The High Court of Karnataka on 20th November,2020 in the case of Vijay @ Vijendra v. The State of Karnataka consisting of a double bench judge of Justices S. Sunil Dutt Yadav & P.Krishna Bhat rejected the defence of 'grave and sudden provocation' taken by a jilted lover who murdered a girl on her refusal to accept his marriage proposal.
"To permit the accused to take a defence of 'grave and sudden provocation' in the facts and circumstances of this case apart from being "obnoxious", will result in negation of the fundamental rights of the deceased under Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) and 21 of the Constitution of India and, as such, opposed to public policy."
It added:
"Extending the protective umbrella of 'grave and sudden' provocation to the accused, in the facts and circumstances of this case, will have the effect of robbing the victim of her right to express her 'choice'."
On 27.04.2009, when the victim and PW.1 were watching TV in the house, accused(Vijay @ Vijendra) entered the house and started telling the victim girl that she should marry him and if she rejected him, he would not allow her to marry anybody else and, thereupon, when the victim rejected his proposal, he whipped out a knife and went on stabbing on her chest, on her abdomen and on her shoulder etc., causing seven to eight serious injuries. she breathed her last on 07.06.2009 while undergoing treatment.
Ongoing through the evidence the bench said "He (accused) was trying to assert some kind of domain over CW.1 (Pushpa) only because he was a male and he was unwilling to reconcile to the situation that CW.1 as a woman could rebuff the same and assert her individual autonomy and agency to take a decision on the choice of her life partner."
It added:
"The circumstance in which he had committed the offence clearly shows that he could not stand the fact that a woman could refuse his proposal to marry him. In such a situation, it is completely absurd to contend that there was grave and sudden provocation from the side of the deceased especially when, while she was rejecting the proposal what she was essentially doing was asserting her individual autonomy which was entirely legitimate for her to do."
Learned counsel for the appellant/accused
submitted before us that a lenient view is required to be taken, in as much as, accused had acted under grave and sudden provocation. We have no hesitation in rejecting this contention as, from the facts proved, it is evident that the accused himself had gone to the house of the deceased with a knife in his hand and imposed himself upon CW.1 by asking her to marry him and on
her refusal, he had stabbed her. In other words, he was trying to assert some kind of domain over CW.1 only because he was a male and he was unwilling to reconcile to the situation that CW.1 as a woman could
rebuff the same and assert her individual autonomy and agency to take a decision on the choice of her life partner. The circumstance in which he had committed the offence clearly shows that he could not stand the fact that a woman could refuse his proposal to marry him. In such a situation, it is completely absurd to contend that there was grave and sudden provocation from the side of the deceased especially when, while she was rejecting the proposal what she was essentially doing was asserting her individual autonomy which was entirely legitimate for her to do. What is of significance in this case is that he had gone inside the house of C.W.1 fully armed and determined not to take a `no’ for an answer.
The bench said:
"Accused has betrayed utter disdain to the inherent right of C.W.1 as a human; to her individual autonomy to choose who to love and to her right to choose a husband and even, to defer to the wishes of her parents in matters of significance in her life, which in itself is a conscious "choice". This in essence is a fundamental right guaranteed to every individual under Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) and 21 of Constitution of India."
Further, the bench opined "We are even more conscious of the 'felt necessities of the time' that wherever text does not inhibit and context demands, ordinary laws of the land should be given such construction and, scope of defences available so mapped that lofty principles enshrined under the above Articles are given full effect to and dehumanizing effect of the defences are suitably pruned without doing violence to the statute creating such defence while at the same time making it resonate with the current understanding of the concept of gender justice and dignity of the individual."
Quoting 'The Declaration of Independence' of July 4, 1776, the bench said "Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness is an entitlement and a right without which there cannot be a 'right to life' for an individual and shorn of the same, it will only be a creature's existence."
"The defence of 'grave and sudden' provocation shall not avail an accused if the result of permitting such a defence is to dehumanise the person of victim, stultify her individual autonomy, agency and dignity."
-Karnataka High Court
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
