Absurd to avail 'grave and sudden provocation' as defence to murder on victim's refusal of marriage proposal: Karnataka High Court

While dealing with an appeal of a murder convict, the Karnataka High Court held that it would be absurd for him to take the defence of 'grave and sudden provocation' after murdering a girl who refused his marriage proposal..A Division Bench of Justices Sunil Dutt Yadav and Justice P Krishna Bhat held:."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."Karnataka High Court.The Court was further of the opinion that extending the protective umbrella of grave and sudden provocation to the accused in the instant case would essentially rob the victim of her right to express her choice. .The Bench made these observations while upholding a Sessions Court order passed in 2016, by which the appellant was convicted handed a life sentence..Factual matrix .The appellant had been badgering the victim to marry him on various occasions, despite the latter making it specifically clear that she did not intend to do so. .On April 27, 2009, the appellant entered the house of the deceased and told the victim that she should marry him, and that if she rejected him, he would not allow her to marry anybody else. .When the victim rejected his proposal, the appellant whipped out a knife and inflicted stab wounds on her person, causing seven to eight serious injuries. The victim succumbed to her injuries in the hospital, after telling her parents what had happened. .The trial court convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 447 (Punishment for criminal trespass), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 302 (Punishment for murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). .The appellant approached the High Court with a view to set aside the conviction order. .Counsel for the accused urged the Bench that a lenient view may be taken against him as he had acted under grave and sudden provocation. .What the Court held .After going through the evidence on record, the Court observed that the accused was trying to establish some domain over the victim. ."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.".The Division Bench further noted that the accused had entered the house fully armed and was determined to not take 'no' for an answer.z."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."Karnataka High Court.On the accused's defence of 'grave and sudden' provocation, the Bench held that the same cannot be permitted, as such a defence is to "dehumanise the person of victim, stultify her individual autonomy, agency and dignity". .In its judgment, the Bench also discussed concepts such as "individual autonomy" and "choice". ."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.".Adding on, the Bench held,"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.".On these grounds, the Bench reaffirmed the conviction of the appellant and dismissed the plea. .[Read the order here]