First- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for

killing. or doing harm to any person. Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in
obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public
servant. Thirdly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the
right of private defense Exception 2- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise
in good faith of the right of private defense of person or property, exceeds the power given to him
by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defense
without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the
purpose of such defense. Exception 3- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a
public servant or aiding. a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the
powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be
lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will
towards the person whose death is caused. Exception 4.- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner “It is
common knowledge that the term “self control” in the said provision is a subjective phenomenon
and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore in order to find
out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently
grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous
act of provocation caused by the deceased person. When there is positive evidence to show that
there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no
difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other types of cases where there has been
sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would not have been a real
sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the
benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation, which is the route cause
for the commission of the offence, need not arise at the spur of the moment. In a case like the one
on hand we find thatclearly, in our opinion, an excusing circumstance e murder. In such cases, the
Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation,
which is the route cause for the commission of the offence, need not arise at the spur of the
moment. In a case like the one on hand we find that

clearly, in our opinion, an excusing circumstance equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions
to Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and
children die bringing the offence to one punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the
result, the appellant is allowed in part the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand
confirmed, the conviction and sentence under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is
found guilty of an offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her.” The above said decision was
followed by the High court in Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case
conviction and sentence passed under S.302 IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained
provocation, held can be accepted as falling within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-
Charge against wife for causing death of her husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her
life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of sustained provocation was accepted. The high court
held, “It is common knowledge that the term “self control” in the said provision is a subjective
phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore
in order to find out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death
was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into
consideration the previous act of provocation caused by the deceased person. When there is
positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of
occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other types of
cases where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would
not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the
Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation,
which is the route cause for the commission of the offence, need not arise at the spur of the
moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly, in our opinion, an excusing circumstance
equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the
nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and children die bringing the offence to one
punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the result, the appellant is allowed in part
the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand confirmed, the conviction and sentence
under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is found guilty of an offence under Sec.304,
Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is sentenced to imprisonment for the period
already undergone by her.” The above said decision was followed by the High court in Sankaral alias
Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case conviction and sentence passed under S.302
IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained provocation, held can be accepted as falling
within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-Charge against wife for causing death of her
husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of
sustained provocation was accepted. The high court held, “It is common knowledge that the term
“self control” in the said provision is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore in order to find out whether the last act of
provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of
the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous act of provocation caused
by the deceased person. When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden
provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said
principles. There are other types of cases where there has been sustained provocation for a
considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately
preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300,
I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation, which is the route cause for the commission of the
offence, need not arise at the spur of the moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly,
in our opinion, an excusing circumstance equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to
Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and
children die bringing the offence to one punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the
result, the appellant is allowed in part the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand
confirmed, the conviction and sentence under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is
found guilty of an offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her.” The above said decision was
followed by the High court in Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case
conviction and sentence passed under S.302 IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained
provocation, held can be accepted as falling within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-
Charge against wife for causing death of her husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her
life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of sustained provocation was accepted. The high court
held, “It is common knowledge that the term “self control” in the said provision is a subjective
phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore
in order to find out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death
was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into
consideration the previous act of provocation caused by the deceased person. When there is
positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of
occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other types of
cases where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would
not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the
Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation,
which is the route cause for the commission of the offence, need not arise at the spur of the
moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly, in our opinion, an excusing circumstance
equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the
nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and children die bringing the offence to one
punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the result, the appellant is allowed in part
the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand confirmed, the conviction and sentence
under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is found guilty of an offence under Sec.304,
Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is sentenced to imprisonment for the period
already undergone by her.” The above said decision was followed by the High court in Sankaral alias
Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case conviction and sentence passed under S.302
IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained provocation, held can be accepted as falling
within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-Charge against wife for causing death of her
husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of
sustained provocation was accepted. The high court held, “It is common knowledge that the term
“self control” in the said provision is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore in order to find out whether the last act of
provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of
the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous act of provocation caused
by the deceased person. When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden
provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said
principles. There are other types of cases where there has been sustained provocation for a
considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately
preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300,
I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation, which is the route cause for the commission of the
offence, need not arise at the spur of the moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly,
in our opinion, an excusing circumstance equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to
Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and
children die bringing the offence to one punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the
result, the appellant is allowed in part the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand
confirmed, the conviction and sentence under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is
found guilty of an offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her.” The above said decision was
followed by the High court in Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case
conviction and sentence passed under S.302 IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained
provocation, held can be accepted as falling within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-
Charge against wife for causing death of her husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her
life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of sustained provocation was accepted. The high court
held, “It is common knowledge that the term “self control” in the said provision is a subjective
phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore
in order to find out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death
was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into
consideration the previous act of provocation caused by the deceased person. When there is
positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of
occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other types of
cases where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would
not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the
Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation,
which is the route cause for the commission of the offence, need not arise at the spur of the
moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly, in our opinion, an excusing circumstance
equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the
nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and children die bringing the offence to one
punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the result, the appellant is allowed in part
the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand confirmed, the conviction and sentence
under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is found guilty of an offence under Sec.304,
Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is sentenced to imprisonment for the period
already undergone by her.” The above said decision was followed by the High court in Sankaral alias
Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case conviction and sentence passed under S.302
IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained provocation, held can be accepted as falling
within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-Charge against wife for causing death of her
husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of
sustained provocation was accepted. The high court held, “It is common knowledge that the term
“self control” in the said provision is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore in order to find out whether the last act of
provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of
the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous act of provocation caused
by the deceased person. When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden
provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said
principles. There are other types of cases where there has been sustained provocation for a
considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately
preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300,
I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation, which is the route cause for the commission of the
offence, need not arise at the spur of the moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly,
in our opinion, an excusing circumstance equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to
Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and
children die bringing the offence to one punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the
result, the appellant is allowed in part the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand
confirmed, the conviction and sentence under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is
found guilty of an offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her.” The above said decision was
followed by the High court in Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case
conviction and sentence passed under S.302 IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained
provocation, held can be accepted as falling within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-
Charge against wife for causing death of her husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her
life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of sustained provocation was accepted. The high court
held, “It is common knowledge that the term “self control” in the said provision is a subjective
phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore
in order to find out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death
was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into
consideration the previous act of provocation caused by the deceased person. When there is
positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of
occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other types of
cases where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would
not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the
Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation,
which is the route cause for the commission of the offence, need not arise at the spur of the
moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly, in our opinion, an excusing circumstance
equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the
nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and children die bringing the offence to one
punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the result, the appellant is allowed in part
the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand confirmed, the conviction and sentence
under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is found guilty of an offence under Sec.304,
Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is sentenced to imprisonment for the period
already undergone by her.” The above said decision was followed by the High court in Sankaral alias
Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case conviction and sentence passed under S.302
IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained provocation, held can be accepted as falling
within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-Charge against wife for causing death of her
husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of
sustained provocation was accepted. The high court held, “It is common knowledge that the term
“self control” in the said provision is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore in order to find out whether the last act of
provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of
the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous act of provocation caused
by the deceased person. When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden
provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said
principles. There are other types of cases where there has been sustained provocation for a
considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately
preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300,
I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation, which is the route cause for the commission of the
offence, need not arise at the spur of the moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly,
in our opinion, an excusing circumstance equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to
Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and
children die bringing the offence to one punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the
result, the appellant is allowed in part the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand
confirmed, the conviction and sentence under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is
found guilty of an offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her.” The above said decision was
followed by the High court in Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case
conviction and sentence passed under S.302 IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained
provocation, held can be accepted as falling within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-
Charge against wife for causing death of her husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her
life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of sustained provocation was accepted. The high court
held, “It is common knowledge that the term “self control” in the said provision is a subjective
phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore
in order to find out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death
was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into
consideration the previous act of provocation caused by the deceased person. When there is
positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of
occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other types of
cases where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would
not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the
Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation,
which is the route cause for the commission of the offence, need not arise at the spur of the
moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly, in our opinion, an excusing circumstance
equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the
nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and children die bringing the offence to one
punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the result, the appellant is allowed in part
the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand confirmed, the conviction and sentence
under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is found guilty of an offence under Sec.304,
Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is sentenced to imprisonment for the period
already undergone by her.” The above said decision was followed by the High court in Sankaral alias
Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case conviction and sentence passed under S.302
IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained provocation, held can be accepted as falling
within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-Charge against wife for causing death of her
husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of
sustained provocation was accepted. The high court held, “It is common knowledge that the term
“self control” in the said provision is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore in order to find out whether the last act of
provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of
the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous act of provocation caused
by the deceased person. When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden
provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said
principles. There are other types of cases where there has been sustained provocation for a
considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately
preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300,
I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation, which is the route cause for the commission of the
offence, need not arise at the spur of the moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly,
in our opinion, an excusing circumstance equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to
Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and
children die bringing the offence to one punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the
result, the appellant is allowed in part the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand
confirmed, the conviction and sentence under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is
found guilty of an offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her.” The above said decision was
followed by the High court in Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case
conviction and sentence passed under S.302 IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained
provocation, held can be accepted as falling within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-
Charge against wife for causing death of her husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her
life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of sustained provocation was accepted. The high court
held, “It is common knowledge that the term “self control” in the said provision is a subjective
phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore
in order to find out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death
was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into
consideration the previous act of provocation caused by the deceased person. When there is
positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of
occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other types of
cases where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would
not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the
Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation,
which is the route cause for the commission of the offence, need not arise at the spur of the
moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly, in our opinion, an excusing circumstance
equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the
nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and children die bringing the offence to one
punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the result, the appellant is allowed in part
the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand confirmed, the conviction and sentence
under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is found guilty of an offence under Sec.304,
Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is sentenced to imprisonment for the period
already undergone by her.” The above said decision was followed by the High court in Sankaral alias
Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case conviction and sentence passed under S.302
IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained provocation, held can be accepted as falling
within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-Charge against wife for causing death of her
husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of
sustained provocation was accepted. The high court held, “It is common knowledge that the term
“self control” in the said provision is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore in order to find out whether the last act of
provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of
the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous act of provocation caused
by the deceased person. When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden
provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said
principles. There are other types of cases where there has been sustained provocation for a
considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately
preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300,
I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation, which is the route cause for the commission of the
offence, need not arise at the spur of the moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly,
in our opinion, an excusing circumstance equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to
Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and
children die bringing the offence to one punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the
result, the appellant is allowed in part the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand
confirmed, the conviction and sentence under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is
found guilty of an offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her.” The above said decision was
followed by the High court in Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case
conviction and sentence passed under S.302 IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained
provocation, held can be accepted as falling within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-
Charge against wife for causing death of her husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her
life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of sustained provocation was accepted. The high court
held, “It is common knowledge that the term “self control” in the said provision is a subjective
phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore
in order to find out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death
was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into
consideration the previous act of provocation caused by the deceased person. When there is
positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of
occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other types of
cases where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would
not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the
Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation,
which is the route cause for the commission of the offence, need not arise at the spur of the
moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly, in our opinion, an excusing circumstance
equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the
nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and children die bringing the offence to one
punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the result, the appellant is allowed in part
the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand confirmed, the conviction and sentence
under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is found guilty of an offence under Sec.304,
Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is sentenced to imprisonment for the period
already undergone by her.” The above said decision was followed by the High court in Sankaral alias
Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case conviction and sentence passed under S.302
IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained provocation, held can be accepted as falling
within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-Charge against wife for causing death of her
husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of
sustained provocation was accepted. The high court held, “It is common knowledge that the term
“self control” in the said provision is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore in order to find out whether the last act of
provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of
the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous act of provocation caused
by the deceased person. When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden
provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said
principles. There are other types of cases where there has been sustained provocation for a
considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately
preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300,
I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation, which is the route cause for the commission of the
offence, need not arise at the spur of the moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly,
in our opinion, an excusing circumstance equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to
Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and
children die bringing the offence to one punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the
result, the appellant is allowed in part the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand
confirmed, the conviction and sentence under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is
found guilty of an offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her.” The above said decision was
followed by the High court in Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case
conviction and sentence passed under S.302 IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained
provocation, held can be accepted as falling within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-
Charge against wife for causing death of her husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her
life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of sustained provocation was accepted. The high court
held, “It is common knowledge that the term “self control” in the said provision is a subjective
phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore
in order to find out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death
was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into
consideration the previous act of provocation caused by the deceased person. When there is
positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of
occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other types of
cases where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would
not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the
Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation,
which is the route cause for the commission of the offence, need not arise at the spur of the
moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly, in our opinion, an excusing circumstance
equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the
nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and children die bringing the offence to one
punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the result, the appellant is allowed in part
the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand confirmed, the conviction and sentence
under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is found guilty of an offence under Sec.304,
Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is sentenced to imprisonment for the period
already undergone by her.” The above said decision was followed by the High court in Sankaral alias
Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case conviction and sentence passed under S.302
IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained provocation, held can be accepted as falling
within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-Charge against wife for causing death of her
husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of
sustained provocation was accepted. The high court held, “It is common knowledge that the term
“self control” in the said provision is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore in order to find out whether the last act of
provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of
the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous act of provocation caused
by the deceased person. When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden
provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said
principles. There are other types of cases where there has been sustained provocation for a
considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately
preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300,
I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation, which is the route cause for the commission of the
offence, need not arise at the spur of the moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly,
in our opinion, an excusing circumstance equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to
Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and
children die bringing the offence to one punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the
result, the appellant is allowed in part the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand
confirmed, the conviction and sentence under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is
found guilty of an offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her.” The above said decision was
followed by the High court in Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case
conviction and sentence passed under S.302 IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained
provocation, held can be accepted as falling within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-
Charge against wife for causing death of her husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her
life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of sustained provocation was accepted. The high court
held, “It is common knowledge that the term “self control” in the said provision is a subjective
phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore
in order to find out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death
was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into
consideration the previous act of provocation caused by the deceased person. When there is
positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of
occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other types of
cases where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would
not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the
Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation,
which is the route cause for the commission of the offence, need not arise at the spur of the
moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly, in our opinion, an excusing circumstance
equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the
nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and children die bringing the offence to one
punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the result, the appellant is allowed in part
the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand confirmed, the conviction and sentence
under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is found guilty of an offence under Sec.304,
Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is sentenced to imprisonment for the period
already undergone by her.” The above said decision was followed by the High court in Sankaral alias
Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case conviction and sentence passed under S.302
IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained provocation, held can be accepted as falling
within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-Charge against wife for causing death of her
husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of
sustained provocation was accepted. The high court held, “It is common knowledge that the term
“self control” in the said provision is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore in order to find out whether the last act of
provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of
the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous act of provocation caused
by the deceased person. When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden
provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said
principles. There are other types of cases where there has been sustained provocation for a
considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately
preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300,
I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation, which is the route cause for the commission of the
offence, need not arise at the spur of the moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly,
in our opinion, an excusing circumstance equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to
Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and
children die bringing the offence to one punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the
result, the appellant is allowed in part the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand
confirmed, the conviction and sentence under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is
found guilty of an offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her.” The above said decision was
followed by the High court in Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case
conviction and sentence passed under S.302 IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained
provocation, held can be accepted as falling within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-
Charge against wife for causing death of her husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her
life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of sustained provocation was accepted. The high court
held, “It is common knowledge that the term “self control” in the said provision is a subjective
phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore
in order to find out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death
was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into
consideration the previous act of provocation caused by the deceased person. When there is
positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of
occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other types of
cases where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would
not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the
Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation,
which is the route cause for the commission of the offence, need not arise at the spur of the
moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly, in our opinion, an excusing circumstance
equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the
nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and children die bringing the offence to one
punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the result, the appellant is allowed in part
the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand confirmed, the conviction and sentence
under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is found guilty of an offence under Sec.304,
Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is sentenced to imprisonment for the period
already undergone by her.” The above said decision was followed by the High court in Sankaral alias
Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case conviction and sentence passed under S.302
IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained provocation, held can be accepted as falling
within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-Charge against wife for causing death of her
husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of
sustained provocation was accepted. The high court held, “It is common knowledge that the term
“self control” in the said provision is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore in order to find out whether the last act of
provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of
the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous act of provocation caused
by the deceased person. When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden
provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said
principles. There are other types of cases where there has been sustained provocation for a
considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately
preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300,
I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation, which is the route cause for the commission of the
offence, need not arise at the spur of the moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly,
in our opinion, an excusing circumstance equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to
Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and
children die bringing the offence to one punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the
result, the appellant is allowed in part the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand
confirmed, the conviction and sentence under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is
found guilty of an offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her.” The above said decision was
followed by the High court in Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case
conviction and sentence passed under S.302 IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained
provocation, held can be accepted as falling within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-
Charge against wife for causing death of her husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her
life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of sustained provocation was accepted. The high court
held, “It is common knowledge that the term “self control” in the said provision is a subjective
phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore
in order to find out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death
was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into
consideration the previous act of provocation caused by the deceased person. When there is
positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of
occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other types of
cases where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would
not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the
Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation,
which is the route cause for the commission of the offence, need not arise at the spur of the
moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly, in our opinion, an excusing circumstance
equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the
nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and children die bringing the offence to one
punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the result, the appellant is allowed in part
the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand confirmed, the conviction and sentence
under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is found guilty of an offence under Sec.304,
Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is sentenced to imprisonment for the period
already undergone by her.” The above said decision was followed by the High court in Sankaral alias
Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case conviction and sentence passed under S.302
IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained provocation, held can be accepted as falling
within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-Charge against wife for causing death of her
husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of
sustained provocation was accepted. The high court held, “It is common knowledge that the term
“self control” in the said provision is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore in order to find out whether the last act of
provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of
the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous act of provocation caused
by the deceased person. When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden
provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said
principles. There are other types of cases where there has been sustained provocation for a
considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately
preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300,
I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation, which is the route cause for the commission of the
offence, need not arise at the spur of the moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly,
in our opinion, an excusing circumstance equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to
Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and
children die bringing the offence to one punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the
result, the appellant is allowed in part the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand
confirmed, the conviction and sentence under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is
found guilty of an offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her.” The above said decision was
followed by the High court in Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case
conviction and sentence passed under S.302 IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained
provocation, held can be accepted as falling within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-
Charge against wife for causing death of her husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her
life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of sustained provocation was accepted. The high court
held, “It is common knowledge that the term “self control” in the said provision is a subjective
phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore
in order to find out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death
was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into
consideration the previous act of provocation caused by the deceased person. When there is
positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of
occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other types of
cases where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would
not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the
Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation,
which is the route cause for the commission of the offence, need not arise at the spur of the
moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly, in our opinion, an excusing circumstance
equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the
nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and children die bringing the offence to one
punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the result, the appellant is allowed in part
the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand confirmed, the conviction and sentence
under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is found guilty of an offence under Sec.304,
Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is sentenced to imprisonment for the period
already undergone by her.” The above said decision was followed by the High court in Sankaral alias
Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case conviction and sentence passed under S.302
IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained provocation, held can be accepted as falling
within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-Charge against wife for causing death of her
husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of
sustained provocation was accepted. The high court held, “It is common knowledge that the term
“self control” in the said provision is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances of a given case. Therefore in order to find out whether the last act of
provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of
the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous act of provocation caused
by the deceased person. When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden
provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said
principles. There are other types of cases where there has been sustained provocation for a
considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately
preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Sec.300,
I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation, which is the route cause for the commission of the
offence, need not arise at the spur of the moment. In a case like the one on hand we find thatclearly,
in our opinion, an excusing circumstance equivalent to those enumerated in the Exceptions to
Sec.300, I.P.C. and will be therefore is the nature of an exception, when the mother escapes and
children die bringing the offence to one punishable under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C.” Further, “30. In the
result, the appellant is allowed in part the conviction and sentence under Sec.309, I.P.C. stand
confirmed, the conviction and sentence under Sec.302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set aside, the accused is
found guilty of an offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and is
sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by her.” The above said decision was
followed by the High court in Sankaral alias Sankarayee v. State 1989LW(cr) 468. In the said case
conviction and sentence passed under S.302 IPC was altered to S.304 Part I IPC Plea of Sustained
provocation, held can be accepted as falling within the purview of “grave and Sudden Provocation”-
Charge against wife for causing death of her husband with an aruvalIlltreatment and threat to her
life by the deceased in drunken state-plea of sustained provocation was accepted. The high court
held,