Justifying the act of a college student in murdering her father who attempted to rape and kill her, the Madras High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against her.
In its order on a petition filed by the woman, who was 19 when the incident occurred in May 2011, seeking to quash the criminal case against her under Section 304 (ii) IPC (Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder), Justice S. Nagamuthu held that what was attempted to be done to the petitioner was an unbearable and intolerable violence. “Thus, the petitioner was justified in killing her father or otherwise, she would have become a victim of rape or in the effort, she would have lost her life.”
The prosecution case was that the girl was studying II year B. Sc computer science in a college on the city’s outskirts. Her mother died four years ago. On May 17 last year, when she was alone at home, her father returned home fully drunk. He wanted the girl to fulfil his sexual desire. When she pleaded with him to leave her, he took out a knife and attempted to stab her. Apprehending that he would either kill or rape her, she grabbed a knife which was lying nearby and stabbed him thrice, causing his death. She informed her brother about the occurrence. She was arrested. A charge sheet was laid against the girl under section 304 (ii) IPC.
When the matter came up, the girl’s brother said he had no objection to quashing of the entire criminal proceedings.
Mr. Justice Nagamuthu said when the police report, statement of witnesses and documents did not make out an offence for trial, then it would not be lawful to allow the trial to go on as it would only be a wasteful exercise. Apart from that, making her undergo the ordeal of trial when obviously she had not committed any offence would be a very serious human rights violation.
Allowing the petition, the judge said it was the prosecution case itself that the father who was supposed to protect the modesty of his daughter, exhibited “animal behaviour” and attempted to rape her at knife point and also kill her. If the material placed before the court was taken into account, “I find that the petitioner had acted only in exercise of right of private defence to save her modesty and life.”
The judge said that going by the facts of the case, petitioner’s age and all other attending circumstances, the investigating officer should not have arrested her. She was incarcerated for 40 days. Fortunately, she did not discontinue her education.
Mr. Justice Nagamuthu appreciated Inspector M. Azhagu for the fair investigation because of which the High Court was able to free the petitioner from all agony.
via The Hindu Newspaper http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/article3725663.ece
No comments:
Post a Comment