Does Refusal of marriage provides right to hurt the other who refuses
Table of content:
- Introduction
- Mahesha vs State By Malebennur Police [ Appeal No. 512/ 2016 (C)]
- Background of the case
- Charges Framed
- Issues Raised
- Submissions of the parties
- Points of determination
- Court’s analysis
- Judgment Passed
- Case Laws:
- Nagesh v. State of Karnataka
- Vijay Shankar Shinde & Ors vs. State Of Maharashtra
- State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mansingh & Ors
- [O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala, (2015) 2 SCC 501 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 123]
- [Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 783 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 306
- [Kamalanantha v. State of T.N., (2005) 5 SCC 194 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1121
- Sanaullah Khan v. State of Bihar, (2013) 3 SCC 52 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 34
Introduction
While talking about marriage it is a prevailing custom in our society that the initial step is to select a respective partner. The decision of selecting a partner is generally done by the family and in due process, many a time family rejects various proposals that come before them. Rejection and acceptance are a personal choice of the family members and the respective person (who is going to be married).
In the recent judgment, Karnataka High Court specifies that if a proposal is rejected then the person whose proposal is rejected does not have any right to hurt the other person who rejects such proposal.
Mahesha vs State By Malebennur Police [Appeal No. 512/ 2016 (C)]
Background of the case
The accused proposed to the victim but her family members reject the proposal. The accused take it as an insult and decided that if the victim does not becomes her wife she cannot marry anyone else and in his agony, he decide to disfigure the victim’s face by throwing acid on her. On January 31st, 2014 when the girl was going with Raghu on the public road nearby Malladara Gowaramma, the accused came on a motorcycle and throw the acid on the victim’s face, back, and hands which ultimately caused her grievous injuries and while he was throwing acid on her some of the drops were also thrown on Raghu and causes corrosive injuries to him also.
The victim’s brother Rangappa lodged an F.I.R against the accused and upon investigation, police prepared the charge sheet against the accused.
Charges Framed
Following charges has been framed against the accused:-
- Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.”
- Section 326 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or bums or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid1 on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine”
- Section 326 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
“Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid1 on any person or attempts to administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or bums or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanations
- For the purposes of section 326A and this section, “acid” includes any substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability.
- For the purposes of section 326A and this section, permanent or partial damage or deformity shall not be required to be irreversible.”
Issues Raised
- Whether the prosecution has proved his case aga8inst the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and if by the act if the death has been caused then he would be guilty of murder and thereby committed an offense under section 307 IPC?
- Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused has caused simple, grievous, and corrosive injuries and thereby guilty under section 326A and 3265B IPC?
Submissions of the parties
The contention of the Appellant- accused
Learned Counsel Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy submitted the following in the court:-
- Judgment passed by Trial Court is erroneous
The judgment passed by the trial court ordering the conviction of the accused is erroneous and contrary to material provided on record and the same is liable to be set aside.
- Involvement of the appellant-accused is doubtful
As the witnesses including both the victims testify that at the time of the attack the attacker was wearing the helmet and the identity was disclosed only after the news was getting viral on news channels and therefore it cannot be said in conformity that the attacker is the accused.
- Delay in F.I.R.
There was an unreasonable delaying lodging the FIR and also the F, I, R. was not presented before the trial judge on time and such a delay had proved that the respondent is trying to frame the appellant-accused in the false and frivolous case.
The contentions of the state –respondents
Learned HCGP Sri Rachaiah submitted before the court that:
- Justifying the impugned judgment of Trial Court
The victim has given her statement on her oath. The counsel submits that:
“31.01.2014 at about 9.30 a.m., as usual she was going to school and after attending the school, she was coming back at 4.30 p.m., towards her maternal uncle’s house along with PW.3- Raghu by walk. At about 4.40 p.m., when they reached near Kannanur village near Gowramma’s house. At that juncture, the accused came from opposite side and told the victim to stop and has poured acid from a bottle to a glass and threw on her. Though victim had closed her face with her hands, yet acid fell over her head, entire face, and two hands including PW.3-Raghu. Thereby, she was screaming. By that time, the adjoining neighbours Anusuyamma, Yellamma and Kotrappa took the victim and PW.3 to the Government Hospital for first-aid.”
- Testimony of the seller of the acid
The seller who sells the acid to the appellant- accused give his statement on oath that:
“He has to put acid to the roots grown in the jetty in front of his house, he has given one bottle of acid. Thereafter, when the police came to the garage along with accused, he has admitted that he has given acid in a bottle to the accused and thereby, he came to know that the accused thrown acid on the victim.”
- Material on record
Among the items that are submitted for the examination, on Quarter Bottle sulphuric acid was found. Further, the prosecution witnesses testify that the accused had thrown the acid on the victim and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly passed its judgment based upon both oral a documentary evidence.
Points of Determination
- Whether the judgment of the session judge by ordering the conviction of the accused along with the fine of Rs. 50,000 under section 307 IPC is justified?
- Whether the session court is justified in a conviction under section 326A and 326B IPC along with the fine of Rs. 10, 00,000?
Court’s Analysis
By relying on the judgment of Nagesh v. State of Karnataka “Generally an injured does not implicate an innocent does not leave a person who has really caused harm.” stated that normally the victim would not allow the accused to escape and in that process sometimes falsely implicate an innocent.
The court also relies on the ruling of Vijay Shankar Shinde & Ors vs. State Of Maharashtra “The evidence of injured person who is examined as a witness lends more credence, because normally he would not falsely implicate a person thereby protecting the actual assailant.”
Also, the court relying on the considerations of the Supreme Court with regard to the consideration of identical circumstances stated that “‘Evidence of injured witnesses have evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not discarded lightly.” in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mansingh & Ors.
The court further analyze section 326A and 326B provides that the section recognize 8 types of injuries:
- Permanent damage
- Partial damage
- Deformity
- Burns
- Maiming
- disfigurement
- Disability
- Grievous hurt
“It is pertinent to note that the first seven of the injuries referred to in the Sections are classified based on the normal aftereffect of acid attack, whereas the eighth one is on the gravity of the effect.”
Judgment Passed
The court held that there is a conflict of opinion regarding the order between the O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala, [(2015) 2 SCC 501 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 123], Duryodhan Rout v. State of Orissa, [(2015) 2 SCC 783 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 306] and Kamalanantha v. State of T.N. [(2005) 5 SCC 194 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1121], Sanaullah Khan v. State of Bihar, [(2013) 3 SCC 52 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 34]. The court’s reach on the answer is negative. The court held that the conviction order under section 307 of IPC passed by the trial court against the accused is not justified and hence set aside whereas the conviction ordered under section 326A and 326B of the IPC is justified and hence the conviction is upheld by the court.