Ram Kishan Vs. State of Rajasthan
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 1998
Petitioner: Ram Kishan
Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 1998
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 03, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 300 – Murder- Defences available to accused – Scope of Exception 1 to Section 300 – Grave and sudden provocation – It is for the accused to prove to establish that the provocation was grave and sudden – Even while pressing for Exception 1 to Section 300 as defence strategy if the accused can show that he was gravely and suddenly provoked then it is possible to bring his case within the said Exception. Held no such case having been made out in the instant case appeal against concurrent findings dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Having heard Ms. Halida Khatun, learned amicus curiae and Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent – State of Rajasthan, we do not find any scope for interference with the concurrent findings of fact. Of course learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to show that the act of the accused is covered by Exception No. 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and that he was gravely and suddenly provoked. But all that the counsel could pick out in support of the said contention was that the motive alleged for the murder is the illicit rela-tionship which the deceased- Shinshpal had with the daughter-in-law of the accused. That is not enough for us to feel that at the time when the incident happened accused got suddenly and gravely provoked. The burden is on the accused to establish that aspect. Of course in the nature of the defence strategy adopted by him (alibi) normally it is difficult for him to establish the circum-stances which would afford him the benefit of Exception No. 1. Even apart from the particular defence strategy adopted by him in the trial court, if accused had succeeded in highlighting circum-stances to show that he was gravely and suddenly provoked than it is possible for him to contend that the act was covered by 1st Exception to Section 300. But unfortunately, there is no circum-stance available in the prosecution evidence for making out the said Exception.
2. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss this appeal.
1. Having heard Ms. Halida Khatun, learned amicus curiae and Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent – State of Rajasthan, we do not find any scope for interference with the concurrent findings of fact. Of course learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to show that the act of the accused is covered by Exception No. 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and that he was gravely and suddenly provoked. But all that the counsel could pick out in support of the said contention was that the motive alleged for the murder is the illicit rela-tionship which the deceased- Shinshpal had with the daughter-in-law of the accused. That is not enough for us to feel that at the time when the incident happened accused got suddenly and gravely provoked. The burden is on the accused to establish that aspect. Of course in the nature of the defence strategy adopted by him (alibi) normally it is difficult for him to establish the circum-stances which would afford him the benefit of Exception No. 1. Even apart from the particular defence strategy adopted by him in the trial court, if accused had succeeded in highlighting circum-stances to show that he was gravely and suddenly provoked than it is possible for him to contend that the act was covered by 1st Exception to Section 300. But unfortunately, there is no circum-stance available in the prosecution evidence for making out the said Exception.
2. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss this appeal.
