In a very recent case of Pravin Khimji Chouhan v. State of Maharashtra[1], the life sentence of a man convicted of murder of his wife was reduced on the basis of “provocation”. This judgment was passed by the Bombay High Court. On the basis of this situation, we need to get into the understanding of ‘provocation’.

When we refer to the term ‘provocation’ in criminal cases, we clearly indicate situations of ‘grave and sudden provocation’ and these situations are, according to Section 300 Exception 1, taken up as a defence for committing a murder. This exception states that in a situation when one has lost self-control because of an act of grave and sudden provocation, it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. On reading the provisions laid down in Section 299(culpable homicide) and 300(murder), one can bring out a very thin line of difference clearly based on the degree of the offence. Murder is considered as a higher degree of Culpable Homicide and is subjected to a greater scale of punishment than in culpable homicide. However, in both the cases, ‘intention’ plays a vital role.

In the case of exceptions to murder, the facts reflect a scepticism relating to intention. When we talk about ‘grave and sudden provocation’, the intention is not a pre-decided basis of committing the crime; it develops after a push that goes beyond one’s self-control. The most remarkable case in this topic is that of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Bombay[2]. In this case, it was held:

   “Any reasonable person belonging to the same class of the society as that of the accused, if placed in the situation in which the accused committed the crime, would get so provoked as to lose his self-control, then only the accused can get the defence of grave and sudden provocation, and the liability of murder can get reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The section has a wide scope with which it can also attract mere words and gestures under certain circumstances to result in grave and sudden provocation.”

The established test to determine Grave and Sudden Provocation is subjected to certain parameters of a test and hence, the following must be proved[3]:

·       Actual provocation received by the accused.

·       Provocation so received is grave and sudden.

·       After receiving the provocation, the accused got deprived of his power of self-control.

·       The crime or the offence took place after the accused was deprived of his power of self-control, and before the time, he could cool down, getting out of his provocation.

If we apply all these parameters and look at the present case of Pravin Khimji Chouhan v. State of Maharashtra, the instance of provocation becomes clear as the husband stated that his pride was wounded and he also confessed to have committed the crime. He inflicted 26 stabs on the wife which resulted in her death but according to his testimony and the Court, the act was not pre-meditated.