ABDUL GAFARSAB Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting facet of the law with regard to the doctrine of grave and sudden provocation was seriously debated in the course of hearing of this appeal by the appellant's learned counsel Mr. Jadhav. Essentially, he had sought to contend that if there was a background of serious injustice or aggravating circumstances which had driven the accused to a point of desperation that these factors would have to be cumulatively assessed by the Court as circumstances which could result in grave and sudden provocation which impels the accused to an act of violence. We shall briefly recount the salient features of the prosecution evidence in the background of which this aspect of the law will have to be resolved.

(2.) THE deceased was a Range Forest Officer working with the Forest Department. At the relevant time, he was posted at Belgaum and had come to Badami where his family was residing for the celebration of a feast. The accused had been earlier employed by the Department as a Mali on daily wages and it is not very clear as to under what circumstances and when his services had been discontinued. What has come on record is the fact that the accused was harbouring the confirmed view that the deceased was responsible for having removed him from his job and he therefore kept repeatedly meeting the deceased and asking him to do something about restoring his employment. The incident took place on 14-10-94 and it has come on record that on the previous day when the deceased arrived at Badami the accused met him at the Bus station and once again renewed his request that something should be done about his employment. The deceased pointed out to him that it was not in his hands. On the next day i. e. on 14-10-94 at about 1. 30 in the afternoon, the accused came to the house of the deceased and renewed his plea whereupon the deceased pointed out to him that he was now posted at Belgaum and furthermore that the accused should go to the superior authorities with his request/representation and he is supposed to have chided the accused with some degree of irritation asking him as to why the accused was repeatedly coming and asking him about the employment issue. The accused supposed to have whipped out a knife which he had at his waist and stabbed the deceased first on the neck and then on the abdomen with that knife. Both these injuries were on vital parts of the body and were sufficiently serious as a result of which the deceased virtually died on the spot. This incident had taken place in broad day light and was witnessed by several persons among others, by the wife and the daughter of the deceased and the son also claims that he came there just after the incident had taken place. The prosecution also alleges that the accused was arrested on the same day at 10 p. m. and that on the next day i. e. on 15-10-94, he is supposed to have made a certain statement pursuant to which the knife which was the murder weapon was recovered in the presence of panchas. The accused was charged with an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC as also Section 3 (2) and (v) of the S. C. and S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The learned trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial convicted the accused under both the heads. The present appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, we need to record that as far as second charge is concerned, the appellant's learned counsel Mr. Jadhav submitted that merely because it has come on record that the deceased belonged to the Scheduled Caste, that this is no ground on which the accused can be convicted for an offence under this Act unless it is demonstrated that he has by his conduct said or done something that is directed to offend the sensibilities of the deceased in relation to the caste to which he belonged. The submission is that a scrutiny of the evidence will indicate that irrespective of what the evidence may establish with regard to the main charge, that there is no material to sustain the conviction under the subsidiary head. On a careful scrutiny of the record, we are in agreement with this submission as there is no justification for holding that the accused has committed any offence under the S. C. and S. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the conviction under this charge will therefore have to be set aside.