MADHAVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Madhavan was convicted of the murder of his wife Madhavi under section 302 of the I. P. C. and sentenced to the lesser penalty of imprisonment for life. In the nature of the contention of the appellant it is not necessary to state the prosecution case in detail. There was no eyewitness to the occurrence which took place on 18-1-1965. The learned Sessions Judge accepted in main the statement given by the appellant under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The only point raised by the appellant's advocate before us was that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the I. P. C. The facts relevant for the purpose of considering the applicability of Exception 1 to Section 300 are stated below. There was a celebration on 18-1-1965 in the Anthiringa temple near the house of the appellant. He was a member of the committee in charge of the celebrations. At about 4 p. m. on 18-1-1965 he went to the temple with the chopper M. O. 1 to cut the overhanging branches of trees on the route through which the deity had to be taken in procession. In the night at about 9 p. m. the wife of the appellant went to the temple with the child along with her relations to witness the festival. At about 11 p. m. the appellant requested his wife to accompany him to his home so that he could have his bath and meals. She replied that they could go after some time. After some time the appellant called her again and both of them started from the temple to the house of the appellant. When they reached the common junction leading to the house of the appellant and also to the house where the parents of Madhavi wore residing. Madhavi suggested that they could go to her mother's house. The appellant agreed and both of them were proceeding towards her mother's house. On the way she began to abuse him and said that she would never go back to his house. The appellant wanted to know the reason therefor and took the child which was with his wife. Then his wife swore by Chirakkal Bhagavathi that she would never thereafter go and live with the appellant mid pulled the child towards her. The appellant was having the chopper M. O. 1 with him. When he resisted the deceased from taking forcibly the child from him the chopper injured her abdomen Then she broke her thali chain and threw it on his face. This infuriated the appellant who cut her with M. O. 1 which resulted in her instantaneous death This story was accepted by the learned sessions Judge. The learned Judge also found that there was no previous enmity between the appellant and his wife and they were living amicably. The prosecution has no case that this was a pre-mediated murder In spite of these findings the learned Judge held that Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code did not apply and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302. I. P. C.

(2.) IT was argued on behalf of the appellant that the conduct of Madhavi towards the appellant was such as to provoke a reasonable man to the extent of depriving him of his power of self-control and the provocation therefore was grave and sudden within the meaning of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Penal Code. The law is now well established that Exception 1 to Section 300 can apply only when the accused is shown to have been deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation which is caused by the person whose death is caused. The test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable man belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which he was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control and the provocation must be such as would upset not merely a hot-tempered or a highly sensitive person but one of ordinary calmness.

(3.) THE scope of the doctrine of provocation was stated thus by Viscount Simon in manoini v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1942 AC 1 at p. 9 thus: