ANUJ JERMI Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) " When a woman is assaulted she may not stop to think in terms of hinsa or ahimsa. Her primary duty is self-protection. She is at liberty to employ every method or means that come to her mind in order to defend her honour. God has given her nails and teeth. She must use them with all her strength and, if need be, die in the effort. The man or woman who has shed all fear of death will be able not only to protect himself or herself but others also through laying down his life". This is what our father of the Nation, Mahathma Gandhiji, wrote in "Harijan". The case on hand is such a classic case where the accused an young college going girl of hardly 19 years of age, stabbed her father thrice on his stomach, in order to protect her modesty and life when the deceased exhibiting animal behaviour violently attempted to rape her and kill her at knife point. The lifeless body of the deceased was in a pool of blood. Unfortunately, the girl stands as an accused before the court facing prosecution for an offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC. Seeking to quash the entire proceeding, she is now before this Court with this original petition. The facts of the case would be as follows:- The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. The deceased was the father of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. They hail from Nagercoil in Kanyakumari District. The 2nd respondent is a graduate and during the relevant point of time, he was working in a private company at Chennai. The petitioner was doing her B.Sc., Computer Science course (II year) in St. Joseph College at Kovur. Their mother passed away four years before. The deceased father was a drunkard. According to the complaint itself, in inebriated condition, he used to exhibit animal behaviour on a few previous occasions. On 17.05.2011 by about 7.00 p.m. the 2nd respondent had gone to his company for work. The petitioner was alone at her home as the deceased also had gone out. Late in the evening, the deceased returned home fully drunk. At that time, the petitioner was sleeping in the hall of the house and the deceased had gone to his room. By about 1.00 a.m., while the petitioner was fast asleep, she felt that some body touched her breast. Realising something untoward, she woke up. She found her father, the deceased sitting by her side. He extended sexual overtures towards her and wanted her to submit to his lust. She was shocked by this unexpected event. She pleaded to him not to spoil her. The deceased took up a knife and attempted to stab her. This caused apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the deceased would either kill her or rape her. Therefore, she took out a knife which was lying nearby and stabbed him thrice. He fell down and breathed his last. Immediately thereafter, she called her brother, the de facto complainant over phone and told him about the occurrence.

(2.) According to the 2nd respondent, at about 2.00 a.m. when he was in his company, he received a phone call from the petitioner. From other end, according to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner wept and narrated that with a view to protect her modesty and life, she had to kill her father by stabbing him thrice on his stomach.

(3.) Immediately, the 2nd respondent rushed to the place of occurrence. He found the deceased in a pool of blood. The petitioner was also at home and she was found weeping. The witnesses 2 to 4 viz., Manickam, Bastian Xavier and Anandan, who are either closely related or friendly towards the 2nd respondent, also rushed to the place of occurrence. When they enquired, they were also told by the petitioner that it was she who killed the deceased only with a view to save her life and modesty. She vividly narrated about the occurrence.