grave and sudden provocation
Verma d. Ashish
(Querist) 18 August 2008
This query is : Resolved
the fact of the casr are:
STATEMENT OF FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APPEAL ARE THAT:
# Gurdip singh and Sohan singh were step brothers and the equal partition of their agricultural land was done by their father Murta singh 10 years ago in Delhi.
# Murta singh lived with Sohan singh since the partition leading to the dissatisfaction of Gurdip singh on being treated unequally.
# Gurdip singh was a night guard in a bank but their main occupation was agriculture and the irrigation was done from a common well which remained the bone of contention between the two step brothers.
# On the day of the incidence, Gurdip singh at about noon came and asked for the water for the irrigation of his field which was declined by Sohan singh which led to the heated arguments between the two brothers.”
# Murta singh was present there and he took the side of Sohan singh,Then sohan singh uttered “ you son of a concubine”,"GO AWAY" on hearing this Gurdeep singh left the field and returned along with Santok singh who was a colleague in his bank. Gurdip singh came with his licensed .303 rifle and fired one shot from a close range with his rifle hitting sohan singh on his right knee and a second shot on his biceps of left arm. Gurdip singh left the field and sohan singh was taken to the hospital. He died on the way due to excessive bleeding.
Trial and sessions judge convicted Gurdip singh under section 302 of the Indian penal code and Santok singh under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian penal code.
KIndly guide the best possible solution for the defence....and also some recent supreme court decisions.
regards
Manish Singh
(Expert) 18 August 2008
Dear Mr. Ashish,
Your case can not be treated under the defence " grave and sudden provocation" as it has already been interpreted by many judgments of the SC.
iN your case the accused had plenty of time to think over the crime and it was a proper and well planned murder with a companion.
It would under no circumstances come under the defence of sudden provocayion.
It would be better to include some other defence and contentions in your defence.
Verma d. Ashish
(Querist) 18 August 2008
I do understand your concern sir..but he came sfter some time and then there is no direct evidence that suggests that he was not provocked.if he had an intention to kill he could have fired indescriminately but being a professional guard he was aware of the fact that the injury caused wud not be sufficent in ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased.
However. yes it can be contended by the prosecution that the act was not sudden but then in that case some elements of provocation being grave cant be overlooked.apart from that what my submission is in this regard is of " after some time"...yes on being provocked he went off to bring the rifle cuz he lost his self-control.now here what is the limitation of after some time we need to consider.we cannot say that the time was elapsed.thanx regards
praveen kumar
(Expert) 19 August 2008
Dear sir,
The answer given by Mr. Ashish alongwith the answer given by Mr. Manish is,I think, the complete answer.
Manish Singh
(Expert) 19 August 2008
there was sufficient time for the accused to plan over the crime so this defence wont work. he brought the rifle that itself shows the intention.
and firing two shots at somebody can never mean or can never be shown that the intention of the party was not to kill other but only to injure him.
so it will not work.
KANDE VENKATESH GUPTA
(Expert) 19 August 2008
After the provocation, going to some other place and returning with an lethol weapon and firing shots, would not come within the parameters of "grave and sudden provocation". It is clear murder. But, however you have to establish the time factors and the distance factors to bring your case within the parameters of "grave and sudden provocation".
SANJAY DIXIT
(Expert) 31 August 2008
I do agree with the suggestions made by Mr Kande & Mr Manish.
