The Supreme Court in Dauvaram Nirmalkar vs State of Chhattisgarh that by applying the "Sustained Provocation Principle" in the course of a murder trial can help in determining the gravity of provocation on the basis of history of abuse. It further held that for the purpose of Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC, the last provocation has to be considered in light of the previous provocative acts or words, serious enough to cause the accused to lose his self-control.
The Hon’ble Bench also clarified that this principle does not do away with the requirement of immediate or the final provocative act, words or gesture. Also, that this defence would not be available if there is evidence of reflection or planning as they mirror exercise of calculation and premeditation.
In the present case, the court was considering an appeal filed by a person who was convicted under Section 302 IPC (murder) for killing his own brother. It was also noted that the younger brother of the appellant had deposed that the deceased used to frequently drink alcohol, barely interacted with the family, and used to debate and quarrel with the appellant.
The Court observed that the question of loss of self-control by grave and sudden provocation is a question of fact. Act of provocation and loss of self-control must be actual and reasonable. The law attaches great importance to two things when the defence of provocation is taken under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC.
“First, whether there was an intervening period for the passion to cool and for the accused to regain dominance and control over his mind.
Secondly, the mode of resentment should bear some relationship to the sort of provocation that has been given. The retaliation should be proportionate to the provocation.”
Furthermore, the Court noted that Exception 1 to Section 300 recognizes that when a reasonable person is tormented continuously, he may, at one point of time, erupt and reach a break point whereby losing self-control, going astray and committing the offence.
It also relied upon K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra wherein certain conditions were laid down which had to be satisfied to invoke the aforementioned exception u/s 300 IPC. They are:-
the deceased must have given provocation to the accused;
the provocation must be grave;
the provocation must be sudden;
The offender, by the reason of the said provocation, should have been deprived of his power of self-control;
the offender should have killed the deceased during the continuance of the deprivation of power of self-control; and
the offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
It was also laid down that the gravity of the provocation can be assessed by taking into account the history of the abuse and need not be confined to the gravity of the final provocative act in the form of acts, words or gestures. The final wrongdoing, triggering off the accused’s reaction, should be identified to show that there was temporary loss of self-control and the accused had acted without planning and premeditation.
In light of the above-mentioned principles of law, and their application to the facts at hand, the Court noted that the appellant has already suffered incarceration for over 10 years. Therefore, it modified the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.