What was the main legal question in B.D. Khunte?

Whether the appellant could claim Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC by showing grave and sudden provocation to reduce murder liability.

What does Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC require?

Provocation by the deceased that is grave and sudden; loss of self-control; and the killing occurring while that loss continues.

Did the Supreme Court reduce the offence?

No. The Court held the critical moment of loss of self-control had passed. The conviction for murder was sustained.

Why did the plea of provocation fail here?

Because after the afternoon assault, the appellant resumed duties and later fired at night. This showed anger and revenge, not a continuing loss of control.

What quick mnemonic helps remember this case?

“F-L-A-S-H”: Fresh act needed; Loss must continue; Anger ≠ provocation; Self-control lapsed; Halted plan to beat (not kill).

B.D. Khunte v. Union of India and Others (2015)

Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC — grave and sudden provocation in crystal-clear classroom English.

Supreme Court of India 2015 Bench: — (2015) 1 SCC 286 Criminal Law 7 min read Gulzar Hashmi India

Quick Summary

Case Title: B.D. Khunte v. Union of India and Others, (2015) 1 SCC 286

Main Point: To claim Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, the accused must act while still under grave and sudden provocation. If the heat cools and reason returns, Exception 1 will not help.

Outcome: No reduction. The Court held the critical loss of self-control had passed; the night shooting showed revenge, not continuing provocation.

Issues

Is the appellant entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC?
Can the earlier assault reduce the night-time killing from murder to culpable homicide?

Rules

To use Exception 1, these must be shown:

Provocation by the deceased.
Provocation was grave.
Provocation was sudden.
The accused lost self-control as a result.
The killing happened while that loss continued (or a third person was killed by mistake/accident during it).

Facts — Timeline

Afternoon: Deceased (Sub Randhir Singh), drunk, slapped the appellant and took him to a storeroom; attempted sexual assault; beatings and improper advances.

After about half an hour, the appellant returned to his bunker, upset and crying.

Colleagues advised calm; an informal plan formed to beat the deceased later (not to kill).

Evening & Night Duty (~9:30 pm): The appellant saw the deceased approaching; still angry, he ordered “halt” and then fired, causing death on the spot.

Tried by Summary General Court Martial; convicted under Section 69 Army Act and Section 302 RPC; life imprisonment and dismissal from service. High Court upheld; appeal reached the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant

Afternoon assault and humiliation created grave and sudden provocation.
The provocation continued till night; the shooting happened under loss of control.
Hence, Exception 1 should reduce liability.

Respondent (State)

The critical moment of loss had passed; the appellant resumed duties.
Night firing showed anger/revenge, not sudden provocation.
No fresh provocative act by the deceased at the time of shooting.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The afternoon events caused humiliation, but the appellant’s self-control had returned. He worked through the day and night duty. At the time of firing, there was no fresh act by the deceased. Therefore, Exception 1 to Section 300 did not apply; murder conviction stood.

Ratio Decidendi

Exception 1 needs a continuing loss of self-control up to the moment of killing.
Cooling-off and resumption of normal duties show reason restored; anger alone is not enough.
Absent a fresh provocative act, later retaliation is treated as revenge, not sudden provocation.

Why It Matters

This case teaches the “cooling-off” principle. Courts guard against turning anger or resentment into a defence. Only a live, overpowering loss of control reduces murder to culpable homicide.

Key Takeaways

Live heat required: Provocation must still cloud reason.
Fresh act helps: Later trigger is key if time has passed.
Conduct speaks: Routine work suggests control returned.

Plan ≠ provocation: Planning to beat shows deliberation.
Exam tip: Apply reasonable person standard (Mancini test).
Policy: Stops misuse of past insults to justify killing.

Mnemonic & 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic — “H-O-T”: Heat must be alive → no Over-think/plan → look for a Trigger at the time.

Check Continuity: Was self-control still lost when the act happened?
Scan Conduct: Did the accused work, plan, or cool down?
Verify Fresh Trigger: Any new act by the deceased at the moment?

IRAC Outline

Issue

Does Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC apply to reduce liability from murder?

Rule

Grave and sudden provocation; loss of self-control; killing during that loss (reasonable person test applies).

Application

Time gap + resumed duties + no fresh assault = loss of control had ended; shooting reflected revenge.

Conclusion

Exception 1 inapplicable; murder conviction sustained.

Glossary

Exception 1 (S.300 IPC): Reduces murder to culpable homicide when the accused kills under grave and sudden provocation, before reason returns.
Cooling-off period: Time during which the storm of passion settles; once cooled, the defence fails.
Reasonable person test: Objective check: would such provocation overpower an ordinary person’s self-control?