@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
R.Balasubramanian, J.@mdashThe accused in S.C.No.99 of 1991 on the file of Court of Sessions, Madurai is the appellant in this appeal. He was
charged and tried for an offences u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and on being found guilty, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. In this
appeal, he has challenged that judgment.
2. Heard Mr.N.Duraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.S.M.Gunasekaran, learned counsel for the State/respondent.
3. Mr.N.Duraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged only one point namely, that on the facts established, there is sustained
provocation for the accused to kill the deceased in this case and therefore, the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code
could be given to the accused. In elaborating the above submission, he took us through the entire materials on record. Learned counsel for the
State would respond to this argument stating that though there may be some materials to show that the accused was provocated, yet those
materials by themselves would not constitute either sustained provocation or grave and sudden provocation, which would entitle the accused to
have the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, and having regard to the factual position available on record, we
are not going infact in detail at all about the facts of the prosecution case; about the evidence and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions
Judge, in as much as the disposal of this appeal lies in a very narrow compass. We perused the records. The charge framed against the accused on
25.7.1991 by the learned Sessions Judge was for the offence of murder u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and even on that day when questioned,
the accused pleaded guilty. After completion of the trial, the accused was questioned u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he had
admitted each and every one of the circumstances put against him by the prosecution through the oral evidence of the witnesses, as true. Infact, of
question No.22, he would state that out of sheer anger and due to loss of temper, he has killed his wife and this was because, she was leading an
highly immoral life which had provoked him considerably. The accused had also given a judicial confession which is marked in this case as Ex.P-6.
We perused the judicial confession and in that the accused had categorically admitted the circumstances under which he came to kill his wife. The
judicial confession discloses that the accused and the deceased were already married; the deceased deserted her husband and joined the accused;
further the deceased was leading a questionable life; the accused has advised her on many occasions not to indulge in such immoral activities; yet
she was not responding at all and continued her immoral activities; she had developed intimacy with many males with whom she used to move to
satisfy her sexual lust. On the day of the occurrence, he had taken her to a movie; even on that day, she was friendly with many males in the cinema
theatre and the accused did not like it. When he questioned her about them, the males left her company; that he want to the house; that night also
they were sleeping together; sometime later the accused found his wife missing in the house; he tried to go out, but found that the door was locked
from outside; even on the next day night i.e., on the date of the occurrence he found a male leaving from inside the house; this was followed by a
wordy quarrel between the two and ultimately resulting in the fatal attack which is did in a fit of anger and having lost his control. The oral evidence
of the witnesses also show that there are materials to sustain the case of the accused for provocation. From the materials noticed above. It is clear
to our mind that the deceased was conducting herself in such an immoral way that the accused was unable to tolerate any more. All the time the
accused was considerate to herewith the fond hope that she will mend her ways and live as a dutiful wife for husband. However, she was not found
to be of that type, but was set to enjoy her just with the company of so many males. This fact in our considered opinion definitely constitute
sustained provocation for the accused to act in the manner in which he had done. There are not only materials for sustained provocation, but there
are also materials for sudden and grave when the accused came home, he found a male leaving the company of the deceased from the house.
Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the accused is definitely entitled to benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300, IPC, which we give him
accordingly.
5. Under these circumstances, while confirming the judgement of the learned sessions Judge, we after the conviction u/s 302 IPC into one u/s 304
part I, IPC, for which he would stand sentenced to seven years Rigorous Imprisonment. From the totality of circumstances available, we have no
mind to impose any fine on the accused. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of on the lines indicated above.
