The Supreme Court adjudicated on an appeal filed by the accused who was convicted under section 304 of IPC and revived the sentence from 10 years imprisonment to life imprisonment and also changed the section under which he was convicted to 302 IPC.
In the instant case a man from the Naik community and a girl, from the Lingayat community, were in love. Being from different castes and apprehending opposition to their marriage by the family of Shilpa, they decided to elope and got married in 2002. They got their marriage registered before the Sub-Registrar, Hospet in 2003. Eventually, the couple returned to their village Taranagar to stay with the parents of the man. When this marriage came to the knowledge of girl's father, the accused, he bitterly opposed the same and reportedly berated the man's father and his family on several occasions, stating that they had brought down the honour of his family and that he would “finish” his daughter for marrying into a lower caste.
In the days leading up to the alleged incident, Shilpa was pregnant (around nine months).
The accused absconded after the incident but was later arrested after 20 days.
During the trial, prosecution led evidence of 25 (twenty five) witnesses including the experts. The eye witnesses who had arrived at the spot of the incident turned hostile with the exception of the father in law of the girl, whose testimony has been found to be truthful and reliable by the High Court.
The Sessions Court had earlier, acquitted the accused on the ground that mere intent on the part of the accused to commit the crime was not sufficient to record a finding of guilt. The Sessions Court discarded the evidence of the lone witness. It held that the evidence was replete with improvements on her previous statement and was unreliable. Further, the circumstantial evidence was not enough to convict the accused.
In appeal by the State, the High Court accepted the prosecution’s case that the accused was a frustrated father because of his daughter having married to the man who belonged to lower caste and was the motive to commit the crime. Further, even if there was a little exaggeration of the events by the witness during the evidence, the same could be ignored and that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the accused. The High Court also relied on the post mortem report and serology report which stated that blood stains on the sickle matched with those on the clothes of the deceased. The High Court recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant but went on to convict the appellant for offence under Section 304 Part I of IPC and sentenced him to 10 years of imprisonment. This order of conviction and sentence has been challenged by the appellant.
The supreme court observed that "In the present case, the evidence has been corroborated by other circumstances and prosecution evidence. That leaves no manner of doubt that the accused not only had strong motive to kill his daughter but was responsible for doing so and excludes the probability of someone else being responsible for the death of deceased. Taking overall view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of guilt recorded against the accused (appellant) by the High Court is unexceptionable and does not warrant any interference."
The Apex court also quoted the portion of High Court's Judgement and stated that "it is evident that the High Court has made no attempt to explain as to how the case on hand would be covered by one of the five exceptions given in Section 300 of IPC. Unless the case falls under one of the specified exception, it cannot be brought under first part or second part of Section 304 of IPC.
The first exception will be attracted only if it is possible to hold that the accused whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, caused death. From the established facts on record, it is seen that the accused followed his daughter into the women’s public toilet of the village and assaulted her."
Suffice it to observe that none of the exceptions in Section 300 of IPC is attracted in the present case. It would necessarily follow that the accused committed murder of his daughter who was in the advanced stage of pregnancy and for which he was liable to be punished with either imprisonment for life or death under Section 302 of IPC alone.
In the instant case a man from the Naik community and a girl, from the Lingayat community, were in love. Being from different castes and apprehending opposition to their marriage by the family of Shilpa, they decided to elope and got married in 2002. They got their marriage registered before the Sub-Registrar, Hospet in 2003. Eventually, the couple returned to their village Taranagar to stay with the parents of the man. When this marriage came to the knowledge of girl's father, the accused, he bitterly opposed the same and reportedly berated the man's father and his family on several occasions, stating that they had brought down the honour of his family and that he would “finish” his daughter for marrying into a lower caste.
In the days leading up to the alleged incident, Shilpa was pregnant (around nine months).
The accused absconded after the incident but was later arrested after 20 days.
During the trial, prosecution led evidence of 25 (twenty five) witnesses including the experts. The eye witnesses who had arrived at the spot of the incident turned hostile with the exception of the father in law of the girl, whose testimony has been found to be truthful and reliable by the High Court.
The Sessions Court had earlier, acquitted the accused on the ground that mere intent on the part of the accused to commit the crime was not sufficient to record a finding of guilt. The Sessions Court discarded the evidence of the lone witness. It held that the evidence was replete with improvements on her previous statement and was unreliable. Further, the circumstantial evidence was not enough to convict the accused.
In appeal by the State, the High Court accepted the prosecution’s case that the accused was a frustrated father because of his daughter having married to the man who belonged to lower caste and was the motive to commit the crime. Further, even if there was a little exaggeration of the events by the witness during the evidence, the same could be ignored and that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the accused. The High Court also relied on the post mortem report and serology report which stated that blood stains on the sickle matched with those on the clothes of the deceased. The High Court recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant but went on to convict the appellant for offence under Section 304 Part I of IPC and sentenced him to 10 years of imprisonment. This order of conviction and sentence has been challenged by the appellant.
The supreme court observed that "In the present case, the evidence has been corroborated by other circumstances and prosecution evidence. That leaves no manner of doubt that the accused not only had strong motive to kill his daughter but was responsible for doing so and excludes the probability of someone else being responsible for the death of deceased. Taking overall view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of guilt recorded against the accused (appellant) by the High Court is unexceptionable and does not warrant any interference."
The Apex court also quoted the portion of High Court's Judgement and stated that "it is evident that the High Court has made no attempt to explain as to how the case on hand would be covered by one of the five exceptions given in Section 300 of IPC. Unless the case falls under one of the specified exception, it cannot be brought under first part or second part of Section 304 of IPC.
The first exception will be attracted only if it is possible to hold that the accused whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, caused death. From the established facts on record, it is seen that the accused followed his daughter into the women’s public toilet of the village and assaulted her."
Suffice it to observe that none of the exceptions in Section 300 of IPC is attracted in the present case. It would necessarily follow that the accused committed murder of his daughter who was in the advanced stage of pregnancy and for which he was liable to be punished with either imprisonment for life or death under Section 302 of IPC alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment