-
by Admin
17 December 2025 4:09 PM
In a significant ruling Kerala High Court partially allowed the appeal of Baiju @ Porinchu Baiju, reducing his conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC). The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan held that the accused had acted under grave and sudden provocation, bringing the case within Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.
The Sessions Court, Thrissur, had earlier convicted the appellant for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment for causing the death of Vinu with a piece of firewood. However, after assessing the evidence, the High Court concluded that the act was not premeditated and was committed in a fit of rage following the deceased’s inappropriate behavior towards the accused’s wife. The Court modified the sentence to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, payable to the victim’s wife.
The accused, Baiju, and the deceased, Vinu, were friends who had been drinking together throughout the day on April 14, 2008, which was the festival of Vishu in Kerala. Later that evening, they, along with PW2 (Rajan), visited the house of PW1 (Thankamani), the mother-in-law of the accused. The deceased, Vinu, in a drunken state, misbehaved with the accused’s wife (PW5, Bindu) in front of her family, leading to a confrontation.
As per PW2’s testimony, the accused initially pushed Vinu out of the house. However, Vinu persisted in trying to re-enter, further provoking the accused. At this point, the accused picked up a piece of firewood lying in the courtyard and struck Vinu on the head multiple times, causing fatal injuries.
Vinu was rushed to St. James Hospital, Chalakkudy, but succumbed to his injuries the following day. The police initially registered a case under Sections 324, 326, and 307 IPC, but after Vinu’s death, Section 302 IPC (murder) was added. The Sessions Court found Baiju guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000.
"The Accused Did Not Plan to Kill – Provocation Was Immediate and Uncontrollable"
The High Court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the accused had a clear intention to kill, emphasizing that the attack was spontaneous and not premeditated. The judgment noted: "From the entire prosecution evidence, it is difficult to gather that the accused had the intention to murder his close friend. The injuries were a result of the impact of the firewood rather than the force applied with an intent to kill."
The Court further observed: "The fatal blow can be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from provocation, with no time for premeditation or calculation. It is evident that the accused acted in a moment of uncontrollable rage after witnessing the continued misbehavior of the deceased towards his wife."
Grave and Sudden Provocation: When a Crime is Not Murder but Culpable Homicide
The Court relied on Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, which states: "Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation."
Relying on K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605, the Court reiterated: "The test of ‘grave and sudden’ provocation is whether a reasonable man, placed in the same situation as the accused, would have lost self-control. The provocation must be such that it would unsettle not just a hot-tempered individual, but also a person of ordinary sensibilities."
The High Court found that the deceased’s misconduct towards the accused’s wife, despite being asked to leave, was sufficient provocation to reduce the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
"Intention vs. Knowledge: Why Section 304 Part II IPC Applies"
The High Court distinguished between cases where the accused acts with intention to kill and those where there is only knowledge that the act may cause death. It cited Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 11 SCC 673, where the Supreme Court held: "When a person inflicts an injury in a fit of rage, without premeditation, he may not have the intention to kill but could be attributed with knowledge that his act could cause death."
Applying this principle, the High Court concluded: "Baiju cannot be said to have had the intention to cause death. However, he did have the knowledge that striking someone on the head with firewood could result in fatal injuries. Hence, the offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC, not Section 302 IPC."
Reduction of Sentence: From Life Imprisonment to Seven Years
The Sessions Court had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. However, the High Court, considering the mitigating factors, reduced the sentence to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC, along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, payable to the victim’s wife.
The Court stated: "The punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder must reflect the circumstances in which the act was committed. The accused acted in the heat of the moment, without premeditation or undue cruelty. A sentence of seven years is appropriate."
The convictions under Sections 326 and 324 IPC remained unaltered, and the fine amount of Rs. 1,50,000 was directed to be given to the victim’s wife.
Conclusion: Recognizing Human Reactions in the Face of Provocation
This judgment reaffirms the legal distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The High Court’s reasoning ensures that acts committed in extreme provocation are judged fairly, taking into account human emotions and immediate reactions.
By modifying the conviction under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, the ruling establishes a crucial precedent that when a person acts in the heat of the moment due to grave provocation, the law must recognize the temporary loss of self-control and mete out proportionate punishment.
Date of Decision: January 28, 2025
