LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in converting a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on grave and sudden provocation. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Faquirey. Judgment Date: 11 February 2019
Date of the Judgment: 11 February 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 127
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
Can a person claim grave and sudden provocation as a defense when the provocation was self-induced? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal from Uttar Pradesh. The core issue was whether the High Court was correct in reducing a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, overturned the High Court’s decision, reinstating the original murder conviction.
Case Background
The case revolves around an incident that occurred on March 22, 2000. A Panchayat (village council) was convened to resolve a dispute between the respondent, Faquirey, and his nephew, Nokhey. During the Panchayat, Rakesh, the complainant’s son, arrived at the scene. Faquirey, harboring suspicions that Rakesh had an “evil eye” on his wife and was visiting his house, declared he would kill him before settling the dispute. Faquirey’s younger brother, Santosh, allegedly encouraged him to do so. As Rakesh tried to flee, Faquirey shot him with a pistol, resulting in his death.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 22 March 2000 | A Panchayat was held at Kanhai’s residence to resolve a dispute between Nokhey and Faquirey. |
| 22 March 2000 (3:30 PM) | Rakesh, the complainant’s son, arrived at the Panchayat. |
| 22 March 2000 | Faquirey declared he would kill Rakesh, suspecting him of having an “evil eye” on his wife. |
| 22 March 2000 | Faquirey shot Rakesh with a pistol, resulting in his death. |
| 23 March 2000 | Inquest was conducted and the dead body of Rakesh was sent for post-mortem examination. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted Faquirey under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment. Santosh was acquitted. Faquirey appealed to the High Court. The High Court, without contesting the facts, converted the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), citing grave and sudden provocation. The State of Uttar Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core legal provisions in this case are:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Defines the punishment for murder, which is life imprisonment or death.
- Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Defines the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part I of this section prescribes a punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years.
- Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Defines murder. Exception 1 to this section 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. The First Proviso to Exception I states that the provocation should not be sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm.
The Supreme Court had to interpret the scope of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC, specifically the First Proviso, to determine whether the High Court was correct in reducing the conviction.
Arguments
Appellant (State of Uttar Pradesh):
- The High Court erred in converting the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC.
- The defense’s claim that Exception I to Section 300 IPC applies is incorrect.
- The provocation was not sudden or grave; it was a result of the respondent’s pre-existing grudge and suspicion.
- The First Proviso to Exception I of Section 300 IPC states that the accused cannot claim grave and sudden provocation when the provocation was sought or voluntarily provoked by them.
Respondent (Faquirey):
- The High Court was correct in finding that the respondent lost self-control due to grave and sudden provocation.
- The incident occurred 18 years ago, and the respondent has already served 10 years of imprisonment.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: High Court Erred in Converting Conviction |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: High Court was Correct |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issue:
- Whether the High Court was justified in converting the conviction of the Respondent from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in converting the conviction of the Respondent from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified. | The Court found that the provocation was not sudden or grave, and it was voluntarily provoked by the respondent. The First Proviso to Exception I of Section 300 IPC was applicable. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court primarily focused on the interpretation of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and its exception. No specific cases or books were cited in the judgment.
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court analysed the exception to this section, specifically Exception 1 and its proviso. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court erred in converting the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC. | The Court agreed with the Appellant’s submission and held that the High Court erred. |
| Appellant’s submission that the defense’s claim that Exception I to Section 300 IPC applies is incorrect. | The Court agreed with the Appellant’s submission and held that the defense’s claim was incorrect. |
| Appellant’s submission that the provocation was not sudden or grave and it was a result of the respondent’s pre-existing grudge and suspicion. | The Court agreed with the Appellant’s submission and held that the provocation was not sudden or grave but self-induced. |
| Appellant’s submission that the First Proviso to Exception I of Section 300 IPC states that the accused cannot claim grave and sudden provocation when the provocation was sought or voluntarily provoked by them. | The Court agreed with the Appellant’s submission and held that the First Proviso to Exception I of Section 300 IPC was applicable. |
| Respondent’s submission that the High Court was correct in finding that the respondent lost self-control due to grave and sudden provocation. | The Court rejected the Respondent’s submission. |
| Respondent’s submission that the incident occurred 18 years ago, and the respondent has already served 10 years of imprisonment. | The Court rejected the Respondent’s submission and held that the respondent has to undergo the remaining sentence on being sentenced to life imprisonment. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court interpreted Exception 1 to Section 300 and its First Proviso to determine whether the respondent’s actions qualified for the exception. The Court held that the respondent’s actions did not satisfy the requirements of Exception 1 because the provocation was self-induced.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the provocation was not sudden or grave but was self-induced. The Court emphasized that the respondent’s actions were a result of his pre-existing grudge and suspicion towards the deceased. The court found that the respondent’s claim of grave and sudden provocation was not valid as the provocation was voluntarily provoked by him, thus not fulfilling the requirements of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Provocation was not sudden or grave | 40% |
| Provocation was self-induced | 40% |
| Respondent had a pre-existing grudge | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the respondent’s actions were not a result of sudden provocation but a consequence of a pre-existing grudge. The court stated that the respondent’s actions were in violation of the first proviso of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:
- “According to Exception I to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is not murder if the offender causes the death of the person who gave the provocation, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation.”
- “It would be relevant to refer to the First Proviso to Exception I which provides that the provocation should be one which is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.”
- “From the proved facts of this case it appears that the provocation was voluntary on the part of the offender. Such provocation cannot come to the rescue of the Respondent to claim that he is not liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision.
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that self-induced provocation cannot be used as a defense to reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This interpretation upholds the sanctity of human life and ensures that individuals cannot escape liability for their actions by claiming provocation that they themselves initiated.
Key Takeaways
- Self-induced provocation cannot be a defense to reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- The First Proviso to Exception 1 of Section 300 of the IPC is strictly interpreted.
- Individuals cannot claim the benefit of grave and sudden provocation if they have voluntarily provoked the situation.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the respondent to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that self-induced provocation cannot be used as a defense to reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position regarding the interpretation of Section 300 of the IPC and its exceptions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, reinstating the Trial Court’s conviction of the respondent under Section 302 of the IPC for murder. The Court emphasized that the respondent’s actions did not qualify for the exception of grave and sudden provocation as the provocation was self-induced. This judgment underscores the importance of the First Proviso to Exception 1 of Section 300 of the IPC, ensuring that individuals cannot escape liability for murder by claiming provocation that they themselves initiated.