Slow burn’ reaction; HC converts murder conviction to culpable homicide

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: Blaming the attack that led to the death of another person on the loss of self-control on account of a ‘slow burn’ reaction followed by an immediate provocation, the High Court of Karnataka has converted the conviction of a man for murder to ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’.

“There was sudden loss of self-control on account of a 'slow burn' reaction followed by the final and immediate provocation. There was temporary loss of self-control by the appellant/accused No.1.

Therefore, we hold that the acts of provocation on the basis of which the appellant caused the death of the deceased were both sudden and grave and that there was loss of self-control.

Hence, by applying the provocation exception, we deem it appropriate to convert the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 part I of IPC,” the bench of Justice K Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K said in their recent judgement.

Narayanappa, 53, had filed the appeal in the HC in 2017 against the order of a Sessions Court in Tumakuru. Narayanappa was convicted to life imprisonment under Section 302 (murder) and sentenced to four months imprisonment under Section 324 (voluntary hurt by use of dangerous weapon).

Allegedly, Narayanappa had a property dispute with his brother and had requested Krishnappa, Hanumakka and Mohankumar to give evidence in court. They had refused.

When the three were passing near his house on February 11, 2014, he picked up a quarrel with them and assaulted Mohankumar. He had also attacked Krishnappa with a javelin and caused him serious hurt.

Mohankumar died in hospital four days later. Provoked to assault The HC in its judgement noted that “on careful perusal of the case on hand, the alleged incident took place on a spur of moment.

Even by perusal of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, who are the injured witnesses, they also categorically deposed that all of a sudden, the alleged incident took place and accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with any preparation or with an intention to take away his life.”

Allowing the appeal filed by Narayanappa, the HC said, “Hence, by considering the above circumstance, admittedly, the incident was caused in a spur of moment and there was sudden loss of self control by the accused and thereby, he caused the incident.”

Converting the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304(I) of the IPC, the HC said, “Hence, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, it could be gathered that the appellant had no such intention to kill the deceased and the entire incident was caused in a spur of moment.

There was sudden loss of self-control on account of a 'slow burn' reaction followed by the final and immediate provocation. There was temporary loss of self-control by the appellant/accused No.1.

Therefore, we hold that the acts of provocation on the basis of which the appellant caused the death of the deceased were both sudden and grave and that there was loss of self-control.”

Since Narayanappa had undergone imprisonment for six years, seven months and 28 days already, the HC said that his sentence under Section 304(I) would be the same period he has already served. He was directed to pay a fine of Rs.35,000 after which he would be released from prison. (CrLA 376/2017)