Civil Procedure Code (CPC)

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Mahesha Vs State (2021):Refusal To Marriage Does Not Permit Anyone To Hurt The Person In Any Way Or Form, Be It Mental Or Physical

Tisya Mishra ,
  30 July 2021       Share Bookmark

Court :
High Court of Karnataka
Brief :
Refusal To Marriage Does Not Permit Anyone To Hurt The Person In Any Way Or Form, Be It Mental Or Physical
Citation :
Appeal no.512/2016(C)


Date:
22nd July 2021

Parties:
Appellant: Mahesha S/O Jatteppa
Respondent: State by Malebennur Police

Subject

The accused who got refused on the marriage offer by the girl’s family members, felt disrespected and with the intention of hurting the girl, decided to disfigure her body by throwing acid all over her, which caused corrosive injuries.

Issues

  1. If by that act, if he had caused her death, then he would have been guilty of murder, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 307 of the IPC?
  2. Whether the prosecution further proves that he caused simple and grievous corrosive injuries to her, thereby committed the offences punishable under Sec. 326 (A) & (B) of IPC?

Overview

  1. In this specific case of the prosecution, that at the inception, the accused was insisting the girl to marry him and as the family members of the victim did not give consent, he got disgusted and with an intention to take revenge on her, he decided that she should not marry anyone else and to disfigure her face, on 31.01.2014, he had thrown acid on her, thereby, she sustained serious corrosive injures.
  2. The learned counsel of the accused kept refusing the claims and repeatedly pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
  3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused has not involved in the alleged acid injures on the victim could not be accepted since there was enough medical evidence taken off the victim.
  4. There was not just the girl who was affected but also a boy studying in standard one, who also got some acid all over his hands.

Relevant Provisions

  1. Section 307 of IPC discusses that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
  2. Section 326 A of the IPC states that whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or bums or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine but provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim.
  3. Section 326 B of the IPC states that whoever throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or bums or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Judgement Analysis

  1. The judges discussed that number of year cases reported in the case in hand is an example of uncivilized and heartless crime committed by the accused and that it is completely unacceptable that concept of leniency or mercy can be conceived of in such a crime.
  2. They commented that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency. Emphatically they said that it is individually as well as collectively intolerable and that the accused might have felt that his ego had been hurt by such a denial to the proposal marriage or he might have suffered a sense of exaggeration, sense of honour or might have been guided by the idea that revenge is the sweetest thing that one can be wedded to when there is no response to the unrequited love; but, whatever may be the situation, the criminal act, by no stretch of imagination, deserves any leniency or mercy.
  3. They said that the accused might have suffered emotional distress by the denial, yet the said feeling could not to be converted into vengeance to grant a licence to act in a manner like he has thrown acid.

Conclusion

The criminal appeal is allowed in this part and under Section 307, 326A & 357(3) of the IPC, the accused is found guilty and was fined and charged under them respectively.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement

 
"Loved reading this piece by Tisya Mishra?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"



Published in Others
Views : 324




Comments




Latest Judgments


More »


Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query