SULAIMAN K Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17-4-1995 in Sessions Case No. 1/1994. The accused stood charged with having committed the double murder of his younger sister Avvamma as also of one Challappa with whom she is alleged to have been in love. According to the prosecution case, deceased Avvamma was only about 16 years old and she was working with PW 9. Challappa was also employed by PW 9 and the two of them got friendly with each other and decided to get married. It is necessary to point out that Avvamma and Challappa belonged to two different communities and obviously, quite apart from this aspect of the matter there was one other factor which may not have been very conducive to the proposed marriage, namely the fact that Challappa was aged 30 years and there was a big age difference also between the two of them. On 7-9-1993 the accused who was the brother of the girl, is alleged to have been searching for her and he finally located them in the house of PWs 5 and 9. From what transpired, it was clear that two of them had decided to get married and this was something that would have had rather violent repercussions. It was finally decided to go to the Police in the hope of finding some solution to the problem. On the way, while proceeding in the jeep the accused desired to talk things over with Challappa and his sister for which reason the jeep was stopped and the three of them proceeded to some distance from where the others were waiting in the jeep. It is not clear as to what precisely the nature of the conversation was, but one may reasonably assume in the background of the case that the young couple were quite adamant about their decision and all of a sudden, the accused is alleged to have stabbed and killed both of them by inflicting multiple stab injuries with a small pen knife which he had on his person. The matter came to be reported to the Police who registered an offence and proceeded with the investigation. The accused is alleged to have produced the weapon in question and on completion of the investigation, he was charge-sheeted and put up for trial. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the accused and awarded him a sentence of R.I. for life. This appeal is directed against that conviction and sentence.

(2.) At the hearing, Mr. Gourishankar, learned counsel who represents the appellant did do his very best to assail the prosecution evidence on which the learned trial Judge has relied. He did point out to us a few inconsistencies and it was his contention that the evidence on record does not conclusively establish the charge and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The main thrust of the argument was that the caliber of the evidence leaves something to be desired and that having regard to the fact that the charge is one of murder, that the standard of proof in respect of each of the heads of evidence must be much higher. We do not dispute the proposition but we also take note of the fact that the quality of the evidence would be dependent on the status of the parties, the literacy levels as also the time factor namely the question as to how much of time has elapsed since the date when the incident took place and the point of time when the witness is deposing. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the witnesses are estate workers, they are virtually semi-literate labourers and they would therefore have their own limitations which have got to be realistically accepted. From this background, we have re-assessed the material before the Court by the prosecution and we find it extremely difficult to uphold the submission that the evidence does not establish the charge. There is eye witness evidence on record, there is supportive evidence and there is also some circumstantial evidence and a combination of all of these brings home the charge beyond reasonable doubt. This is one of the few cases where the material on record conclusively establishes the charge and despite the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel, in our considered view, the findings of the lower Court will have to be confirmed.

(3.) There is a subsidiary argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant when he very strongly submitted that the Court must virtually assess the position of the accused by almost stepping into his shoes. The learned counsel has laid great emphasis on one aspect of the matter namely that in the social set up to which the parties belong, a lot of sanctity is attached particularly with regard to the marriage and ethical aspects of a young woman and that anything that encroaches on these factors provokes very strong re-action. He has demonstrated to the Court that the girl was aged only 16, that she was a minor and incapable of giving valid consent to a marriage and that she belonged to the Muslim community. She was the younger sister of the accused and as is traditional, the learned counsel points out to us that the accused brother would normally and naturally have been protective of her. He submits that starting from this premise, and taking cognizance of the social set up particularly in that level of strata of society in this country, that it would have been absolutely unthinkable of Avvamma's family agreeing to an inter-communal liaison. Learned counsel was at pains to impress upon us the fact that it was common knowledge to all concerned that the girl and Challappa were very much in love with each other to the extent that they were contemplating marriage and as inevitably happens, that they would have eloped since the families would not have agreed to any such marriage. Learned counsel submitted that the situation was virtually volatile in so far as it was imminent that if her family did not agree to the marriage, that she would have run away with Challappa and this is invariably considered to be an affront worse than death particularly at those levels of society. He submits that the gravity of the situation being what is was that a desperate attempt was made to take the couple to the Police in the hope that the Police would explain to Challappa the consequences of running away with at minor girl, the effect of such a provocative act would have on the respective families and their communities and the possible flare up that could ensue and he submitted that when the jeep was stopped and the accused desired to make a final appeal to the couple, that the Court should take into account the mental make up of the accused at that point of time in the light of the aforesaid background. He states that it is obvious that the couple refused to budge and that the accused took it as not only a direct confrontation but as a sudden provocation to him and that unfortunately, he re-acted very violently.