Long Lasting Provocation Not 'Sudden Provocation': Kerala HC Upholds Framing Of 'Murder' Charge Against Accused In Dr Vandana Das Case

Dr Vandana Das, the 23-year-old house surgeon was stabbed to death by Sandeep who was brought to the government hospital by Pooyappally police.

Justice A. Badharudeen while rejecting the defence argument that Sandeep committed the offence out of sudden and grave provocation without an intent to cause murder, observed that long-lasting provocation cannot be construed as sudden and grave provocation.

“..in the instant case, on no stretch of imagination, at this stage, this Court could find that the accused had not done the acts with the intention of causing such bodily injury so as to cause death of Dr.Vandana Das. Otherwise the knowledge of the accused that the injuries were sufficient to cause death of the person, to whom the injuries were inflicted is, prima facie, established warranting framing of charge… Grave and sudden provocation, due to deprivation of power of self control sometimes may lead to some overt acts, but there must be a quietus for grave and sudden provocation. It could not be said that grave and sudden provocation, a particular mental state, would continue for hours. Long lasting provocation, either mild or grave, could not be construed as sudden provocation. Long lasting provocation carries an element of special mens rea or the very intention to commit the crime.”

The prosecution case was that Sandeep was in a peculiar mental state to due excessive consumption of alcohol. He was brought to the hospital by the police to give medical aid since he was injured. In the hospital, he started attacking police personnel and hospital staff frantically using surgical scissors alleging that he was not given priority. It was stated that he restrained and stabbed Dr Vandana continuously to cause her death. He obstructed official duties of the hospital and threatened staff. He was charged under Sections 341, 323, 324, 332, 333, 353, 506(ii), 307, 302 and 201 of the IPC.

The Counsel for accused submitted that he had no intention to cause harm to anybody or to commit murder. It was stated that Sandeep got suddenly provoked and committed overacts that caused Dr. Vandana's death when he was not given medical aid. Relying upon Section 300 exception (1), it was stated culpable homicide was not murder if was caused out of sudden and grave provocation. Referring to K.G Mohandas v CBI, wherein Dr. Vandana's parents sought CBI investigation, the accused argued that even Dr Vandana's parents were not satisfied with the police investigation attributing the offence of murder upon the accused.

Section 227 of the CrPC deals with the discharge of an accused. If the Court is of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial, then the judge shall frame charges against the accused under Section 228 CrPC.

The Court laid down the following parameters while considering the plea of discharge and framing of charges by relying upon Apex Court decisions in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (2023) and Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023):

1. The Trial Judge shall prima facie look into the evidence placed by prosecution and investigating agency to assess whether the materials prima facie induce suspicious circumstances against the accused to frame charges. If the Trial Court feels there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, then accused will be discharged. But, if the Court was of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds to presume that the accused has committed the offences which are triable, then charges will be framed.
2. Trial Judge to apply judicial mind whilst analysing prosecution materials to assess whether a case has been made out by prosecution for trial on basis of final report/charge sheet.
3. Once the accused is able to demonstrate from the materials that form part of the charge/final report at the stage of framing the charge that could impact the case, it is unfair to suggest that such materials should be disregarded or overlooked by the Court. This is because the intent of the Court is to give chance to accused to make submissions under Section 227 to assist the Court whether to proceed with the trial or not.
4. The Court must consider and evaluate the prosecution materials on the assumption that it is true to determine whether the facts emerging from the materials taken on its face value disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary for the offence/s alleged.
5. The defence of the accused is not to be looked at this stage. CrPC does not permit the accused to produce documents at the stage of framing charges and his submissions should be confined to materials produced by the prosecution.
6. The primary consideration is the test of the existence of a prima facie case, the probative value of materials on record shall not be evaluated at the stage of framing charges.
7. During this stage, the Court has to form a presumptive opinion and is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record to determine whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of the trial.
8. At this stage, the Court has to sift prosecution materials to assess whether there is sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for the trial. It need not enter into the pros and cons of the matter weighing and balancing evidence and probabilities.
9. Strong suspicion against the accused during framing charges is not proof of guilt of the accused during the conclusion of the trial. In such cases, it is not open for Court to say that there is no sufficient grounds to proceed since charges need to be framed to permit prosecution to adduce evidence.
10. If the evidence that prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.

The Court thus held that it has the power to discharge the accused if prosecution materials do not disclose a prima facie case to frame charges. It stated that the Court has power to frame charges and proceed with the trial in all other circumstances.

In the facts of the case, the Court noted that the accused attacked everybody including hospital staff and police personnel after taking the surgical scissors from the procedure room and keeping it hidden. It stated that the accused stabbed Dr Vandana repeatedly causing 26 injuries on her body. It stated that such long-lasting provocation cannot be construed as sudden and grave provocation to discharge the accused at the time of framing charges.

“ In such a case, at the stage of framing charge, no court would find that the accused done the overt acts due to grave and sudden provocation so as to consider the case as one in lesser form of murder, that is, culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, stated the Court and held that the order of the Trial Court disallowing his discharge is justified.

As such, the Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Biju Antony Aloor, K.P.Prasanth,

Haseeb Hassan.M, Krishnasankar D., Rebin Vincent Gralan Athul M. Joshey

Counsel for Respondents: Additional Director General of Prosecution Grashious Kuriakose, Public Prosecutor M.P.Prasanth, Senior Public Prosecutor C.K.Suresh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 417

Case Title: Sandeep G V State of Kerala

Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet No. 613 Of 2024

Click here to read/download Order