"Acted Out Of Sudden Provocation": Orissa High Court Converts Conviction U/S 302 to U/S 304 Part II, IPC Of A Man Accused Of Killing His Mother

"The fact also remains that the accused did not use any dangerous weapons. He first used the walking stick of the deceased herself and later a stone locally available. Clearly, he acted out of sudden provocation when his mother tried to dissuade him from going to the village. He did not try to flee after attacking her. He is also not shown to have any history of criminal behaviour."

Factual Background:

At around 9 AM on the date of the incident, the accused informed the deceased (mother of the accused) that he would go to village Gidhamal. The deceased is said to have objected to it and advised the accused to do some work to feed his family. The accused got annoyed and stated that the old woman was always raising objections. He assaulted her with her own walking stick which then got broken. The deceased fell down crying, hearing which PW-2 (father of the accused) sought to intervene.

The accused, however, pelted a stone at PW-2 and assaulted the deceased with a stone on the right side of her ear. He then left the place and sat under a tree. The deceased was placed on a cot and information was given to PW-1 (brother of the accused and the informant) who arrived and gave her some water. Thereafter, the deceased died. This is more or less corroborated by PW-2.

In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the accused admitted to having assaulted his mother and causing her injuries. A solemn effort was made before the trial court on behalf of the accused to urge that Section 84, IPC would be attracted by submitting that the accused was insane at the time of the incident and was not capable of knowing the nature of his acts.

Reliance was placed on the evidence of PW-2 who, in his cross-examination, stated that in his childhood, the accused used to get fits and when in an irritated frame of mind would lift and throw his own child. It was stated that the accused at times lost control over himself. PW-2 admitted that the accused was unable to continue his treatment on account of poverty. This was corroborated by PW-3 (wife of the accused) who stated that from the date of her marriage to him, she found the accused behaving like a mad man.

According to the trial court, the crucial point in time when insanity had to be established was when the crime was actually committed. Since there was no evidence of the state of the mind of the accused immediately preceding or subsequent to the commission of offence, the trial court was not prepared to accept the plea of insanity. Accordingly, he was convicted under Section 302, IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

Observation of the Court:

The High Court held that the plea of the accused that Section 84 of the IPC attracted merited more serious consideration at the hands of the trial court. Nothing precluded the trial court from getting an evaluation done of the accused even at the stage of trial. Thus, it is perhaps a case of lost opportunity.

The Court found that the doctor (PW-6) described "both the injuries" suffered by the deceased to be "simple in nature". The fact also remained unchallenged that the accused did not use any dangerous weapons. He first used the walking stick of the deceased and then assaulted her with a stone locally available. Thus, it was held, he acted out of sudden provocation when his mother tried to dissuade him from going to the village. The fact also remained admitted that he did not try to flee from the crime scene.

Therefore, on an overall appreciation of the entire evidence, the Court held the view that the case of the accused would stand covered under Section 304 Part-II IPC. As the accused had spent over 15 years in custody, the sentence awarded to him was also modified to the period already undergone. The entire fine amount and the default sentence were waived.

Case Title: Gobardhan Pradhan v. State of Orissa

Case No.: JCRLA No. 87 of 2006

Date of Judgment: 09 March 2022

Coram: Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice R.K. Pattanaik

Counsel for Appellant: Ms. Ruchi Rajgharia, Amicus Curiae

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. J. Katikia, Additional Government Advocate

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 23