VIJAY @ VIJAYAKUMARversusSTATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

           [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 deceased picked up an altercation with the
      appellant – herein and his friends. According to the prosecution, at
      that point of time, the appellant picked up a cement brick which was
      lying at the place of occurrence and hit the deceased on his head.
      The deceased succumbed to the head injuries.
4.    It is also the case of the prosecution that thereafter with a view to
      destroy the evidence, the appellant – herein set the dead-body of
      the deceased on fire.
5.    The 'PW 1' in his capacity as the Village Administrative Officer
      lodged a First Information Report in this regard at the concerned
      Police Station.
6.    The inquest panchnama of the dead-body was carried out. Thereafter,
      the dead-body was sent for postmortem. The Postmortem Report
      reveals that the cause of death was due to head injuries.
7.    At the end of the investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet. The
      case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions under Section
      209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter, referred to
      as “Code”).
8.    The Trial Court framed charge against the appellant – herein for
      the offence enumerated above to which he pleaded not guilty and
      claimed to be tried.
872                                                           [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


9.     In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined the following
       witnesses:-

            P.W.1.    Thiru Mohan, Village Administrative Officer
            P.W.2     Tmt Rani
            P.W.3     Tmt Vanitha
            P.W.4     Tmt Kavitha
            P.W.5     Dr M.S. Kadar
            P.W.6     Tmt Gayathri, Scientific Assistant
            P.W.7     Thiru Mohandoss
            P.W.8     Thiru Srinivasan
            P.W.9     Thiru Samarasapandiyan, Head Constable
            P.W.10 Thiru Rajasekar, Inspector of Police
            P.W.11 Thiru Ramu
            P.W.12 Tmt Raji

10. The prosecution also relied upon the following pieces of documentary
    evidence:-

            Ex.P.1      06.11.2007       Complaint given by Village
                                         Administrative Officer.
            Ex.P.2      12.11.2007       Signature of P.W.1 in Statement of
                                         Accused.
            Ex.P.3      12.11.2007       Signature of report by Village
                                         Administrative Officer.
            Ex.P.4      28.11.2007       Viscera Report.
            Ex.P.5      06.11.2007       Post Mortem Certificate.
            Ex.P.6      06.11.2007       Signature of P.W.7 in Observation
                                         Mahazar.
            Ex.P.7      06.11.2007       Signature of P.W.7 in Mahazar.
            Ex.P.8      06.11.2007       Signature of P.W.8 in Observation
                                         Mahazar.
            Ex.P.9      06.11.2007       Signature of P.W.9 in Mahazar.
            Ex.P.10     06.11.2007       Printed F.I.R.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                      873

   Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police



           Ex.P.11    06.11.2007    Observation Mahazar
           Ex.P.12    06.11.2007    Rough Sketch.
           ΕX.Ρ.13    06.11.2007    Mahazar.
           Ex.P.14    06.11.2007    Inquest Report.
           EX.P.15    06.11.2007    Special report for recovery of M.0.8.
           Ex.P.16    12.11.2007    Accused Statement by Village
                                    Administrative
           Ex.P.17    12.11.2007    V.A.O. report.
           Ex. P.18   12.11.2007    Admissible Portion in Confession
                                    Statement
           Ex.P.19    12.11.2007    Mahazar for recovery of M.O.1,2
                                    and 9.
           Ex.P.20    12.11.2007    Alteration Report.
           Ex.P.21    13.11.2007    Requisition for Chemical
                                    Examination
           Ex.P.22    14.11.2007    Court Letter for Chemical
                                    Examination.
           Ex.P.23    28.11.2007    Biology Report.
           Ex.P.24    28.02.2008    Serology Report

11. On conclusion of the recording of the oral evidence, the further
    statement of the appellant – herein was recorded by the Magistrate
    under Section 313 of the Code, in which the appellant claimed
    himself to be innocent.
12. Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the
    Trial Court took the view that the case is one of culpable homicide
    not amounting to murder. The Trial Court thought fit to give to the
    appellant herein the benefit of Exception 1 of the Section 300 IPC on
    the ground that the case was one of grave and sudden provocation
    and, accordingly, held the appellant – herein guilty of the offence
    punishable under Section 304 (Part 1) of IPC and sentenced him
    to undergo 5 years of R.I. and fine.
13. The appellant went in appeal before the High Court. His appeal failed
    before the High Court. The High Court affirmed the Judgment and
    Order of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
874                                                          [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


14. In such circumstances, the appellant is here before this Court with
    the present appeal.
15. We have heard Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, the learned counsel appearing
    for the appellant and Mr. D. Kumanan, the learned counsel appearing
    for the State of Tamil Nadu.
16. We take notice of the fact that the appellant – herein has undergone
    4 years of imprisonment. The incident is of the year 2007.
17. We have our own views in so far as applicability of Exception 1 of
    Section 300 IPC is concerned. However, the State is not in appeal
    before us.
18. Exception one of Section 300 states that a culpable homicide is not
    murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control
    by grave and sudden provocation, causes death of the person who
    gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by
    mistake or accident.
19. It is well established that Exception 1 to Section 300 can apply when
    the accused is shown to have deprived of power of self- control by
    grave and sudden provocation which is caused by the person whose
    death has been caused.
20. It is not each and every provocation that will reduce the crime from
    murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The provocation
    must be both grave and sudden. In order to invoke the benefit of
    the exception, it must be established that the act committed by the
    accused was a simultaneous reaction of grave as well as sudden
    provocation which deprived him of the power of self-control. If the
    provocation is grave but not sudden, the accused cannot get the
    benefit of this exception. Likewise, he cannot invoke the exception
    where the provocation though sudden is not grave.
21. In Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions reported in 1942 A.C. 1,
    Viscount Simon observed:
          “It is not all provocation that will reduce the crime of murder
          to manslaughter. Provocation, to have that result, must be
          such as temporarily deprives the person provoked of the
          power of self control, as the result of which he commits the
          unlawful act which causes death. “In deciding the question
          whether this was or was not the case, regard must be
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                            875

   Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police


            had to the nature of the act by which the offender causes
            death, to the time which elapsed between the provocation
            and the act which caused death, to the offender's conduct
            during that interval, and to all other circumstances tending
            to show the state of his mind”: Stephen's Digest of the
            Criminal Law, art. 317. The test to be applied is that of the
            effect of the provocation on a reasonable man, as was laid
            down by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Rex v. Lesbini 7,
            so that an unusually excitable or pugnacious individual is
            not entitled to rely on provocation which would not have
            led an ordinary person to act as he did. In applying the
            test, it is of particular importance (a) to consider whether
            a sufficient interval has elapsed since the provocation
            to allow a reasonable man time to cool, and (b) to take
            into account the instrument with which the homicide was
            effected, for to retort, in the heat of passion induced by
            provocation, by a simple blow, is a very different thing
            from making use of a deadly instrument like a concealed
            dagger. In short, the mode of resentment must bear a
            reasonable relationship to the provocation if the offence
            is to be reduced to manslaughter”
22. In order to bring the case within Exception 1, the following conditions
    must be complied with:
     (i)    The deceased must have given provocation to the accused;
     (ii)   The provocation must be grave;
     (iii) The provocation must be sudden;
     (iv) The offender, by reason of the side provocation, shall have
          been deprived of his power of self-control;
     (v)    He should have killed the deceased during the continuance
            of the deprivation of the power of self-control; and
     (vi) The offender must have caused the death of the person
          who gave the provocation or that of any other person by
          mistake or accident.
23. In other words, before Exception 1 can be invoke, the accused must
    establish the following circumstances:
876                                                             [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


       (i)    there was a provocation which was both grave and sudden;
       (ii)   such provocation had deprived the accused of his power
              of self-control; and
       (iii) whilst the accused was so deprived of his power of self-
             control, he had caused the death of the victim.
24. In order to bring his case under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC the
    following ingredients:
              (i) The provocation was sudden; (ii) the provocation was
              grave; and (iii) loss of self-control. These three ingredients
              may be considered one by one:
              (i) Whether the provocation was sudden or not does not
              present much difficulty. The word ‘sudden’ involves two
              elements. First, the provocation must be unexpected. If an
              accused plans in advance to receive a provocation in order
              to justify the subsequent homicide, the provocation cannot
              be said to be sudden. Secondly, the interval between the
              provocation and the homicide should be brief. If the man
              giving the provocation is killed within a minute after the
              provocation, it is a case of sudden provocation. If the man
              is killed six hours after the provocation, it is not a case of
              sudden provocation.
              (ii) the main difficulty lies in deciding whether a certain
              provocation was grave or not. A bare statement by the
              accused that he regarded the provocation as grave will
              not be accepted by the court. The court has to apply an
              objective test for deciding whether the provocation was
              grave or not. A good test for deciding whether a certain
              provocation was grave or not is this: “Is a reasonable man
              likely to lose self-control as a result of such provocation?”
              If the answer is in the affirmative, the provocation will be
              classed as grave. If the answer is in the negative, the
              provocation is not grave. In this context, the expression
              ‘reasonable man’ means a normal or an average person.
              A reasonable man is not the ideal man or the perfect
              being. A normal man sometimes loses temper. There is,
              therefore no inconsistency in saying that, a reasonable
              man may lose self-control as a result of grave provocation.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                            877

   Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police


           A reasonable or normal or average man is a legal fiction.
           The reasonable man will vary from society to society. A
           Judge should not impose his personal standards in this
           matter. By training, a Judge is a patient man. But the
           reasonable man or the normal man need not have the
           same standard of behaviour as the judge himself. The
           reasonable man under consideration is a member of the
           society, in which the accused was living. So, education
           and social conditions of the accused are relevant factors.
           An ordinary exchange of abuse is a matter of common
           occurrence. A reasonable man does not lose self-control
           merely on account of an ordinary exchange of abuses.
           So, courts do not treat an ordinary exchange of abuses
           as a basis for grave provocation. On the other hand, in
           most societies, adultery is looked upon as a very serious
           matter. So, quotes are prepared to treat adultery as a
           basis for grave provocation.
           (iii) the question of loss of self-control comes up indirectly
           in deciding whether a particular provocation was grave
           or not. So, if it is proved that the accused did receive
           grave and sudden provocation, the court is generally
           prepared to assume that homicide was committed while
           the accused was deprived of the power of self-control.
           In some cases, it may be possible for the prosecution
           to prove that the accused committed the murder with a
           cool head in spite of grave provocation. But such cases
           will be rare. So, when the accused has established grave
           and sudden provocation, the court will generally hold that
           he has discharged the burden that lay upon him under
           Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.
25. What should be the approach of the court? The provocation must
    be such as will upset not merely a hasty and hot-tempered or
    hypersensitive person, but one of ordinary sense and calmness.
    The Court has to consider whether a reasonable person placed in
    the same position as accused would have behaved in the manner
    in which the accused behaved on receiving the same provocation.
    If it appears that the action of the accused was out of all proportion
    to the gravity or magnitude of the provocation offered, the case
    will not fall under the exception. The case can only fall under the
878                                                           [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       exception when the court is able to hold that provided the alleged
       provocation is given, every normal person would behave or act in
       the same way as the accused in the circumstances in which the
       accused was placed, acted.
26. In the words of Viscount Simon: "The whole doctrine relating to
    provocation depends on the fact that it causes, or may cause, a
    sudden and temporary loss of self-control, whereby malice, which is
    the formation of an intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm, is
    negatived. Consequently, where the provocation inspires and actual
    intention to kill, or to inflict grievous bodily harm the doctrine that
    provocation may reduce murder to manslaughter seldom applies".
27. Section 105 of the India Evidence Act, 1872 casts burden of proof
    on the accused. Being an exception, the burden of proving the
    circumstances covered by Exception 1 is on the accused. Where
    the prosecution prima facie proves that the act was committed by
    the accused which had resulted in the death of the deceased and
    the accused pleads that the case falls within one of the exceptions,
    it is for him to prove that.
28. It is for the accused who seeks to reduce the nature of his crime by
    bringing his case under Exception 1, to prove that the provocation
    received by him was such as might reasonably be deemed sufficient
    to deprive him of self- control, and that the act of killing took place
    whilst that absence of control was in existence and may fairly
    be attributed to it. (Ref.:Ratanlal and Dhirajlal’s Law of Crimes,
    24th Edition)
29. If at all, the Trial Court and the High Court wanted to bring the case
    within the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, then
    it could have invoked exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC. We say
    so because the incident was not pre-planned or pre-meditated. The
    appellant and his friends had gone to watch a movie. They were
    returning back home in the late night hours. It appears that after the
    movie was over and while returning, they decided to take some rest
    beneath the bridge. The deceased also happened to be sleeping
    beneath the bridge. However, it is the case of the prosecution that
    the deceased was in a drunken condition. In fact, there is nothing to
    indicate that the deceased was drunk. However, the eye-witnesses to
    the incident and that too none other then the friends of the appellant
    who were examined by the prosecution deposed that the deceased
    was in a drunken condition.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                           879

   Vijay @ Vijayakumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police


30. The deceased is said to have uttered some bad words and it appears
    that he also raised his hand & slapped the appellant herein. However,
    that by itself may not be sufficient to bring the case within the ambit
    of grave and sudden provocation.
31. The incident occurred at a spur of a moment. The act was not
    pre-planned or pre-meditated. What is important to note is that the
    appellant had no weapon in his hands. He picked up a cement stone
    which was lying beneath the bridge and hit the same on the head of
    the deceased. Therefore, it could be said that the appellant did not
    take any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
32. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to disturb the conviction of
    the appellant – herein.
33. We are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the
    sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court
    is reduced to the period already undergone.
34. The appeal stands partly allowed. While upholding the conviction,
    we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.
35. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Niti Richhariya, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)