Bombay High Court: In a criminal appeal under Section 302, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), wherein a man was accused of murdering his brother, the Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Shyam C. Chandak*, J., held that the case was covered by Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC. The Court noted that the deceased’s continuous addiction to tobacco, his abusive behaviour, and his assault on the appellant on the night of the incident amounted to provocation sufficient to deprive the appellant of self-control. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside and modified to Section 304(I) IPC with a reduced sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment.
Background
The case arose from persistent quarrels between the brothers, primarily due to one brother’s addiction to tobacco and gutka. Despite repeated advice from his mother and the appellant, he continued his habits, often spitting inside the house and creating unhygienic conditions. On the relevant day, after consuming tobacco, he assaulted the appellant, who was unwell and suffering from jaundice. Later that night, the appellant crushed his brother’s head and face with a cement block.
The trial court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. In appeal, however, it was argued that the mother’s testimony, though hostile, could not be discarded entirely, and that the deceased’s behaviour amounted to continuous provocation. The prosecution contended that portions of hostile testimony can be relied upon and emphasised that there was no reason for the mother to lodge a false case against her own son.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the act of causing the homicidal death of the deceased will fall under Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC. The Court referred to K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 69, wherein the Supreme Court held that Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC applies when preceding the offence, there was a last act, word or gesture in the series of incidents comprising of that conduct, amounting to sudden provocation sufficient for reactive loss of self-control.
The Court highlighted that the mother admitted that the deceased’s behaviour was unbearable, wherein she and the appellant were fed up due to his vices. The Court further noted that the deceased used to beat them even though they tried to persuade him to give up his addictions and improve. It was observed that the spot panchnama clearly shows that the room where the mother and her two sons were residing was small, and the deceased further created hardship by spitting tobacco inside the room and keeping it unhygienic.
The Court emphasised that the family had a poor financial background and, at the time of the last quarrel, the deceased had assaulted the appellant, who was unwell. It was noted that the appellant wanted the deceased to give up his addictions and improve. The Court observed that the cumulative and continued abusive behaviour of the deceased towards the appellant and their mother over a period of time, coupled with the provocative assault on the appellant by the deceased during their last quarrel, resulted in continuing stress by provocation, which ultimately led to the unfortunate homicidal death of the deceased, making it covered by Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC.
Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and instead convicted the appellant under Section 304(I) IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine of Rs 5000, with a default sentence of three months.
[Hemant Vasant Devrukhkar v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 537 of 2025, decided on 10-3-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Shyam C. Chandak
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Nitesh S. Nevshe a/w. Shweta N. Nevshe
For the Respondent: Ashish I. Satpute, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
