Long Lasting Provocation Either Mild Or Grave, Can’t Be Construed As Sudden Provocation: Kerala HC In Doctor’s Murder Case
The Kerala High Court in a doctor’s murder case, remarked that the long-lasting provocation either mild or grave, cannot be construed as sudden provocation.
The Court was dealing with a criminal revision petition filed by the accused against the order by which the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed an application filed under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking discharge.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “Grave and sudden provocation, due to deprivation of power of self control sometimes may lead to some overt acts, but there must be a quietus for grave and sudden provocation. It could not be said that grave and sudden provocation, a particular mental state, would continue for hours. Long lasting provocation, either mild or grave, could not be construed as sudden provocation. Long lasting provocation carries an element of special mens rea or the very intention to commit the crime.”
Advocate Biju Antony Aloor represented the revision petitioner while Additional Director General of Prosecution Grashious Kuriakose and Senior Public Prosecutor C.K. Suresh represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The accused who got absolved in a peculiar mental condition due to excess consumption of alcohol, called the police control room and in response to this call, witnesses reached the house and found injuries on the body of the accused and decided to give him medical aid. Since the accused hesitated to enter into the jeep, the second witness pressurised him and the accused carried a stick during this time. The stick was forcefully removed and then the accused was taken to the hospital. He was examined and taken to the procedure room at casualty waiting area where he kicked on the chest of one of the witnesses stating that he was not given the required priority.
While the accused was given medical aid, he tactically took a surgical scissors from the room and kept the same hidden in his right hand. Then he stabbed on the neck of the witness and caused injury to others as well by stabbing them. He created a horrible scene by attacking all and at this juncture, Dr. Vandana Das (deceased doctor) reached at the observation room. With the intention to cause death of the said doctor, the accused wrongly restrained her and stabbed her repeatedly to ensure her death. Though medical aid was given to her but she died. Hence, the prosecution alleged commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 332, 333, 353, 506(ii), 307, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). As the Trial Court refused the relief seeking discharge, the accused was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “Dr.Vandana Das, an innocent young Doctor, who did not notice or did not expect any threat at the hands of the accused at the procedure room, when reached the procedure room, the accused subjected her to repeated stabbing and the same resulted in 26 injuries, as noted in the postmortem certificate. Thus in the instant case, on no stretch of imagination, at this stage, this Court could find that the accused had not done the acts with the intention of causing such bodily injury so as to cause death of Dr.Vandana Das. Otherwise the knowledge of the accused that the injuries were sufficient to cause death of the person, to whom the injuries were inflicted is, prima facie, established warranting framing of charge. No doubt, these are aspects to be considered by the trial court after adducing and evaluating evidence.”
The Court further said that the accused started to attack everybody repeatedly after taking the scissors kept at the procedure room and keeping the same hidden, though many of them saved from fatality, ultimately, Dr. Vandana succumbed to the injuries allegedly caused by the accused. It added that in such a case, at the stage of framing charge, no court would find that the accused done the overt acts due to grave and sudden provocation so as to consider the case as one in lesser form of murder, that is, culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
“On evaluation of the prosecution materials, the same would, prima facie, substantiate framing of charge for the offences alleged by the prosecution, and, therefore, the impugned order disallowing discharge is perfectly justified and the same would not require any interference, by exercising the power of revision”, it also said.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
Cause Title- Sandeep G. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:49426)
Appearance:
Revision Petitioner: Advocates Biju Antony Aloor, K.P. Prasanth, Haseeb Hassan.M, Krishnasankar D., Rebin Vincent Gralan, and Athul M. Joshey.
Respondents: Addl. Director General of Prosecution Grashious Kuriakose, SPP C.K. Suresh, and PP M.P. Prasanth.