Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Collector’s Appointment of Ex-Serviceman as Lambardar: Preference for Service to the State Valid Tax to Be Computed at 100% Under DTVSV Act, Rejects Inclusion of Belated Grounds in Disputed Tax: Bombay High Court Petitioner’s Father Did Not Fall Within Definition of Enemy – Kerala High Court Quashes Land Classification Under Enemy Property Act Calcutta High Court Upholds Cancellation of LPG Distributor LOI for Violating Guidelines Recording 'Reasons to Believe' is a Mandatory Safeguard, Not a Mere Formality Under PMLA: P&H High Court Illegality Is Incurable, Unauthorized Constructions Cannot Be Regularized: Bombay High Court Kerala High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Order Granting Retrospective UGC Benefits to Librarians Without Required Qualifications Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | No Evidence Can Be Admitted Beyond Pleadings, And Additional Evidence Cannot Be Allowed Merely To Fill Lacunae: Jharkhand High Court Quashing | Mere Heated Exchanges Over Loan Repayment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court Prisoner Transfers Must Prioritize Security and Prevent Gang Violence: Supreme Court Restores Intra-State Transfer Order Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC Is Conditional Upon Framing Substantial Questions of Law: Supreme Court Panchayat Election | Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Bar on Judicial Review During Election Process Encroachment Allegation Requires Concrete Evidence, Not Mere Surmises: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea for Disqualification of Sarpanch Order Denying Permission for Peaceful Protest Rally Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Prolonged Custody Alone Cannot Justify Bail In Cases Involving Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Body Shaming and Sexually Colored Remarks Are Unacceptable In A Civilized Society: Kerala High Court No Mandatory Injunction Where Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession: Punjab and Haryana High Court Supreme Court Dismisses Article 32 Petition Seeking Declaration of Bombay High Court Judgment as Illegal Specific Relief Act | Power to Extend Time Under Section 28 Is Discretionary and Must Be Exercised Prudently: Supreme Court

Justice Reconsidered: Orissa High Court Rules 'Heat of Passion' Mitigates Murder to Culpable Homicide

05 September 2024 6:09 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgement on November 2, 2023, the High Court of Orissa delivered a verdict that has become a focal point of legal discussions. The appellant, Leven Kerketta, who was previously convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of the deceased, saw his conviction altered by the High Court. The bench comprising the Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Sahoo and Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash found merit in the argument of ‘grave and sudden provocation,’ leading to a significant change in the appellant’s sentence.

The court observed, “The possibility of raising protest by the appellant to the conduct of his wife (P.W.1) and the deceased and also raising sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out.” This observation came in light of the defense’s argument that the appellant had been provoked upon seeing his wife in the company of the deceased under compromising circumstances.

The Hon’ble judges further noted, “The objective test is whether a reasonable man is likely to lose his self-control as a result of such provocation.” Based on this rationale, the court held that the appellant’s actions fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, leading to the modification of his conviction to Section 304 Part-II, which denotes culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

In delivering their decision, the bench also took into account the time that Kerketta had already spent in custody. They stated, “As the appellant has remained in jail custody for more than five years at different times in connection with this case and in the meantime, more than twenty-two years have already been passed since the date of occurrence and the appellant is more than sixty years of age...” This led to the reduction of his sentence to the period already undergone.

The court’s decision underscores the significance of the circumstances under which a crime is committed and opens up a dialogue on the interpretation of provocation in the eyes of the law. The case, represented by Mr. Laxmi Narayan Patel for the appellant and Mr. Sonak Mishra for the state, has thus concluded with a judgement that emphasizes the human element in legal proceedings, acknowledging the complex interplay of emotions and actions.

Date of Decision: 02.11.2023

Leven Kerketta VS State of Odisha         

Similar News