law be convicted of murder, or is there a possibility that the crime could be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a father killed his son-in-law after persistent provocation. The court examined whether the father’s actions were a result of grave and sudden provocation, which could reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Markush Borja, who was killed by his father-in-law, Markash Jajara. The incident occurred at the residence of Markash Jajara, where Markush Borja had been staying for the past 3-4 months. On the day of the incident, Well Borja, the brother of the deceased, found his brother dead in the house of the appellant. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Well Borja, stating that his brother had been assaulted and killed by the appellant with a bamboo stick.

Following the FIR, Markash Jajara was arrested, and a chargesheet was filed against him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution presented nine witnesses, including the appellant’s wife, Mononit Jajara, and his daughter, Sarani Boria, who was also the wife of the deceased. While the appellant’s wife supported the prosecution’s case, she did not witness the incident. However, the testimony of Sarani Boria was crucial to the case.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court found Markash Jajara guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the jail appeal filed by the appellant, upholding the Trial Court’s decision. The High Court relied heavily on the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to his daughter, P.W.6, and the circumstantial evidence that the incident occurred in the appellant’s house.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines murder, but Exception 1 states that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, while deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or any other person by mistake or accident. The provision reads as follows:

“Exception 1. —When culpable homicide is not murder. — Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.”

The exception is subject to three provisos:

✓ First, the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing.

✓ Secondly, the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of their powers.

✓ Thirdly, the provocation is not given in the lawful exercise of the right of private defense.

The explanation to the exception clarifies that whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offense from amounting to murder is a question of fact.

Arguments

The appellant argued that there was no eyewitness to the incident and that the confession made to his daughter could not be relied upon. The appellant contended that the incident occurred due to grave and sudden provocation, as the deceased was an alcoholic who used to ill-treat his daughter and quarrel with the appellant after consuming alcohol. The appellant’s counsel argued that the case fell under Exception 1 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which would reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The State of Assam argued that the appellant had committed murder and that the confession made to his daughter was reliable. The State contended that the appellant had not acted under grave and sudden provocation, and therefore, the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) should be upheld.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the offense attributed to the appellant falls within the ambit of Exception 1 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines murder.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines murder and its exceptions.

The Supreme Court did not explicitly mention any other case laws in its judgment.

Judgment

The court held that the appellant’s act fell within the ambit of `culpable homicide’ which does not amount to `murder’. The court noted that the deceased was an alcoholic who used to misbehave with his wife and her family members. The court found that the appellant’s motive was to protect his daughter, and the act was a result of grave and sudden provocation. The court modified the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, reducing the sentence of life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment of ten years.

The Court observed that the appellant’s intention was not to commit murder but to restrain the deceased from his abusive behavior. The court stated, “The appellant seemingly attacked the deceased without any intention to commit his murder. It was rather a crude attempt to forcibly change the deceased’s habits and help the appellant’s daughter to have peaceful and dignified life.”

The court further noted, “The fatal occurrence was seemingly the final culmination of loss of the power of self-control.” Additionally, the court pointed out, “But for the continuous harassment of the appellant’s daughter by the deceased who was a habitual drunkard, the appellant would not have lost his senses suddenly.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant acted under grave and sudden provocation due to the deceased’s persistent misbehavior and alcoholism. The court emphasized the appellant’s motive to protect his daughter and the lack of premeditation in the act. The court also considered the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to his daughter as reliable and trustworthy.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court reduced the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• Grave and sudden provocation can be a valid defense to reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide.
• The court emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances and context of the incident.
• The court considered the extra-judicial confession made to the daughter as reliable.
• The sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.
• This case highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and its exceptions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant shall be released on completion of the reduced sentence of ten years, if he is not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that grave and sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This case clarifies the application of Exception 1 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in cases where the accused acted under the influence of persistent provocation.

Conclusion

In the case of Markash Jajara vs. The State of Assam, the Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, recognizing that the appellant had acted under grave and sudden provocation. The court reduced the sentence to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, emphasizing the importance of considering the context and circumstances of the incident. This judgment highlights the nuances of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and its exceptions, providing a significant legal precedent for similar cases.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Culpable Homicide
• Murder
• Grave and Sudden Provocation
• Criminal Law
• Extra-Judicial Confession

FAQ

Q: What is culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

A: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is a type of homicide where the act of causing death does not meet the criteria of murder as defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This often occurs when there is a lack of intention to cause death or when the act is committed under grave and sudden provocation.

Q: What is grave and sudden provocation?

A: Grave and sudden provocation is a legal defense that can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide. It means that the accused was provoked to such an extent that they lost self-control and committed the act without premeditation. The provocation must be both grave (serious) and sudden (immediate).

Q: How did the Supreme Court apply the concept of grave and sudden provocation in this case?

A: The Supreme Court found that the appellant was provoked by the deceased’s persistent alcoholism and misbehavior towards his daughter. The court determined that the appellant’s act was a result of the loss of self-control due to this provocation, thus falling under the exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Q: What was the final decision of the Supreme Court?

A: The Supreme Court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

Q: What is an extra-judicial confession?

A: An extra-judicial confession is a confession made by an accused person outside of a court setting. In this case, the appellant’s confession to his daughter was considered an extra-judicial confession and was deemed reliable by the court.