MUNFAIT Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant was convicted by the Sessions court and also confirmed by the High court for an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for causing the death of islamu. Admittedly, there was a land dispute between the father of the deceased and the appellant, in which the father of the deceased succeeded in civil litigation. Water was to be let from the land of the accused-appellant and, therefore, on the fateful day, namely, 17/10/1974, he went to the house of the appellant and asked him as to when he would let water to his field. Thereupon, the appellant went inside the house, brought the gun and fired shots at the deceased. As a result of which the deceased died instantaneously. Apart from the evidence of direct witnesses, there is also the confession made by the appellant.

(2.) Both the trial court and the High court accepted the evidence and found the accused guilty of the offence of murder.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant sought to contend that there was a sudden and grave provocation caused to the appellant by the deceased which would, therefore, bring the offence under Exception 1 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code. Therefore, it is an offence under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. There is absolutely no substance in this contention. The deceased went to the appellant's house and asked as to when he would let water into his Field. Obviously, having become unsuccessful in the civil litigation and the deceased going to the house of the appellant and asking as to when he would let the water into his field must have infuriated him and being unable to swallow the defeat in the civil litigation, he went inside the house, brought the gun and shot the deceased five times. This is a self-sought provocation. The deceased did not cause any provocation much less a sudden and grave provocation.