Sadasivan Pillai v. State — 1955 DIGILAW 17 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. These two criminal appeals arise out of Session Case No.19 of 1954 on the file of the Sessions Court of Quilon. A young man of twenty-two years of age named Madhavan Pillai Sadhasivan Pillai was the accused in the said Sessions Case. The charge against him was one for murder punishable under S. 302, IPC but the Sessions Judge found him guilty and convicted him only of the offence under Part I of S.304 IPC For this offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Against the said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed Crl. Appeal No. 126 of 1954 and the State has filed Crl. Appeal No. 154 of 1954 against his acquittal on the charge of murder. 2. The person whose death the accused is alleged to have caused was one Balakrishna Pillai, the husband of Pw. 5. He was a subscriber in a chitty conducted by the accused's mother Pw. 8. The accused and his mother were living at Kadakkal in the Kottarakara Taluk, and the deceased Balakrishna Pillai was living with his wife in Valia Vila Kizhakkeputhan Veedu at Paripally in the Quilon Taluk, about ten or twelve miles away from Kadakkal. Balarkrishna Pillai prized the tickets which he had subscribed for in Pw. 8's chitty and received the prize amount through Pw. 3, who is also a person belonging to Kadakkal. According to Pw. 8, the prize amount was paid to Balakrishna Pillai on the surety of Pw. 3. According to Pw. 3, Pw. 8 had paid to him a sum of Rs. 150/- out of the prize amount as desired by Balakrishna Pillai and he had subsequently paid that amount to Balakrishna Pillai. Since Balakrishna Pillai defaulted to pay the future subscriptions due from him, the accused and Pw. 8 went to Paripally about two months before the occurrence in this case and demanded the money from him; and after some quarrel between them, Balakrishna Pillai got Rs. 10/- from Pw.22 in whose tea shop he was then employed and paid it to them and promised to pay the balance later. But he made no further payments, and so on 14.9.1952, the accused and Pw. 8 went to the house of Balakrishna Pillai's father at Oomannur and asked him to pay the amount. 10/- from Pw.22 in whose tea shop he was then employed and paid it to them and promised to pay the balance later. But he made no further payments, and so on 14.9.1952, the accused and Pw. 8 went to the house of Balakrishna Pillai's father at Oomannur and asked him to pay the amount. He refused, saying that they had not paid the amount to him and that they should ask Balakrishna Pillai for it. On the next day, i.e. 15.9.1952, they went to Balakrishna Pillai's house at Parippally and demanded the money from him. It is said that Balakrishna Pillai told them that he had at that time no money with him and that he would pay them shortly after selling a property belonging to his wife. From Balakrishna Pillai's house, the accused and Pw. 3 and 8 went to the house of his wife's grand-uncle, Pw. 12, on the same day and requested him to effect a settlement of the transaction. As it was inconvenient for him to attend to this business for five or six days, he told them that he would go to their house at Kadakkal in a few days taking with him Balakrishna Pillai's father and effect a settlement and that if Balakrishna Pillai did not pay the amount he himself would pay it. Not satisfied with Pw. 12's reply, they went again to Balakrishna Pillai's house and asked for an immediate payment. Since Balakrishna Pillai did not comply with their demand they tried to enlist the assistance of Pws. 4,11 and 13 to make him pay the money. Pw. 4 is a person who has married from Kadakkal. After the inmates of Balakrishna Pillai's house retired for sleep the accused and Pw. 3 came again at night to that house with Pw. 4 and called Balakrishna Pillai. Balakrishna Pillai got up and opened the door and admitted them into the house. When they began to talk about the money Balakrishna Pillai told them that they could go into the matter and settle the accounts on the next morning. The prosecution case is that on the next morning, i.e. 16.9.1952, while Balakrishna Pillai and Pw. Balakrishna Pillai got up and opened the door and admitted them into the house. When they began to talk about the money Balakrishna Pillai told them that they could go into the matter and settle the accounts on the next morning. The prosecution case is that on the next morning, i.e. 16.9.1952, while Balakrishna Pillai and Pw. 3 were talking about the transaction at about 9 A.M. sitting on a narrow verandah in front of Balakrishna Pillai's house, the accused, who was standing behind Balakrishna Pillai, stabbed him with a dagger on the back below the neck and inflicted an injury which caused his death within a few minutes. According to prosecution, after stabbing Balakrishna Pillai, the accused ran away from the spot towards the south-east, and Balakrishna Pillai also ran behind him crying aloud that he was running away after stabbing him and should be caught. Balakrishna Pillai collapsed and fell down after he reached the southern yard of Pw. 7's house, and within a minute or two he died. Pw. 5 had witnessed the occurrence from the room adjoining the verandah and she too had run after her husband as he pursued the accused while the latter was fleeing away after stabbing him. But she fell down and fainted on seeing her husband falling down in the court yard of Pw. 7's house and the blood flowing from his wound. The scene of occurrence is about eight miles away from the Paravoor Police station, and the first information was given at 6 p.m. on 16.9.1952 by Pw. 5's uncle Pw. 1, who came to Pw. 7's house after hearing the cries from there. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty. In his statement in the Sessions Court he admitted that he had stabbed Balakrishna Pillai, but he said that he had stabbed him with a pen-knife, and not with a dagger, and that the occurrence had taken place at the foot of a cashew nut tree in the compound of Balakrishna Pillai's house, and not in the verandah of the house. According to the accused, on the night of the 15th, Balakrishna Pillai had promised to give the money on the next morning, but while the accused and Balakrishna Pillai and Pw. According to the accused, on the night of the 15th, Balakrishna Pillai had promised to give the money on the next morning, but while the accused and Balakrishna Pillai and Pw. 3 were talking about the matter the next morning, standing at the foot of a cashew nut tree in the compound on the eastern side of Balakrishna Pillai's house, Balakrishna Pillai said in an arrogant manner that he would not give any money to Pw. 8 and that she could go and attend to her business. The accused said in his statement that Pw. 3 thereupon reminded him of his previous promise to pay the money, that during the strained conversation which ensued the accused told Balakrishna Pillai that he was acting most improperly and highhandedly in refusing to pay the money after promising them to pay it and making them stay at Paripally for two days, that Balakrishna Pillai then seized the accused asking him "what have you said, fellow" and that, on account of the anger and sorrow caused by Balakrishna Pillai's conduct and fearing that Balakrishna Pillai might kill him, the accused stabbed him on the back and ran away from the spot. The prosecution had produced a dagger, M.O.1, alleging it to be the weapon used by the accused in stabbing Balakrishna Pillai. This dagger, according to the prosecution, was dug out and taken by the accused, after his arrest, from the place where he had buried it when running away from the scene of occurrence. In his statement, the accused denied the ownership of M.O.1 and stated that he had not dug out and taken the dagger. According to him, he had stabbed Balakrishna Pillai with a pen-knife and not with a dagger. 4. The Sessions Judge found that the accused stabbed Balakrishna Pillai while the latter was sitting in the verandah of his house talking with Pw. 3, and not when he was standing at the foot of the cashew nut tree as alleged by the defence, and that Balakrishna Pillai's death was caused by the injury inflicted by him. He also considered that the weapon used must have been one similar to M.O.1. 3, and not when he was standing at the foot of the cashew nut tree as alleged by the defence, and that Balakrishna Pillai's death was caused by the injury inflicted by him. He also considered that the weapon used must have been one similar to M.O.1. Taking the view that the accused must have stabbed Balakrishna Pillai on account of grave and sudden provocation caused by his refusal to pay the money during the conversation on the 16th morning, the learned judge held that the offence committed by the accused fell within Exception I to S. 300, IPC and convicted him only of the offence punishable under Part I of S. 304, IPC and not under S. 302, IPC. 5. About the fact of Balakrishna Pillai's death and its cause there is no controversy. Pw. 4 deposes that while he was sitting in Pw. 7's house talking with PWs. 7 and 8 on the morning of 16.9.1952 he saw the accused running across the yard of the house and Balakrishna Pillai following him crying aloud "he is running away after stabbing me, catch him", that seeing and hearing this he also ran after the accused along with Balakrishna Pillai, and that after proceeding a few steps more Balakrishna Pillai turned back and fell down and died. When Balakrishna Pillai turned back, Pw. 4 also turned back and went to him. There was a stab injury on Balakrishna Pillai's back below the neck and blood was flowing from it all over his body. Pw. 8, who is the accused's mother, has also given evidence in similar terms. The only difference between her evidence and that of Pw. 4 on this matter is that, although she admits that Balakrishna Pillai had a bleeding injury at that time, she says that she does not know on which part of the body that injury was. Pw. 7 corroborates in full the evidence of Pw. 4. Pw. 6 is a woman who happened to pass along the court yard at the time Balakrishna Pillai collapsed and fell down there. She gave to the dying Balakrishna Pillai water to drink and bandaged his wound. According to Pw. 8 herself, Pw. 5 and her mother Pw. 9, also came running after Balakrishna Pillai as the latter was pursuing his fleeing assassin across Pw. 7's court yard. Pws. 8 says that seeing the blood Pw. She gave to the dying Balakrishna Pillai water to drink and bandaged his wound. According to Pw. 8 herself, Pw. 5 and her mother Pw. 9, also came running after Balakrishna Pillai as the latter was pursuing his fleeing assassin across Pw. 7's court yard. Pws. 8 says that seeing the blood Pw. 5 fell down. Both Pws. 5 and 9 depose that Balakrishna Pillai fell down in Pw. 7's court yard and died. Pw. 5 fell down and fainted on seeing her husband falling down and the blood flowing from his injury. Pw. 9 reached the spot just as Pw. 6 was giving water to the dying man. Ext. K is the report of the inquest which the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pw. 23, held on the dead body of Balakrishna Pillai. The body was identified at the inquest by Balakrishna Pillai's wife, Pw. 5, and other near relatives. After the inquest, the autopsy was conducted by Pw. 24, who was then as Assistant Surgeon attached to the Quilon District Hospital. Ext. T is the post mortem certificate issued by him. It is seen from Ext. T and the evidence of Pw. 24 that Balakrishna Pillai had sustained an antemortem transverse incised penetrating wound 31/2" x 1" on the back at the level of the fourth dorsal spine. The wound had entered into the right pleural cavity through the third inter-costal space and pulmenary artery was cut through. According to Pw. 24, this wound could be caused by a dagger like M.O.1 or a sharp and pointed knife, and Balakrishna Pillai's death was due to syncope on account of haemorrhage resulting from it. There can, therefore, be no doubt of the fact that Balakrishna Pillai died at about 9 a.m. on 16.9.1952 and that his death was caused by the stab wound sustained by him on the back below the neck and described in the post mortem certificate Ext. T. 6. Regarding the events of the two days previous to the occurrence also, there is no room for doubt. The prosecution version of those events, stated in paragraph 2 of this judgment is fully supported by the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,11,12,13 and 22. The correctness of that version has also not been challenged by the defence either in the Sessions Court or in this court. The prosecution version of those events, stated in paragraph 2 of this judgment is fully supported by the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,11,12,13 and 22. The correctness of that version has also not been challenged by the defence either in the Sessions Court or in this court. In the statement which he made in the Sessions Court the accused practically admitted that the evidence of these witnesses about those events was correct. 7. The actual stabbing and the events immediately before it were sought to be proved through Pws. 2,3 and 5 the confessional statement Ext. Q made by the accused before Pw. 21, the Stationary Second Class Magistrate of Quilon, after his arrest on 20.9.1952. In the Sessions Court, the accused retracted the confession on the ground that it was made as a result of compulsion by the police, and Pw. 3 gave evidence supporting the defence case that the accused stabbed Balakrishna Pillai at the foot of the cashew nut tree in the compound and not on the verandah of the house. Pws. 2 and 5 fully support the prosecution case. According to Pw. 5, while she and her husband were sleeping, the accused and Pws. 3 and 4 came to their house at night on 15.9.1952 and called them up, and they got up and opened the door and let in the visitors. When the visitors opened the subject of the amount alleged to be due from him, Balakrishna Pillai said that they could go through the accounts and settle the matter in the morning. The visitors stayed that night in Balakrishna Pillai's house. On the morning i.e., 16.9.1952, the accused and Pws. 3 and 4 went to a tea shop. After taking tea from the shop, the accused and Pw. 3 returned to Balakrishna Pillai's house at about 8 a.m. and then, Balakrishna Pillai and Pw. 3 sat down, face to face, on the narrow verandah on the eastern side of the house and talked with each other. During their conversation Balakrishna Pillai said that he had paid all that he had to pay and that if they thought that anything more was due from him they could resort to the course open to them,(""vuMSkLRs SjL" R•", meaning, that they could take against him whatever legal steps were open to them). Thereupon, Pw. During their conversation Balakrishna Pillai said that he had paid all that he had to pay and that if they thought that anything more was due from him they could resort to the course open to them,(""vuMSkLRs SjL" R•", meaning, that they could take against him whatever legal steps were open to them). Thereupon, Pw. 3 asked the accused, who was standing behind Balakrishna Pillai, what they should do. Replying that this was the course he was resorting to (IRCr vuM CfL) the accused stabbed Balakrishna Pillai from behind with a dagger and ran away from the spot. Pw. 5 was then standing in the room adjoining the verandah, which was being used as a shop, holding a shutter which had been taken down for opening the shop. She heard the conversation and saw the stabbing from that room. Balakrishna Pillai also ran after the accused as he ran away from the spot after stabbing him. Pw. 3 ran after Balakrishna Pillai, and after Pw. 3, Pw. 5 also followed crying aloud. In Pw. 7's court yard Balakrishna Pillai collapsed and fell down, and Pw. 5 also fell down unconscious at his feet. Pw. 2 is Pw. 5's cousin, the son of her uncle, Pw.1. He was cutting grass in the compound of Balakrishna Pillai's house that morning. According to him also, at the time of the occurrence Balakrishna Pillai and Pw.3 were sitting on the narrow verandah on the eastern side of the house and the accused was standing behind Balakrishna Pillai. Pw. 5 was standing in the room adjoining the verandah removing the front shutters. Balakrishna Pillai and Pw. 3 were talking about money matters. Hearing their conversation Pw. 2 went near them and stood in the court yard below the verandah. As he was straightening himself up after stooping down to pick up the sickle which had fallen from his hand, he saw the accused stabbing Balakrishna Pillai from behind, on the back below the neck. After stabbing him the accused ran away from the spot and Balakrishna Pillai also ran after him. Pw. 2 has also identified M.O.1 as the dagger with which the accused stabbed. 8. According to Pw. 3, Balakrishna Pillai was not in his house when he and the accused returned at 8 A.M. on the 16th from the tea shop. When he asked Pw. Pw. 2 has also identified M.O.1 as the dagger with which the accused stabbed. 8. According to Pw. 3, Balakrishna Pillai was not in his house when he and the accused returned at 8 A.M. on the 16th from the tea shop. When he asked Pw. 5 and her mother where Balakrishna Pillai was, they said that he was sitting on the front side of the house. A little later, Balakrishna Pillai came to the place and joined him as he was standing at the foot of the cashew nut tree in the compound on the eastern side of the house. The accused and his mother were then sitting in Pw. 7's house. As he was talking with Balakrishna Pillai about the money due to Pw. 8, the accused also came and joined them, standing to the left of Balakrishna Pillai. Balakrishna Pillai said that he could give the money only after selling a property. The accused insisted on immediate payment. Thereupon, Balakrishna Pillai replied, "Get out, you fellow. You may take whatever course is open to you". The accused retorted "That won't do. You must pay the money". Pw. 3 also deplored the position, and said that it was wrong, and then he saw the accused running away from the spot. Balakrishna Pillai also ran after him saying that he was running away after stabbing him and should be caught. He admits that blood was flowing from Balakrishna Pillai's back as he was running after the accused. Pw. 3's evidence is palpably false and must have been given with the intention of helping the accused, whose friend he was and with whom and whose mother he had been associating during the last two days for compelling Balakrishna Pillai to pay up the amount. It is significant that, although Pw. 3 admits that all of them were standing close together and conversing with each other and that he saw the accused suddenly running away from the place followed by Balakrishna Pillai who also was running and crying aloud that the accused was running away after stabbing him, he professes not to have seen the accused actually stabbing Balakrishna Pillai. In connection with this case, a statement under S. 164 of the Criminal P.C. was recorded from Pw. 3 on 27.9.1952. Ext. B is that statement. The version give by him in Ext. B is entirely different. In connection with this case, a statement under S. 164 of the Criminal P.C. was recorded from Pw. 3 on 27.9.1952. Ext. B is that statement. The version give by him in Ext. B is entirely different. In that statement he fully supported the prosecution case and said that the accused stabbed Balakrishna Pillai with a dagger on his back below the neck while he and Balakrishna Pillai were sitting on the verandah of the house and talking about the money due to Pw. 8 and that he saw the accused inflicting the stab. For contradicting the evidence which he had given in the Sessions Court, the prosecution confronted him with Ext. B. At first he denied his signature in Ext. B, but he reluctantly admitted it subsequently. He said that the statements in Ext. B were not made by him and that the Magistrate wrote those statements in pursuance of something which the Prosecuting Inspector told him in English. In the Committing Magistrate's Court also Pw. 3 had admitted that he had seen the accused actually stabbing Balakrishna Pillai though he had said there that the incident took place while they were standing at the foot of the cashew nut tree. In his evidence in the Sessions Court, he admitted that Balakrishna Pillai and himself were sitting when the accused stabbed the latter. It is hardly likely that when the house and the verandah were available to them they would have preferred to sit down and talk about the serious matters at the foot of a cashew nut tree in the compound near the road. To a query made by the Sessions Judge as to how he could have failed to see the actual stabbing when all of them were so close together and talking with each other, Pw. 3 replied that he was then immersed in meditation about something else and therefore he did not actually see the stabbing. It is crystal clear from his evidence that what he has said in the Sessions Court about the actual occurrence is absolutely false. In spite of a very severe cross-examination by the defence counsel the evidence of Pw. 5 has remained totally unshaken. The evidence of Pw. 2 also is to the same effect as that of Pw. 5. Pw. 9, is Pw. 5's mother. In spite of a very severe cross-examination by the defence counsel the evidence of Pw. 5 has remained totally unshaken. The evidence of Pw. 2 also is to the same effect as that of Pw. 5. Pw. 9, is Pw. 5's mother. Her presence in Balakrishna Pillai's house on the 15th and the fact that she came to Pw. 7's court yard following Balakrishna Pillai and Pws. 3 and 5 were admitted by Pw. 8. According to her, just before the occurrence she had seen Balakrishna Pillai and Pw. 3 sitting on the eastern verandah of the house and talking with each other and the accused was then standing behind Balakrishna Pillai. Her daughter, Pw. 5, was in the shop room. While Pw. 9 was inside the house she heard Pw. 5 crying out that her husband had been stabbed. Rushing out on hearing this, she saw the accused running away from the place with Balakrishna Pillai and Pw. 3 following him. Pw. 5 followed them, and Pw. 9 followed Pw. 5 and came to Pw. 7's court yard where she saw the wounded Balakrishna Pillai lying in the court yard. From the scene mahazar, Ext. B, and the evidence of Pw. 23 it is seen that at the time of the local inspection by the police there were marks of blood on one of the shutters of the shop room adjoining the eastern verandah. The learned Sessions Judge has believed the evidence of Pws. 2 and 5, and considering all the circumstances of the case, we also have no hesitation in believing them and accepting their evidence in full. 9. The version given by the accused in the confessional statement, Ext. Q, is also practically the same as that given by Pws. 2 and 5. After referring to the events of the two previous days, in regard to which there is no dispute, the accused proceeded to relate in Ext. Q the events which took place on the date of the occurrence. The statement in Ext. Q relating to the events on the two days previous to the date of occurrence are fully corroborated by the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,11,12 and 13. Regarding the events on the date of the occurrence, this is what the accused has said in Ext. Q. "On the morning of 16.9.1952, the accused and Pws. Q relating to the events on the two days previous to the date of occurrence are fully corroborated by the evidence of PWs.1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,11,12 and 13. Regarding the events on the date of the occurrence, this is what the accused has said in Ext. Q. "On the morning of 16.9.1952, the accused and Pws. 3 and 4 went from Balakrishna Pillai's house to a tea shop for their breakfast. They returned to Balakrishna Pillai's house at about 8.15 a.m. After they went to the tea shop Pw. 8 came to Balakrishna Pillai's house from the house of Pw. 4. But Balakrishna Pillai and his wife asked her not to enter their house. So, she went and sat in Pw. 7's house. Seeing her sitting in Pw. 7's house when they returned from the tea shop, the accused and Pws. 3 and 4 went to that house. Pw. 8 then asked Pw. 3 that he should try to get back from Balakrishna Pillai at least the amount of Rs. 150 which had been paid on his surety. Pw. 3 accordingly went to Balakrishna Pillai's house for asking the money. Seeing them talking, the accused also went to Balakrishna Pillai's house. Pw. 3 and Balakrishna Pillai were then sitting on the verandah on the eastern side of the house. The accused also joined them and asked Balakrishna Pillai to pay whatever amount he could then pay. When Pw. 3 asked for the payment of the amount of Rs. 150/- which had been paid to Balakrishna Pillai on his surety, the latter said that nothing at all was due from him and would be paid by him and that they could take whatever legal steps they liked. This was said in a very arrogant tone. Pained and angered by Balakrishna Pillai's conduct during these three days and his refusal to pay the money which was due from him and his gratuitous advice that they could take legal steps against him, the accused took out a dagger which he had with him and stabbed Balakrishna Pillai on the back. At that time Balakrishna Pillai and Pw. 3 were sitting face to face on the verandah. The accused stabbed Balakrishna Pillai from behind, on the back near the shoulder. Drawing back the dagger after stabbing him, the accused ran eastwards across Pw. At that time Balakrishna Pillai and Pw. 3 were sitting face to face on the verandah. The accused stabbed Balakrishna Pillai from behind, on the back near the shoulder. Drawing back the dagger after stabbing him, the accused ran eastwards across Pw. 7's court yard, and after running for some distance, he threw the dagger into a compound. When he was running away from the scene of occurrence, other persons pursued him, but he paid no heed to them, and he does not know who they were. He kept himself in hiding for a few days in the houses of his father-in-law and other friends, and after that he appeared at the Police Station, and surrendered himself on the morning of the 20th. According to the prosecution, the accused appeared at the Paravoor Police Station and was arrested at 9.30 a.m. on 20.9.1952. From Paravoor he was sent to the Stationary Second Class Magistrate, Quilon, and he was produced in the Magistrate's Court at 3 p.m. The Magistrate, Pw. 21, began to record Ext. Q at 3.15 p.m. It was only after satisfying himself that the accused was going to make a free and voluntary confession and that he was free from the influence of the police that the Magistrate proceeded to record Ext. Q. There is no basis at all for the allegation in the accused's statement in the Sessions Court that he made the confessional statement on account of intimidation by the Police Inspector. On account of its belated recovery, the learned Sessions Judge has not accepted the prosecution case that M.O.1 was the dagger used by the accused for stabbing Balakrishna Pillai. He says in paragraph 11 of his judgment: "In view of the belated discovery of M.O.1 and the result of the analysis made by the chemical examiner (according to the chemical examiner's certificate, the blood found on M.O.1 was of uncertain origin) I am not prepared to attach much weight to the discovery of the weapon in this case". But the learned judge had no doubt that, if the accused did not use M.O.1, he had used a similar lethal weapon. But the learned judge had no doubt that, if the accused did not use M.O.1, he had used a similar lethal weapon. Having regard to the belated recovery of M.O.1 and the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has not accepted the evidence regarding its recovery, we too consider that it is not safe to accept and act on the evidence regarding the recovery of that dagger as evidence corroborating the confession. But everything else in the confession regarding the events of the 16th, has been amply corroborated by the evidence of Pws. 2, 5, 7 and 9. On the whole we have no doubt that the confession was freely and voluntarily made by the accused and that it can be safely accepted and acted upon. 10. On the evidence of Pws. 2 and 5 it is absolutely clear that it was the accused who stabbed Balakrishna Pillai and inflicted the injury on his back which caused his death. There is no evidence at all to show that Balakrishna Pillai had seized the accused before the latter stabbed him or that the accused had any reason to apprehend that Balakrishna Pillai might kill or assault him. Even the evidence of Pw. 3 does not support the accused's statement that Balakrishna Pillai had seized him. From the evidence of Pws. 2 and 5 and Ext. Q, it is clear that, while Pw. 3 and Balakrishna Pillai were sitting face to face on the eastern verandah of the latter's house and talking with each other about the money alleged to be due to Pw. 8 from Balakrishna Pillai, the accused stabbed Balakrishna Pillai on the back from behind and inflicted the fatal injury, angered by his reply that he had paid the whole amount due to Pw. 8 and nothing was due from him and that if they thought that anything more was due from him, they could resort to the course opon to them; and we find accordingly. The learned judge's finding is also to the same effect. 11. 8 and nothing was due from him and that if they thought that anything more was due from him, they could resort to the course opon to them; and we find accordingly. The learned judge's finding is also to the same effect. 11. We are, however, unable to agree with the view taken by the Learned Judge that the accused had stabbed Balakrishna Pillai whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation given by Balakrishna Pillai's reply referred to above and that this act falls within Exception I to S. 300 IPC To claim the benefit of this exception the act must have been done while the person doing it was deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, and the test to be applied in deciding the question whether the provocation had deprived him of his self-control is to see whether it was sufficient to deprive a reasonable man of his self-control and not whether it was sufficient to deprive the particular person charged in the case. In Fatta v. The Crown, 52 Criminal Law Journal 1037, it was held: "Exception I provides that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. It required in the first place that what the offender did was done by him whilst he was deprived of the power of self-control and had no time to cool down or to take into account the nature of the weapon used by him. It is not shown in this case what interval had elapsed between the appellants coming to know that Rangu had been assaulted and their attacking the deceased. It must further be shown that the offender was deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation. It is not every provocation that will reduce the offence of murder to mere culpable homicide". To explain this exception the following passage from Maneini v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1946 (2) All England Reports 124, has been quoted in Ratanlal's Law of Crimes (Page 727): "It is not all provocation that will reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter. It is not every provocation that will reduce the offence of murder to mere culpable homicide". To explain this exception the following passage from Maneini v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1946 (2) All England Reports 124, has been quoted in Ratanlal's Law of Crimes (Page 727): "It is not all provocation that will reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter. Provocation to have that result, must be such as temporarily deprives the person provoked of the power of self-control, as the result of which he commits the unlawful act which causes death. The test to be applied is that of the effect of the provocation on a reasonable man, so that an unusually excitable or pugnacious individual is not entitled to rely on provocation which would not have led an ordinary person to act as he did". In a case from Ceylon, Attorney General for Ceylon and Kumarasinghege Don John Perera (1953 A.C. 200), in which the question of the applicability of the Exception to S. 294 of the Ceylon Penal Code, which is similar in terms to Exception I to S.300, IPC arose for consideration, the Privy Council has said: "To reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter, the offender must show, first, that he was deprived of self-control and secondly that the deprivation was caused by provocation, which in the opinion of a jury was both grave and sudden. In directing the jury that they must ask themselves whether the kind of provocation actually given was the kind of provocation which they as reasonable men would regard as sufficiently grave to mitigate an actual killing of the woman, in the opinion of Their Lordships, the judge was merely directing the jury as to how they should determine whether the provocation was grave. The words "grave" and "sudden" are both of them relative terms and must at least to a great extent be decided by comparing the nature of the provocation with that of the retaliatory act. It is impossible to determine whether the provocation was grave without at the same time considering the act which resulted from the provocation, otherwise some quite minor or trivial provocation might be thought to excuse the cause of a deadly weapon". It is impossible to determine whether the provocation was grave without at the same time considering the act which resulted from the provocation, otherwise some quite minor or trivial provocation might be thought to excuse the cause of a deadly weapon". Their Lordships have also said in that case that it is quite wrong to say that because the Code does not in so many words say that the retaliation must bear some relation to the provocation, it is true to say that the contrary is the case. Tested in the light of the principles accepted in these cases, it is impossible to hold that the accused had received any grave and sudden provocation from Balakrishna Pillai such as would have deprived him of his self-control. To hold that a debtor's conduct in denying his liability and asking the creditor to resort to his legal remedies if he was not prepared to accept the debtor's denial of liability and thought that something was due from him would constitute grave and sudden provocation sufficient to deprive the creditor of his self-control and make his act in causing the debtor's death fall within Exception I to S. 300 IPC would be to render human life extremely unsafe and cheap. No reasonable man or ordinary person will be provoked to cause the death of his debtor simply because the latter denies his liability and the creditor fails in his efforts to get an immediate payment or to realise the debt without recourse to a court of law. While the denial of his liability on the part of a debtor is not a praise-worthy act, it cannot be denied that very often in this country debtors do deny their liability, especially when creditors make inconvenient and pressing demands for repayment. It would be monstrous to suggest that in such cases, the creditor who causes the death of the debtor immediately on hearing the latter's denial of liability could claim the benefit of Exception I to S. 300 IPC In this case it is clear from the circumstances that Balakrishna Pillai's denial of the liability on the morning of the 16th was only a ruse to gain time and that that fact was well-known to the accused. Pw. Pw. 22 says that about two months before the occurrence the accused and his mother came to his tea shop and demanded payment of the amount from Balakrishna Pillai, and that after a quarrel between them and under his (Pw. 22's) mediation Balakrishna Pillai paid them Rs. 10, borrowing it from him, and promised to pay the balance after some time. Pw. 12's evidence is that he had definitely told the accused that he would go to Pw. 8's house in a few days and would see to the settlement of the transaction, and that in case Balakrishna Pillai did not pay the amount, he himself would pay it. From the evidence of Pws. 3 and 4 also it is clear that, on the previous day, in the presence of the accused, Balakrishna Pillai had admitted his liability and that all that he wanted was only a settlement of accounts and some time to dispose of a property to find the necessary money for making the payment to Pw. 9. As it is admitted that a part of the prize amount was made use of for some time by Pw. 3 and some payments had also been made previously, Balakrishna Pillai's insistence for going through the accounts cannot be said to have been unreasonable. Even on the 16th morning, it was only because of the insistence for an immediate payment that Balakrishna Pillai denied his liability and told Pw. 3 and the accused that they might take legal steps against him if they thought anything more was due from him. What the law requires to make Exception I applicable is that the provocation should be such as will upset, not merely a hot-tempered or hyper-sensitive person, but one of ordinary sense and calmness. (See Khadim Hussain v. The Crown, (ILR VII Lahore 488). Having regard to all the circumstances of the case we are unable to hold that Balakrishna Pillai's reply that nothing was due from him and they might take legal steps against him if they thought anything was due from him would amount to any and sudden grave provocation sufficient to deprive a reasonable man or ordinary person of his self-control. There can be no doubt that the accused stabbed Balakrishna Pillai to wreak vengeance on him for putting off the payment. There can be no doubt that the accused stabbed Balakrishna Pillai to wreak vengeance on him for putting off the payment. That in stabbing Balakrishna Pillai he had the intention to cause his death is plain from the manner of the attack and the nature of the inquiry caused. The accused's words at the time he stabbed are also significant. We hold that his act in stabbing and causing the death of Balakrishna Pillai does not come under Exception I to S.300 IPC and that it falls under Cl. I of S. 300 IPC. He is, therefore, guilty of the offence punishable under S.302 IPC 12. Although it is impossible to hold that the accused had been deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, it cannot also be denied that the evidence we have accepted about the events of the two days previous to the occurrence, shows that he must have been in a state of mental excitement at the time of the commission of the offence. Taking that into account and also the fact that the Sessions Judge had not convicted him under S. 302 IPCwe consider that a sentence of transportation for life would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice in this case. 13. In the result, we dismiss the appeal filed by the accused and allow the appeal filed by the State. The accused is accordingly convicted of the offence of murder punishable under S. 302 IPC and is sentenced to transportation for life.