ABSTRACT
The meaning and effect of the provisions on provocation that were eventually enacted were further obscured by the accretions of English appellate case law, which continues to enjoy unwarranted influence in Indian courts and textbooks. The discussion and proposals for reform of the partial defence of provocation that follows take Macaulays draft Code. The doctrinal function of provocation is the familiar partial defence that reduces murder to manslaughter. In its broader evidential function, anger provoked by the victim can be relevant to the question of whether the defendant acted voluntarily and intended to kill or intended to cause serious injury. The point of resemblance between the Law Commission recommendations and Macaulay's conception of provocation is that both accept the premise that provocation requires evidence of serious doing by the victim. Macaulay was probably idiosyncratic in expressing the view that the killing of an adulterous rival caught in the act was not even a presumptive ground for a plea of provocation.
