Introduction: Short note on the concept

Example (300): principle of mens rea, elements of murder, distinction/comparison with

culpable homicide, exceptions of murder, etc.

The aforementioned facts in the question resemble the facts in the KM Nanavati judgment
authored by J…
Main content: case facts, contentions, ratio
Other relevant cases – cited in Nanavati
Try case notes for this- elements of murder case, distinction case
[try to establish an ideal length for case notes, for example, I follow the maximum length of
2-3 pages in MS Doc with font size 11, you are free to set up your own ideal length]

Conclusion: your own thoughts/summary of the discussion above and final result.

Sample case note:

KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra [Exceptions to Section 300]

K. Subba Rao [AIR 1962 SC 605]

Facts:
N is accused of murder of P u/s 302 [murder] & 304 [culpable homicide not amounting to murder].

Issue:
Whether a reasonable person placed in the same position as the accused was, would have reacted to
the confession of adultery by his wife in the manner in which the accused did?

Procedural Posture:
Bombay HC held him guilty u/s 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Important contentions:
N contended that he shot at P under grave and sudden provocation, thus, he is liable only u/s 304.
Moreover, N shot P ‘while deprived of power of self-control by sudden and grave provocation’, thus,
offence would be under Exception 1 to S.300.
M contended that provocation could not be sudden [though it may be grave] as N’s wife has already
provided the confession and N had time to procure the gun which provided a ‘cooling-off’ period.

Judgment:
Prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that N had ‘intentionally’ shot P as there is
sufficient evidence to prove that N regained his self-control and still killed P.

Important text/cases: [you are free to paraphrase the texts but do not forget the keywords]

Mancini v Director of Public Prosecutions [doctrine of provocation]: 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....The test to be applied is that of the
effect of the provocation on a reasonable man, as was laid down in Rex v. Lesbini 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 to (a)
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 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. … 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 an actual intention to kill, or to inflict grievous bodily harm, the doctrine that provocation
may reduce murder to manslaughter seldom applies. [wife confessed about affairs, H struck her head
with a hammer]. Reiterated in R v. Duffy and R.v Thomas.

Ratio:
“Homicide is the killing of a human being by another. Under this exception, culpable homicide is not
murder if the following conditions are complied with: (1) The deceased must have given provocation
to the accused. (2) The provocation must be grave. (3) The provocation must be sudden. (4) The
offender, by reason of the said provocation, shall have been deprived of his power of self-control. (5)
He should have killed the deceased during the continuance of the deprivation of the power of self-
control. (6) The offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or that
of any other person by mistake or accident.”

in Boya Munigadu v. The Queen- Mad HC, the plea of sudden & grave provocation was upheld as:
“If having witnessed the act of adultery, he connected this subsequent conduct, as he could not fail to
connect it, with that act, it would be conduct of a character highly exasperating to him, implying as it
must, that all concealment of their criminal relations and all regard for his feelings were abandoned
and that they proposed continuing their course of misconduct in his house. This, we think, amounted
to provocation, grave enough and sudden enough to deprive him of his self-control, and reduced the
offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.” [similar reasoning was adopted
in re C. Narayan- Andhra Pradesh HC, Jan Muhammad v. Emperor- Lahore HC & Emperor v Balku-
All. HC] Thus, the mental state created by an earlier act may be taken into consideration in
ascertaining whether a subsequent act was sufficient to make the assailant to lose his self-control.

Indian courts have not maintained the distinction between words and acts in the application of the
doctrine of provocation. The Indian law covers 2 aspects: whether words or gestures unaccompanied
by acts can amount to provocation, & what is the effect of the time lag between the act of provocation
and the commission of the offence. In Empress v. Khogayi, the Madras High Court held that abusive
language used would be a provocation sufficient to deprive the accused of self- control.

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 the accused was placed would be so
provoked as to lose his self-control. (2) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain
circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first
Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. (3) The mental background created by the
previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act
caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. The fatal blow should be clearly
traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after passion had cooled down
by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation.

Dicta:

No abstract standard of reasonableness for application of ‘grave and sudden’ provocation doctrine can
be laid down. What a reasonable man will do in certain circumstances depends upon the customs,
manners, way of life, traditional values etc.; in short, the cultural, social and emotional background of
the society to which an accused belongs.

Comments:
[your novel and original understanding or criticism of the case]