Karnataka High Court
Mr. Roopesha vs The State By Dharmastala Police Station on 5 July, 2024
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 26.06.2024 R
Pronounced on : 05.07.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4941 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1 . MR. ROOPESHA
S/O RAMANNA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESIDING AT NARIYA HOUSE
DHARMASTALA VILLAGE
BELTHANGADY TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT - 574 216.
2 . MR. SADANANDA
S/O DEVU MALEKUDIYA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT
KENCHARAKANDA HOUSE
NIDLE, BELTHANGADY
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 216.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHWIN JOYSTON KUTINHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY
DHARMASTALA POLICE STATION
2
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MRS. SOUMYA
W/O KISHORE
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT PEJATHADKA HOUSE
DHARMASTALA VILLAGE
BELTHANGADY TALUK
D.K - 574 216.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.7/2024 OF DHARMASTALA P.S. FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 305, 506, 354(D), 509, R/W SECTION 34 OF
IPC, SEC.12 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.75 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT
PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT
FTSC-1 (POCSO) D.K AT MANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 26.06.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
The petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.7 of 2024 registered by the Dharmasthala Police for offences punishable under Sections 305, 506, 354D, 509 r/w 34 of the IPC, Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, germane are as follows:-
The 2nd respondent is the complainant, mother of a student/victim by name Thrusha who was studying in SDM High School, Dharmastala. Petitioners are the pedagogues in the said school. The 1st petitioner is a drawing teacher and the 2nd petitioner is a physical training teacher. The daughter of the complainant was studying in the 10th standard. The genesis of the problem is that the victim was repeatedly called by the 1st petitioner on the ground that she was continuously talking to one boy, Manoj in the school.
This was complained to the mother of the victim. The mother comes 4 to the school. The mother indicates to the 1st petitioner that if there is any problem, the teacher should call her and not insult the child in front of other children. The 1st petitioner did not stop. The matter goes to the Head Mistress before whom again the child is said to have been insulted for the reason that she was talking to the boys in the school. This message of talking of the victim with the other boy was informed to a fellow student Ms. Harshitha. The fellow student appears to have informed it to others. Again the mother of the victim asked the teachers not to inform other students and paint the victim black but to call her personally and tell her. All this happened on the 6th and 7th of February, 2024. On the 7th February, 2024, the victim being frustrated with these things consumed rat poison in the school premises itself at about 9 a.m. She was then shifted to Benaka Hospital at Ujire for treatment and for better treatment to Mangalore. She succumbed to poison that she has consumed. At the time when she consumed poison the crime comes to be registered in Crime No.7 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 509 of the IPC, Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) 5 Act, 2015. When the victim succumbed to the poison, the offence punishable under Section 305 of the IPC was added. The registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
3. Heard Sri Ashwin Joyston Kutinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B N Jagadeesh, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
4. The leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioners were only wanting to discipline the child as talking to other boys was subversive of discipline of the institution. Mere disciplining the child and the child consuming poison eventually leading to unfortunate death would not mean that the petitioners would become abettors to the said suicide for offence punishable under Section 305 of the IPC. He would contend that the allegations that are made against the petitioners or the complaint or the statements would none of them touch upon the ingredients of the offences so alleged against the petitioners. 6
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that it is the behavior of the petitioners that led the child to get frustrated and commit suicide. The matter is still at the stage of investigation. Therefore, this Court at this stage should not interfere with these proceedings. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners would again contend that the Apex Court in plethora of judgments has rendered that mere disciplining an undisciplined child by a teacher would not attract the ingredients of Section 305 of the IPC. He has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GEO VARGHESE v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in (2021) 19 SCC 144 and also places reliance upon several other judgments rendered by the Apex Court, on two issues as to what would be the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC, for it to become an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, which deals with abetment to suicide and the other judgment with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 7
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated fact of the victim/student studying at SDM High School, Dharmastala is not in dispute. The entire story would commence on a particular date i.e., 05-02-2024. On that day it appears the victim had confided to her mother that the her friend Ms. Harshitha informed her that 1st petitioner is spreading bad rumours about her and in this regard he has also sent a whatsapp message to said Ms. Harshitha stating that the victim will always be talking to one boy by name Manoj. This leads the child into depression. The mother by confronting the teacher asked him as to why he has behaved with her daughter in the manner that was complained by the child. This appears to have reached the chambers of the Head Mistress also and the 1st petitioner had informed about the alleged character of talking of the victim with a boy to one more fellow student by name Ms. Harshitha. The news had spread and the child further gets into depression. On 07-02-2024 the victim comes to the school as usual and at 9 a.m. 8 consumes rat poison because of aforesaid incidents. The moment this happened, a complaint comes to be registered by the mother alleging that 1st petitioner is responsible for her daughter attempting to commit suicide, as the daughter was still alive at that time and under treatment in the hospital. The complaint so registered initially reads as follows:
"jUÉ, oÁuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ zsÀªÀÄð¸ÀܼÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ jAzÀ, ¸ËªÀÄå (36) UÀAqÀ: Q±ÉÆÃgï ¦eÉvÀÛqÀÌ ªÀÄ£É, zsÀªÀð¸ÀܼÀ UÁæªÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀÛAUÀr vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ (9980632654) ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀȵÁ (15 ªÀ) JA§ªÀ¼ÀÄ ±Á¯Á «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV £ÉÆAzÀÄ «µÀ ¸Éë¹ DvÀäºÀvÉåUÉ ¥ÀæAiÀÄw߸À®Ä PÁgÀtgÁzÀ gÀÆ¥Éñï JA§ªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ.
£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄð£À «¼Á¸ÀÀzÀ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ E§âgÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ gÀPÁë ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀȵÁ CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ zsÀªÀÄð¸ÀܼÀzÀ £ÀA¢¤ «Ä¯ïÌ¥Á®ðgï£À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄÆqÀ©zÉæAiÀÄ D¼Áé¸ï ZÁ®PÀgÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ªÁgÀPÉÆ̪ÉÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀPÁë¼ÀÄ zsÀªÀÄð¸ÀܼÀzÀ vÀÈ¦Û ºÉÆÃmÉ¯ï £À°è PÁå±Àgï DV PÉ®¸ÀªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. 2£Éà ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀȵÁ¼ÀÄ zsÀªÀÄð¸ÀܼÀzÀ J¸ï.r.JªÀiï ¥ËæqsÀ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è 10£Éà vÀgÀUÀwAiÀÄ°è «zÁå¨sÁå¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼É £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀȵÁ¼ÀÄ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è GvÀÛªÀĪÁV PÀ°AiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ M¼ÉîAiÀÄ CAPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ DPÉUÉ 1 ªÁgÀUÀ¼À »AzÉ S.S.L.C ¥ÀÆgÀPÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄÄ £ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 2, 3 ¢£ÀUÀ½AzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ°èAiÀÄÆ ¨ÉgÉAiÀÄzÉ M§â¼Éà PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ AiÉÆÃZÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀݼÀÄ. F §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 5/2/2024 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ DPÉAiÀÄÄ ºÉüÀzÉ EzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£À: «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ DPÉ £À£Àß°è ¤Ã£ÀÄ ±Á¯ÉUÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ £À£Àß §UÉÎ qÁæ¬ÄAUï ¸Àgï gÀÆ¥Éñï CªÀgÀÄ PÉlÖ ªÉĸÉÃeï ºÀgÀqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÉ EzÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¸ÉßûvÉ ºÀ¶ðvÁ £À£Àß°è ºÉýzÁݼÉ. ¤ÃªÀÅ ±Á¯ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ qÁæ¬ÄAUï ¸Àgï gÀÆ¥Éñï CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ¼À°è gÀÆ¥ÉÃ±ï ¸Àgï ºÀ¶ðvÁ£À°è AiÀiÁªÁUÀ ºÉýzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ DPÉAiÀÄÄ ºÀ¶ðvÁ¼À ªÉƨÉʯïUÉ gÀÆ¥ÉÃ±ï ¸Àgï ªÁmÁì¥ï ªÉĸÉÃeï 9 ªÀiÁr CªÀ¼ÀÄ ¸Àj E®è CªÀ¼À PÁè¹£À ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃeï £À eÉÆvÉ ¸À®ÄUɬÄAzÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝ¼É JA§ÄzÁV w½¹gÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½¹zÀ¼ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ¯É gÀÆ¥Éñï CªÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀªÁt PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß°è ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀzÉà ¤ÃªÀÅ ±Á¯ÉUÉ §¤ß JAzÀÄ ¥sÉÆãï PÀmï ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¤£Éß ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ.6/02/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀßzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ S.D.M. ¥sËqsÀ±Á¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ H.M. £ÀÄß ¨sÉÃnªÀiÁr ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ ºÉýzÀ «ZÁgÀ w½¹zÀÄÝ DUÀ gÀÆ¥Éñï CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß H.M. PÀgÉzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀȵÁ ºÁUÀÄ ºÀ¶ðvÁ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ gÀÆ¥Éñï CªÀgÀ°è K£ÀÄ «ZÁgÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÀ¶ðvÁ½UÉ ªÉĸÉÃeï ªÀÄr AiÀiÁPÉ PÉýzÀÄÝ £À£Àß°è CxÀªÁ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À°è £ÉÃgÀªÁV PÉüÀ§ºÀÄ¢vÀÛ®è. ¤ÃªÀÅ CªÀ¼À°è PÉý £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ PÉlÖ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ AiÀiÁPÉ JAzÁUÀ gÀÆ¥Éñï CªÀgÀÄ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ vÀȵÁ¼À §UÉÎ PÉlÖzÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀÝjªÀÄzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÀ¶ðvÁ¼À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ªÉĸÉÃeï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ «ZÁj¹ EgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀgÀÄ C®èzÉ vÀȵÁ¼ÀÄ r¸ÉA§gï 31 gÀAzÀÄ zsÀªÀÄð¸ÀܼÀzÀ CªÀÄÈvÀªÀ¶ðt ºÁ¯ï £À°è £ÀqÉzÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀAiÀĪÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £É¥ÀªÁVlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀȵÁ¼ÀÄ ¸Àj E®è JA§ÄzÁV ºÉýzÀgÀÄ §½PÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ°è ºÁUÀÄ H.M. C°è E£ÀÄäAzÀPÉÌ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÉÀlÖ ªÀiÁvÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀ°è £À£Àß°è £ÉÃgÀªÁV w½¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉý ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁè¹UÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ±Á¯É ªÀÄÄV¹ ¸ÀAeÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀªÀ¼À°è «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ±Á¯ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß §UÉÎ «ZÁj¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ M¼ÉîzÀÄ C¬ÄvÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ K£ÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ w½¬ÄvÀ®è DzÀgÀÄ gÀÆ¥ÉÃ±ï ¸Àgï CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß°è ¸Áj PÉüÀ°®è AiÀiÁPÉ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß°è ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. C®èzÉà gÀÆ¥ÉÃ±ï ¸Àgï F »AzÉ £À£Àß°è J¯Áè ¸Àgï UÀ¼À ºÁUÉ M¼ÉîAiÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ°è EzÀݪÀgÀÄ EwÛÃZÉUÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ªÀÄvÀ£ÁqÀzÉà EzÀÄÝ EzÉà «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV £ÉÆAzÀÄ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV NzÀ®Ä DUÀzÉà PÀrªÉÄ CAPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ªÀÄÄAzÀAiÀÄÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉZÀÄÑ CAPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÁzÀåªÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ¼ÀÄ. F ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ 07/02/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ JA¢£ÀAvÉ CªÀ¼ÀÄ ±Á¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 9 UÀAmÉUÉ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ «PÁ¸ï ¸Àgï JA§ªÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀªÁt PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr MªÉÄä CfðAmï DV ±Á¯ÉUÉ §gÀĪÁV w½¹zÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß CtÚ £À£Àß ±Á¯ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÉÝãÉ. CtÚ ¸ÀwñÀ£ÀÄ ±Á¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV §½PÀ £À£ÀUÉ PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr vÀȵÁ¼ÀÄ «µÀ ¥ÀzÁxÀð ¸Éë¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ w½¹ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß aQvÉì §UÉÎ GfgÉ ¨É£ÀPÀ ºÁ¹àl¯ï UÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀ w½¹zÀ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ¯É ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀlÄ GfgÉ ¨É£ÀPÀ ºÁ¹àl¯ïUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ C°è£À ªÉÊzÀågÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ aQvÉì ¤Ãr ºÉaÑ£À aQvÉìUÉ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀAvÉ w½¹zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß CtÚ DA§Ä¯É£ïì MAzÀgÀ°è ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÄgÀÄ J.eÉ ºÁ¹àl¯ïUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ aQvÉìUÉ zÁR°¹gÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀȵÁ¼À°è F §UÉÎ DA§Ä¯É£ïì £À°è §gÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ DPÉAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß°è ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß §UÉÎ gÀÆ¥ÉÃ±ï ¸Àgï CªÀgÀÄ PÉlÖzÁV £À£Àß UɼÀw ºÀ¶ðvÁ¼À°è ªÉĸÉÃeï ªÀiÁr PÉýzÀÝjAzÀ £À£Àß ºÁUÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄAiÀiÁ𢠺ÉÆìÄvÀÄ F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀÄ F ¢£À ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ ±Á¯ÉUÉ §AzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ UËæAqï §½ £Á£Éà ªÉÄrPÀ¯ï¤AzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÝ E° ¥ÁµÁtªÀ£ÀÄß wAzÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄ®Ä ¤zsÁðgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀ¼ÀÄ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀȵÁ¼À §UÉÎ gÀÆ¥Éñï CªÀgÀÄ PÉlÖ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ºÀgÀr ªÉĸÉÃeï ªÀiÁrzÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀÄ «µÀ ¥ÀzÁxÀð ¸Éë¸À®Ä PÁgÀtgÁzÀ gÀÆ¥Éñï CªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä PÉÆÃjPÉ.
¸ÀܼÀ: ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ J.eÉ D¸ÀàvÉæ Ewà vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ:7/2/2024 10 F ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ:07.02.2024 gÀAzÀÄ «µÀ ¥ÀzÁxÀð ¸Éë¹ C¸Àé¸ÀÜUÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À A.J. D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ PÀÄ|vÀȵÁ¼À£ÀÄß «ZÁj¹ ºÉýPÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä §AzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 21.00 UÀAmÉUÉ vÀȵÁ¼À vÁ¬Ä ¸ËªÀÄågÀªÀgÀÄ °TvÀªÁV ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛêÉÉ."
(Emphasis added) The victim was taken to Mangalore for better treatment, at which time the victim narrates the entire story before the Police and the Child Development and Protection Officer of Belthangady. The statement rendered by the victim while on further treatment reads as follows:
"ºÉýPÉ: vÀȵÁ, ¥ÁæAiÀÄ:15 ªÀµÀð, vÀAzÉ: Q±ÉÆÃgï, ªÁ¸À: ¦dvÀÛqÀÌ ªÀÄ£É, zsÀªÀð¸ÀܼÀ UÁæªÄÀ , ¨É¼ÀÛAUÀr vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ.
¢£ÁAPÀ:08-02-2024 £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄð£À «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è vÀAzÉ Q±ÉÆÃgï vÁ¬Ä ¸ËªÀÄå CPÀÌ gÀPÁë JA§ªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÉñÀégÀ C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ PÀ£ÀßqÀ ªÀiÁzsÀåªÀÄ ¥ËæqÀs±Á¯É zsÀªÀÄð¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è 10£Éà vÀgÀUÀwAiÀÄ 'J' ¸ÉPÀë£ï£À°è «zsÁå¨Ás å¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄÆqÀ©zÉæ D¼Áé¸ï ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è ZÁ®PÀ ªÀÈwÛ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, vÁ¬Ä ¸ËªÀÄågÀªÀgÀÄ zsÀªÀÄð¸ÀܼÀzÀ ¥ÀzÀä²æà £ÀA¢¤ «Ä¯ïÌ ¥Á®ðgï £À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀÄrPÉƪÀÄrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CPÀÌ gÀPÁë¼ÀÄ vÀÈ¦Û ºÉÆÃmɯï£À°è PÁå²AiÀÄgï DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. £À£ÀUÉ r¸ÉA§gï 31, 2023£Éà ªÀµÀðzÀ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ¢£À CªÀÄÈvÀªÀ¶ðt ºÁ¯ï £À°è PÀA¸Á¼É £ÀÈvÀå EzÀÄÝ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£ßÀ zÉÆqÀتÀÄä£À ªÀÄPÀ̼À eÉÆvÉ gÁwæ C°è EzÉÝ£ÀÄ. DUÀ £ÀªÀÄä qÁæ¬ÄAUï ¸Àgï gÀÆ¥Éñï gÀªÀgÀÄ C°è EzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß zÉÆqÀتÀÄä£À UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼À eÉÆvÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr vÀ¥ÁàV ¨sÁ«¹ D §½PÀ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛgÀ°®è. F »AzÀ J¯Áè CzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ºÁUÉ qÁæ¬ÄAUï ¸Àgï gÀÆ¥Éñï gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ PÀÆqÀ vÀÄA¨Á M¼ÉîAiÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà EzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀUÀ¼À »AzÉ £À£ÀUÉ S.S.L.C ¥ÀƪÀð¨sÁ« ¥ÀjÃPÉë £ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EwÛÃZÉUÉ 4-5 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À »AzÀ £À£Àß UɼÀw 10 B AiÀÄ°è PÀ°AiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ ºÀ¶ðvÁ½UÉ qÁæ¬ÄAUï ¸Àgï ªÁmÁì¥ï ªÉĸÉÃeï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ '£Á£ÀÄ ¸Àj¬Ä®è ºÀÄqÀÄUÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÀÄvÁÛqÀÄvÁÛ¼É. Love ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ¼É.' JA§ÄzÁV ªÉĸÉÃeï ªÀiÁrzÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ºÀ¶ðvÀ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛ¼É. £Á£ÀÄ F §UÉÎ qÁæ¬ÄAUï ¸Àgï £À°è PÉüÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¤£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀj CªÀgÀ°è «ZÁgÀ 11 w½¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ C¯Éèà EzÀÝ P.T s¸Àgï ¸ÀzÁ£ÀAzÀgÀªÀgÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ DzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ JzÀÄgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛÃAiÀÄ ¤£Àß Q¹ìAUï «rAiÉÆà £ÀªÀÄä°è EzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ P.T ¸Àgï £À°è Q¹ìAUï «rAiÉÆà EzÀÝgÉ vÉÆÃj¹ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ¨ÉÃqÀ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ mÁUÉðmï ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. §½PÀ £Á£ÀÄ F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV £ÉÆAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¨ÉøÀgÀzÀ°è EzÀÝ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß CªÀÄä £À£ÀߣÀÄß «ZÁj¹zÀÄÝ DUÀ CªÀÄä£À°è ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß ±Á¯ÉUÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ qÁæ¬ÄAUï ¸Àgï £À£Àß §UÉÎ PÉlÖ «ZÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼À°è w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ vÁ¬Ä qÁæ¬ÄAUï ¸Àgï UÉ PÁ¯ï ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ §Äå¹ EzÉÝÃ£É £Á¼É ±Á¯ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár JAzÀÄ ºÉý ¥sÉÆãï PÀmï ªÀiÁr EnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ¢£ÁAPÀ:06/02/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß ±Á¯ÉUÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ ºÉqï ªÀiÁ¸ÀÖgï £À°è «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½¹ qÁæ¬ÄAUï ¸Àgï£À JzÀÄj£À°è «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýAiÉÄà E®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ §½PÀ ºÉqï ªÀiÁ¸ÀÖgï ºÀ¶ðvÁ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀ (ªÉĸÉÃeï) ªÀiÁrzÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ¼À «ZÁgÀzÀ°è K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÁV w½¹zÀgÀÄ. DzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄä°è ¸Áj PÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è §½PÀ CªÀÄä CªÀgÀ°è ªÀÄÄAzÀPÉÌ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ºÉüÀ®Ä EzÀÝgÉ £ÀªÀÄä°èAiÉÄà w½¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉý ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. §½PÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ CªÀÄä ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ §gÀĪÀ JPÁì«ÄUÉ ZÉ£ÁßV NzÀÄ S.S.L.C AiÀÄ°è M¼ÉîAiÀÄ ªÀiÁPïìð vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ £À£ÀUÉ F J®è «ZÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV NzÀ®Ä DUÀÄwÛ®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉ£ÀÄ. §½PÀ £À£ÀUÉ F J®è «ZÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ £É£À¦¹PÉÆAqÀÄ C®èzÉ £À£ÀUÉ S.S.L.C ¥ÀÆgÀPÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è PÀrªÉÄ CAPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ CzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß Target ªÀiÁr PÀrªÉÄ CAPÀ §A¢gÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ ¨sÁ«¹ ªÀÄÄAzÀPÉÌ S.S.L.C AiÀÄ®Æè PÀrªÉÄ CAPÀ §gÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ qÁæ¬ÄAUï ¸Àgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ P.T ¸Àgï £À£Àß ªÀÄAiÀiÁðzÉ vÉUÉzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄ®Ä ¤zsÀðj¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 7/2/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ JA¢£ÀAvÉ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ 8 UÀAmÉUÉ ±Á¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆgÀlÄ §AzÀªÀ¼ÀÄ zsÀªÀð¸ÀܼÀzÀ ªÉÄrPÀ¯ï MAzÀgÀ°è E° ¥ÁµÀtªÀ£ÀÄß Rjâ¹ ±Á¯Á ªÉÄÊzÁ£ÀPÉÌ vÉgÀ½ E° ¥ÁµÀtªÀ£ÀÄß wAzÉ£ÀÄ ¸Àé®à ºÉÆwÛ£À §½PÀ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆmÉÖ £ÉÆêÀÅ DUÀ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÀÄÝ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà 9th B PÁè¹UÉ ºÉÆÃV PÀĽvÀÄ C¼ÀvÉÆqÀVzÁUÀ £À£Àß UɼÀwAiÀÄgÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß «ZÁj¹ PÉÊAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ Ratol £À §UÉÎ nÃZÀgï UÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr §½PÀ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄUÉ «ZÁgÀ (w½¹)ªÀ£ÀÄß ¸Àgï £ÀªÀgÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÀÄ C°èUÉ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. §½PÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß aQvÉì §UÉÎ GfgÉ ¨É£ÀPÀ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ªÀiÁªÀ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÁUÀ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä PÀÆqÀ C°èUÉ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ¨É£ÀPÀ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ ªÉÊzÀågÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ aQvÉì ¤Ãr ºÉaÑ£À aQvÉì §UÉÎ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀAvÉ w½¹zÀÄÝ DUÀ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁªÀ DA§Ä¯É£ïì £À°è aQvÉì §UÉÎ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ A.J. D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ aQvÉìAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
£À£Àß §UÉÎ gÀÆ¥ÉÃ±ï ¸Àgï CªÀgÀÄ PÉlÖ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ºÀgÀr £À£Àß UɼÀwUÉ ªÉĸÉÃeï ªÀiÁrzÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ P.T ¸Àgï ¸ÀzÁ£ÀAzÀgÀªÀgÀÄ mÁUÉðmï ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ EzÉà PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ SSLC ¥ÀÆgÀPÀ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ°è PÀrªÉÄ CAPÀ §A¢zÀÄÝ ªÀÄÄAzÉ J¸ïJ¸ïJ¯ï¹ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ®Æèè PÀrªÉÄ CAPÀ §gÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀÄ «µÀ ¥ÀzÁxÀð ¸Éë¸À®Ä PÁgÀtgÁzÀ qÁæ¬ÄAUï ¸Àgï gÀÆ¥ÉÃ±ï ºÁUÀÆ P.T ¸Àgï ¸ÀzÁ£ÀAzÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁV PÉÆÃjPÉ.
NzÀ¯ÁV £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀAvÉ ¸Àj EzÉ.12
ªÀiÁ£Àå ¥ÉÆð¸ï G¥Á¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ §AmÁé¼À G¥À «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ¥ÀÄAeÁ®PÀmÉÖ ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÁ ¦J¸ïL NªÀÄ£À DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ F ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ 08/02/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ JeÉ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è MICU WÀlPÀzÀ°è aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ PÀĪÀiÁj vÀȵÁ¼À£ÀÄß 14.00 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ 16.00 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ²±ÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ AiÉÆÃd£Á¢üPÁj (CDPO BLT) ¨É¼ÀÛAUÀr gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ vÀȵÁ¼À vÁ¬Ä ¸ËªÀÄå¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ zsÀªÀÄð¸ÀܼÀ oÁuÁ WHC.731 ¥ÀæªÉÆ⤠gÀªÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ GPÀÛ¯ÉÃR£À ªÀiÁr CªÀgÀ ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀzÀ°è «ZÁj¹ ºÉýPÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀzÀj WHC.731 gÀªÀgÀ°è PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
PSI Punjalakatte ²±ÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ AiÉÆÃd£Á¢üPÁj ¨É¼ÀÛAUÀr zÀ.PÀ."
(Emphasis added) It is in this statement the victim alleges about the role of the 2nd petitioner which drove her to consume poison. The role narrated by the child is, that the 2nd petitioner threatened her that he has a video of her kissing another boy and that he would circulate it. This is a statement of the victim before the Child Development and Protection Officer, CDPO, Belthangady and it is signed by the child. On 08-02-2024 the dying declaration of the victim is also recorded by the Taluk Executive Magistrate. The dying declaration reads as follows:
"EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå ¥ÉÆð¸ï G ¤ zsÀªÀÄÀð¥Àà «.J¸ï ¥Àæ..¸ÀA 07/2014 ¢£ÁAPÀ 08/02/2024 gÀrAiÀÄ°è C¢üUÀ滹zÀgÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀĪÀiÁj vÀȵÁ D/0 Q±ÉÆÃgï EªÀjAzÀ ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀƪÀð ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß (ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ / ºÀÄzÉÝ) ¥Àæ±ÁAvï ¦ ¥Ánî vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï ºÁUÀÆ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ 13 zÀAqÁ¢üPÁj vÀªÀ¼ÀÄzÁgÀ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjAzÀ A.J ºÁ¹àl¯ï ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 8/2/2024 gÀAzÀÄ zÁR°¸À®ànÖzÉ.
WÉÆõÀuÉzÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ: vÀȵÁ vÀAzÉAiÀÄ CxÀªÁ UÀAqÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ: Q±ÉÆÃgï ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì:16 GzÉÆåÃUÀ:10£Éà vÀgÀUÀw eÁw: ¥ÀÆeÁj ªÁ¸À¸ÀܼÀ:zsÀªÀÄð¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àæ±Éß.1. ¤ÃªÀÅ ¥ÀæeÁÕªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è GvÀÛªÀÄ ªÀÄ£À¹ÜwAiÀÄ°ègÀÄ«gÁ GvÀÛgÀ: ¥ÀæeÁÕªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è EgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
¥Àæ±Éß.2. ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è EgÀÄ«gÁ?
GvÀÛgÀ. ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀ ¹ÛwAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
¥Àæ±Éß.3. ¤ÃªÀÅ FUÀ J°è¢ÝÃj?
GvÀÛgÀ. A.J. ºÁ¹àl¯ï, ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¥Àæ±Éß.4.¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß E°èUÉ AiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀ ¸ÁzsÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀAzÀgÀÄ? GvÀÛgÀ:Ambulance ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥Àæ±Éß.5.CPÀæªÀÄtzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀÄgÀÄ?
GvÀÛgÀ. CPÀæªÀÄtzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¥Àæ±Éß.6.CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÉãÀÄ?«¼Á¸ÀUÀ¼ÉãÀÄ? GvÀÛgÀ.gÀÆ¥Éñï drawing ¸Àgï ¨ÉÊzÀgÀÄ (Tees) DzÀÝjAzÀ «µÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
¥Àæ±Éß.7. CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉÃUÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄ«j?
GvÀÛgÀ: UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ¥Àæ±Éß.8. ¤ªÀÄUÉ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÃUÁzÀªÀÅ? AiÀiÁªÀ jÃwÀAiÀÄ®èzÁªÀÅ? GvÀÛgÀ: UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¥Àæ±Éß.9. G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹zÀ DAiÀÄÄzsÀUÀ¼ÁªÀŪÀÅ? CªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ AiÀiÁªÀ vÉgÀªÁzÀªÅÀ ªÀÅ? CªÀÅUÀ¼À DPÁgÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ?
GvÀÛgÀ: AiÀiÁgÀÄ ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¥Àæ±Éß.10 ºÀ¯Éè £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀܼÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ?
GvÀÛgÀ.zsÀªÀÄÀð¸ÀܼÀ PÀ£ÀßqÀ «ÄÃrAiÀÄA ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è Drawing ¸Àgï DzÀ gÀÆ¥Éñï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ message ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £À£Àß §UÉÎ tees ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥Àæ±Éß.11 ¤ªÀÄä zÉúÀzÀ ªÉÄðgÀĪÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À PÀ¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀAqÀÄ»rAiÀħ°ègÁ? ºÁVzÀÝ°è UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄ«gÁ?
GvÀÛgÀ:UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¥Àæ±Éß:12. ¤ªÀÄUÉ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÃUÉ DzÀªÀÅ? ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀ jÃw AiÀįÁèzÀªÀÅ? GvÀÛgÀ: UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¥Àæ±Éß:13 ºÀ¯ÉèUÉ EgÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀªÉãÀÄ?
GvÀÛgÀ:GzÉÝñÀ K£ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è WÉÆõÀuÉzÁgÀgÀ ¸À»CxÀªÁ ºÉ§ânÖ£À UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ n¥ÀàtÂ: WÉÆõÀuÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæeÁЪÀ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è®è¢zÀÝgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è®è¢zÀÝgÉ CªÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR°¸ÀĪÀ CUÀvÀå«®è. F §UÉÎ MAzÀÄ n¥Ààt EqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.14
®UÀwÛ¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼ÄÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£É
1) ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ:
F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂÃPÀj¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ ªÀÄgÀt¥ÀƪÀð ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CzÀ£ÄÀ ß ªÀiÁrzÀªÀjUÉ CªÀgÀ ¨sÁµÉAiÀÄ°è N¢ ºÉüÀ¯ÁVzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ CªÀgÄÀ M¦àPÉÆArzÁݼÉ.
¸À»/-
vÁ®ÆPÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ zÀAqÁ¢üPÁj ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ.
n¥ÀàtÂ: UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ±À¸ÀÛç aQvÉìUÁV ¸ÁV¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ CªÀ±Àå«zÀÝgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß N¢ºÉý CªÀjUÉ «ªÀj¸ÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ «¼ÀA§ªÁUÀÄwÛzÀÝgÉ ºÁUÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ©qÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ.
2) ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂÃPÀj¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, ªÉÄð£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄÄ ªÉÊzÁå¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è £À¤ßAzÀ zÁR°¸À®ànÖzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÊzÁå¢üPÁjAiÀÄ ºÉýPÉUÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ.
¸À»/-
vÁ®ÆPÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀðºÀPÀ zÀAqÁ¢PÁj ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ.
3) ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ ªÉÄð£À ºÉýPÉ £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è (ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ/«¼Á¸À) Dr.Omprakash Kustagi EªÀjAzÀ vÀȵÁ (¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è) A.J Hospital & RC gÀAzÀÄ 08/02/2024 UÀAmÉUÉ zÁR°¸À®ànÖvÀÄ.
¸À»/-
ªÉÊzÁå¢PÁjAiÀÄ ¸À»
4) ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂÃPÀj¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrzÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæeÁÕªÀ¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°èzÀÝgÀÄ. CAzÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°ègÀ°®è. PÁgÀt CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉÕUÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ GvÀÛj¹zÀ£ÀÄ. D ¸ÀAeÉÕUÀ¼À ¥ÁæªÀÄÄRåvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß SÁwæ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ±ÀæzÁÝ¥ÀƪÀðPÀªÁV zÁR°¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR°¸ÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÄÀ n¥ÀàtÂ:
15
F ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¸ÀAeÉÕ UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV CxÀðªÁUÀĪÀAwzÁÝUÀ ®UÀwÛ¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR°¸ÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÄÀ "
The child succumbs to poison after the statement on 08-02-2024. The victim, even when breathing last, utters that the 1st petitioner has harassed her and, therefore, she has consumed poison. If the link in the chain of events and the dates are noticed, there exists complete proximity between the fateful incident and the events prior to that. It is after the death, permission is sought from the hands of the concerned Court to add the offence punishable under Section 305 of the IPC, which would be abetment to suicide of a person below the age of 18 years.
9. A perusal at the complaint or the statement of the victim just before her death shocks the conscience of the Court, as to what is the discipline that the petitioners wanted to inculcate, it is indeed a mystery. All these problems sprung, in the considered view of the Court, due to parochial and myopic mind set of the petitioners. The petitioners have projected that girl talking with another boy, is indiscipline and have harassed and threatened the 16 victim. The victim who is of an adolescent age was unable to bear as to what would be the consequence. Therefore being a girl child and the men i.e., the petitioners threatening the girl child dragged the victim to depression. If only the teachers had dealt with the child in a manner appropriate, precious life of the child would not have been lost. The contents of the complaint and the statement, if read, the acts of the petitioners are unpardonable. It cannot be said that there is no proximity, no goading as is necessary in law. All the ingredients of Section 107 are present in the case at hand for it to become an offence under Section 305 of the IPC, albeit, prima facie. Section 107 of the IPC reads as follows:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who--
First.--Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.17
Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
(Emphasis supplied) Section 107 deals abetment of a thing which becomes necessary for an offence under Section 306 or 305 of the IPC. Section 306 of the IPC deals with abetment of suicide and Section 305 deals with abetment of suicide of child below the age of 18 years. Section 305 is what is alleged and it reads as follows:
"305. Abetment of suicide of child or insane person.--If any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
As observed hereinabove, heavy reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in GEO VARGHESE. The facts obtaining in the case of GEO VARGHESE are completely different from the facts 18 obtaining in the case at hand. The student therein was highly indisciplined. Therefore, steps were taken to discipline the said child. The Apex Court holds disciplining a child or reprimanding a child by a teacher would not amount to abetment to suicide. The Act of indiscipline was also found in the facts of that case. In the case at hand, the pseudo indiscipline projected by these petitioners is that the victim was talking to another boy. It is highly ununderstandable as to what indiscipline that would be, if the girl talks with another boy. It can by no means be a taboo or indiscipline in any institution.
10. There is no other act of the victim projected in the case at hand. The mother pleads that the child may be left off, and not harassed and the talking or the so called news of indiscipline should not be spread to one and all, particularly to a fellow student called Ms. Harshitha. The 2nd petitioner goes a step ahead and threatened that he has a video of the child kissing a boy. This has petrified the child. It is unpardonable for the teachers to behave in the manner that they have behaved in the case at hand towards an adolescent girl. Threatening an adolescent girl that they would circulate some 19 video or harassing a girl that her marks is low because she is indulging in talking with a boy, are all acts which would impact the psyche of a girl, which has led to the most unfortunate event. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, all of which are appended to the petition, are inapplicable to the facts of the case, as there can be no qualm about the principles laid down in all those judgments. They are applicable to the facts obtaining in the cases before the Apex Court. The facts in the case at hand are unique and cannot be drawn parallel to what were the facts before the Apex Court.
11. In the case of commission of suicide, it becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in MAHENDRA K.C. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
".... .... ....
"18. In this backdrop, it is impossible on a judicious purview of the contents of the complaint and the suicide note for a judicial mind to arrive at a conclusion that a case for quashing the FIR had been established. In 1 (2022) 2 SCC 129 20 arriving at that conclusion, the Single Judge has transgressed the well-settled limitations on the exercise of the powers under Section 482 CrPC and has encroached into a territory which is reserved for a criminal trial.
19. The High Court has the power under Section 482 to issue such orders as are necessary to prevent the abuse of legal process or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. The law on the exercise of power under Section 482 to quash an FIR is well-
settled. In State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo [State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540: (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 272] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court, observed that: (SCC pp. 547-48, para 8) "8. ... While exercising the powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the report, the court may examine the question of fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."
21
Ergo, in the light of the admitted facts as narrated hereinabove, this Court at this stage would not lend its protective umbrella to the horrendous acts of the petitioners in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The petition does not deserve entertainment at this juncture, as it is a matter of investigation, and investigation must go on.
12. A parting observation, in the peculiar facts of this case, may not be inapt. The pedagogues cannot blissfully ignore taking note of human psychology, particularly of that of a child or an adolescent, during their pedagogy and try to enforce strict discipline in a wooden manner, or a lifeless manner. A need has arisen for all the pedagogues to ponder upon the manner in which they would want to enforce discipline. Enforcement of discipline has dual connotations, one positive and the other negative. The positive method of disciplining a child is only through motivation; the negative of it is in the manner that has become the subject matter of the impugned crime. Therefore, if there should be cordial relationship between the teacher and the taught, myopic or parochial mindset of the teachers must undergo a paradigm shift, 22 as lives of children, too precious they are, should not be so casually lost like this, for the unpardonable acts of pedagogues wanting to discipline the child. What appears to be the fear that led to the unfortunate incident is, the fear of segregation from the other gender, as the victim was sought to be chided not for any indiscipline or any act which was subversive of any laid down discipline, in the institution, the situation comes about for asking the victim to stop talking to a fellow male student. It is only because of the fear of gender segregation and continuous harassment by the teachers, an extreme step is taken by the victim. Studies have put forth that among boys the reason sometimes is punishment which leads to such suicidal ideation, but amongst the female students, mere verbal aggression or ostracism that they suffer or any idea of ensuing ostracism, can be the reason. Boys and girls are in the same classroom; if they talk to each other or become friends, it is ununderstandable as to how such acts could become subversive of discipline, as the entire projection by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that they only wanted to discipline the children, particularly, the victim. A child of 14 years is undoubtedly in the thick of adolescent 23 behaviour. Therefore, it is here that they are needed to be dealt with compassion and not in this manner. It must be remembered that times have changed, and change we must, according to the changing times. Hope this becomes an eye-opener towards such paradigm shift.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition stands rejected.
(ii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence investigation or any pending proceeding.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkp/CT:SS