In which one of the following cases did the Supreme Court explain the concept of grave and sudden provocation as a mitigating circumstances reducing the gravity of the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

Consider the following statements:
To claim the benefit of provocation in reducing the liability for murder the offender must prove that the:
1. Provocation was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause a person of ordinary temper to lose his self-control.
2. Provocation was grave and sudden to justify the killing
3. Provocation was so grave that it would stir a desire for revenge
4. Sufficient time did not elapse so as to cool down the passion
Of these statements:

A

1 alone is correct

B

2 and 3 are correct

C

1, 3 and 4 are correct

D

1, 2 and 4 are correct

A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.

A

Both A and B are guilty of culpable homicide

B

Both A and B are guilty of murder

C

B is guilty of murder and A is guilty only of culpable homicide

D

A is guilty of murder and B is guilty only of culpable homicide

Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to reduce criminal liability from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder is a:

A

Presumption under law

B

Question of fact

C

Question of law

D

Mixed question of fact and law

In a trial, while explaining any circumstances appearing in evidence against him, an accused of committing murder states that due to grave and sudden provocation he was deprived of the power of self-control and thus, gave a single lathi blow to A, causing his death. The burden to prove grave and sudden provocation is on:

A

The Prosecution

B

The Investigating agency

C

The Court

D

The Accused

A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homi-cide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z, and intending to kill him and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z. Which of the following judgment under Section 38 of Indian Penal Code applies to A and B?

A

A is guilty of culpable homicide and B is guilty of murder

B

B is guilty of culpable homicide and A is guilty of murder

C

Both A and B are guilty of culpable homicide

D

Both A and B are guilty of murder

(A) Grave and sudden provocation always depends on facts and circumstances of the case.
(R) As per the Indian Penal Code, grave and sudden provocation is a question of fact.

A

Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)

B

Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)

C

(A) is true and (R) is false

D

Both (A) and (R) are false

Principle: Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. However, a person is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death.
Factual Situation: Saurab, had a serious argument with his wife. The woman uttered some filthy words at Saurab, which further irritated him. He moved towards the woman with a wooden piece to beat her. Suddenly, their daughter who was sleeping in the room woke up and ran towards her mother. Saurab's blow fell on the child's head and she fell down unconscious. The couple believed that their daughter died due to the blow.
Saurab immediately took out a rope and hung her by the neck on to the ceiling fan to give the impression that the girl committed suicide as she failed in the Class X examination. When the rope got tightened the child cried, but died immediately due to asphyxiation.

A

Saurab is guilty of murder of his daughter as he hung her by the neck which resulted in her death

B

Saurab and his wife are both guilty of the murder of their daughter

C

Saurab is guilty of culpable homicide as he thought that his daughter had already died and he believed that he was only hanging a dead body

D

Saurab is guilty of grievous hurt as the lathi blow was the basic reason of the child's death

A', accused of murder, alleges that by grave and sudden provocation he was deprived of the power of self control. On whom the burden of proof lies in the above situation to establish grave and sudden provocation?

A

On the prosecution

B

On 'A'

C

On the Court

D

On the witnesses

Which one is incorrect? Culpable homicide does not amount to murder in certain cases of grave and sudden provocation provided:

A

The provocation was not sought by the offender

B

The provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to law

C

The provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of right of private defence

D

The question whether the provocation was grave and sudden is a pure question of law

Section 317 of the Indian Penal Code punishes the offence of exposure and abandonment of a child under 12 years by parent or person having care of it. Section 304 of the Indian Penal code provides for punishment for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
'A' exposes her child with the knowledge that she is thereby likely to cause its death. The child dies in consequence of such exposure. In such circumstances 'A' may be

A

Charged with and convicted of the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code

B

Charged with and convicted of the offences under Sections 317 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code

C

Charged with the convicted of the offence under Section 317 of the Indian Penal Code

D

Charged with the offences under Sections 317 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted only for the offence under Section 304

In which one of the following cases did the Supreme Court explain the concept of grave and sudden provocation as a mitigating circumstances reducing the gravity of the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?

Related Questions