Skip to content


State of Orissa Vs. Dusasana Sahu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberGovernment Appeal No. 35 of 1980
Judge
Reported in1985(II)OLR1
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 300
AppellantState of Orissa
RespondentDusasana Sahu
Appellant AdvocateD.P. Sahu, Standing Counsel
Respondent AdvocateP. Ray, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredCode. (See K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
Excerpt:
- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. .....learned sessions judge, the respondent, being deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation offered by his deceased-wife who had abused the respondent in most filthy languages, killed her.2. the test of 'grave and sudden' provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed, would be so ' provoked so as to loose his self-control. words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first exception to section 300 of the code. (see k.m. nanavati v. state of maharashtra air 1962 s c. 605). in our view, the learned trial judge has reasonably held that the act of the respondent would.....
Judgment:

Behera, J.

1. This appeal has been directed against the order of acquittal of the respondent who stood charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'Code') for having committed the murder of his wife. The learned Sessions Judge, having applied Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Code, convicted the respondent under Section 304 Para I thereof and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years. It has been reported by the High Court office that the respondent has rot preferred an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence passed against him. As has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the respondent, being deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation offered by his deceased-wife who had abused the respondent in most filthy languages, killed her.

2. The test of 'grave and sudden' provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed, would be so ' provoked so as to loose his self-control. Words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first Exception to Section 300 of the Code. (See K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 S C. 605). In our view, the learned trial Judge has reasonably held that the act of the respondent would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder coming within the purview of Section 304 Part I of the Code. The learned Standing Counsel has been fair in submission with reference to the evidence on record that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge seems to be justified.

3. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The respondent, if in custody, be set at liberty forthwith.

G.B. Pattnaik, J.

4. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //