Kavya @ Geeta W/O. Sannatammappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 9659 Kant

                            -1-




                                   CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         PRESENT
          THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
                           AND
           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100133 OF 2018 (C-)
                           C/W
            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100111 OF 2018


CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100133 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
      MANJAPPA S/O NAGENDRAPPA KAMMAR
      AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURE,
      R/O: MELLAGATTI,
      TQ: SAVANUR,
      DIST: HAVERI.

                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUNIL S DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY SAVANUR POLICE STATION,
      REPRESENTED BY
      STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
      HIGH COURT PREMISES,
      DHARWAD.

2.    GADIGEPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA HOSMANI
      AGE.34 YEARS,
                            -2-




                                 CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018



      OCC.COOLIE,
      R/O MELLAGATTI VILLAGE,
      TQ.SAVANUR, DIST.HAVERI.



                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP, ADVOCATE
NOTICE R2 SERVED)
      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE, THE JUDGMENT
OF THE CONVICTION 23.02.2018 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 06.03.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI IN SPECIAL
(SC/ST)C.NO.45/2015 THEREBY CONVICTING APPELLANT FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.109, 306 R/W 34 OF IPC
AND ALSO FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (P.A.) ACT; CONSEQUENTIALLY ACQUIT THE
APPELLANT HEREIN OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST
HIM.


CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100111 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
KAVYA @ GEETA W/O. SANNATAMMAPPA HOSMANI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MELLAGATTI,
TQ:SAVANUR,
DISTRICT:HAVERI.                    ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.ARAVIND KULKARNI, ADV. FOR
SRI SANTHOSH S GOGI)

AND

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SAVANUR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                                   -3-




                                         CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018



ADVOCATE GENERALS OFFICE,
HIGH COURT PREMISES,
DHARWAD.

2 . GADIGEPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA HOSMANI
AGE.34 YEARS,
OCC.COOLIE,
R/O MELLAGATTI VILLAGE,
TQ.SAVANUR,
DIST.HAVERI.                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.374(2) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CONVICTION 23.02.2018 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED
06.03.2018 PASSED BY THE PEINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI IN SPECIAL
(SC/ST) C. NO.45/2015 THEREBY CONVICTING APPELLANT FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 109, 306 R/W
34 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTIALLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT
HEREIN OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HER.


        THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                             JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed

against them, accused Nos.1 and 2 in Spl.(SC/ST)

C.No.45/2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions

Judge and Special Judge, Haveri, have preferred

Crl.A.Nos.100011/2018 and 100133/2018 respectively.

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

2. The appellants were prosecuted in Spl.(SC/ST)

C.No.45/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 109

and 306 read with Section 34 Indian Penal code (for short 'the

IPC') and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short

'the SC/ST (PA) Act') on the basis of the charge sheet filed by

Savanur police, in Crime No.177/2015 of their police station.

The said case was registered against the accused on the basis

of the complaint as per Ex.P1 filed by PW1 Gadigeppa

Hosamani. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be

referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial

Court.

     3.    Accused     No.1     Kavya     was      married       to

Sannatammappa      Hosamani    about    8-10    years   prior    to

11.09.2015 and the couple were blessed with two daughters

aged six years and two years and one son aged four years.

Accused No.1, Sannatammppa and their children were residing

separately from his parental family in Mellagatti village. PW1

complainant is the younger brother of Sannatammappa. Due

to some differences between the couple, along with her

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

children, accused No.1 had returned to her parental house at

Katenahalli. During the intervening night of 11/12.09.2015

Sannatammappa committed suicide by hanging himself in his

house in Mellagatti village. The deceased belongs to Schedule

tribe. Accused No.2 belongs to non scheduled caste/ scheduled

tribe.

4. On the basis of the complaint-Ex.P1, CW1 the Police

Sub Inspector of Savanur police station registered FIR against

accused Nos.1 and 2 and handed over the further investigation

to PW12. PW12 on conducting investigation filed the charge

sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2. The case of the

prosecution in brief is as follows:-

Accused No.2 developed illicit relationship with accused

No.1. Despite the advise of the victim, the relatives and the

elders of the village, accused Nos.1 and 2 did not stop their

illicit relationship. Due to that, the victim had suffered mental

trauma. Ultimately, accused No.1 along with her children went

to her parents house. On 07.09.2015 at 4.00 pm, when the

victim had been to the parental house of accused No.1 to get

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

back her and her children, she abused him saying that she will

not join him for leading marital life and their relationship is no

more surviving. Further she told the victim that accused No.2

takes care of her, he shall give divorce to her, go and die

somewhere. Due to such abetment, during the intervening

night of 11/12.19.2015, Sannatammappa committed suicide by

hanging himself in his house at Mellagatti. Thereby accused

Nos.1 and 2 committed offences under Sections 306, 109 r/w

Section 34 of IPC. Accused No.2 committed the offence

punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act.

5. The trial Court on taking cognizance of the offences

framed charges against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences

punishable under Sections 109, 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and

accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v)

of the SC/ST (PA) Act. Since the accused denied the charges

and claimed trial, trail was conducted. In support of the case of

the prosecution, PWs.1 and 13 were examined, Exs.P1 to 15

were marked. On their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

the accused neither filed defence statement nor adduced the

defence evidence.

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

6. The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the

impugned judgment and order convicted the appellants-

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 109 and

306 read with Section 34 of IPC and accused No.2 for the

offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA)

Act. Further the trial Court sentenced accused Nos.1 and 2 for

the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC to R.I.

for five years and fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default to pay

the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for six

months. For the offence punishable under Section 109 r/w 34

of IPC, the trial Court sentenced accused Nos.1 and 2 simple

imprisonment of six months.

For the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the

SC/ST (PA) Act, the trial Court sentenced accused No.2 to

simple imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default

to pay fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one

year.

The trial Court held that the fact of accused Nos.1 and 2

having illicit relationship, the abetment of accused to the

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

deceased to commit suicide was proved by the evidence of

prosecution witnesses. The trial Court further held that such

act of the accused amounts to abetment to commit suicide and

the act of accused No.2 amounts to atrocity under SC/ST PA

Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order accused have

preferred above appeals.

7. Submission of Sri Neelendra D.Gunde and Sri.

Aravind Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellants:

The impugned order of conviction and sentence is

contrary to the evidence on record and settled position of law.

Absolutely, there was no material to show that there was illicit

relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2. The evidence of

prosecution witnesses with regard to alleged illicit relationship

was hearsay evidence. The material and independent

witnesses examined to prove the illicit relationship and the

panchayats held in that regard did not support the prosecution

case. The trial Court relying on the hearsay evidence of the

interested witnesses proceeded to convict and sentence the

accused. Even if the prosecution material is appreciated, the

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

alleged abetment was by accused No.1 and not by accused

No.2. Absolutely, there was no evidence that accused No.2 was

called and advised. The petty quarrel or matrimonial discord

cannot called as abetment. The impugned judgment and order

are totally unsustainable in law.

In support of their submissions, they relied on the

following judgments:

i) Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab1

ii) M.Arjunan Vs. State of Rep. by Its Inspector of Police2

iii) Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.3

iv) K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka4

v) Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another5

8. The submission of Sri.V.M.Banakar, the

learned Additional State Public Prosecutor:-

(2017) 1 SCC 433

(2019) 3 SCC 315

(2002) 5 SCC 371

AIR 2016 SC 5430

AIR 2021 SC 4313

- 10 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

The family members of the deceased have consistently

spoken about the overtacts of accused Nos.1 and 2. That was

further supported by the evidence of elders who conciliated in

the matter. The fact of deceased committing the suicide is not

disputed. It is also not disputed that at the time of offence,

accused No.1 was in her parental house. There is sufficient

material to show that betrayal of accused No.1 and she

colluding with accused No.2 driving the victim to commit the

suicide. Therefore, the impugned order of conviction and

sentence do not call for any interference. The judgments relied

on by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable.

9. Having regard to the rival submissions and material

on record, the point that arises for consideration of the Court

are:

"i) Whether the trial Court was justified in holding

that the charge against the accused that they abetted the

victim to commit suicide was proved beyond reasonable

doubt?

- 11 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

ii) Whether the trial Court was justified in convicting

accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section

3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act?"

Analysis

10. The prime charge against the accused is the one

under Sections 109 and 306 of IPC. The substance of the said

charge is that accused Nos.1 and 2 since one year prior to

07.09.2015 were in illicit relationship despite the advise of the

deceased and the elders, on 07.09.2015 and 11.09.2015 in the

parental house of accused No.1, victim advised her to give up

such relationship and return to the matrimonial home, she

rebuked him saying that accused No.2 will look after her and he

shall give divorce to her, he should die. According to the

prosecution such statement of accused No.1 amounted to

abetment which led to her husband committing suicide.

Therefore, the prosecution has to establish such conduct and

statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 and that amount to

abetment to commit suicide. Then only third charge under

Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST PA Act sustains.

- 12 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

Reg: Charge under Sections 306 and 109 read with

Section 34 IPC

11. To invoke Section 306 of IPC, there must be an act

of abetment to commit suicide. Section 107 defines what is

abetment. The provisions relevant for the purpose of this case

in Section 107 of IPC read 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."

12. The above provisions go to show that to call an act

as abetment there must be an instigation to any person to

- 13 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

commit an act or there must be an intentional aid for any act or

omission to commit such act.

13. Whether extra marital relationship of a spouse

amounts to abetment or the employment of the words by the

accused to the effect "go and die" themselves amount to

abetment was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

judgment relied by the appellants. In para 21 of the judgment

in Gurcharan Singh's case referred to supra it was held as

follows:

"21. It is thus manifest that the offence

punishable is one of abetment of the commission of

suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live

link or nexus between the two, abetment being the

propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of

this provision are suicidal death and the abetment

thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and

involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the

commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance

or absence of any of this constituents would militate

- 14 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

against this indictment. Remoteness of the

culpable acts or omissions rooted in the

intention of the accused to actualize the suicide

would fall short as well of the offence of

abetment essential to attract the punitive

mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity,

continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable

acts or omission are the concomitant indices of

abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the

sustained incitement for suicide. "

(Emphasis supplied)

14. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment in

Randhir Sing Vs. State of Panjab6 while dealing with the

question as to whether the response of a hypersensitive to

ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life

amounts to abetment. It was held as follows:-

"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating

a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of

(2004) 13 SCC 129

- 15 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve

that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the

doing of that thing. More active role which can be

described as instigating or aiding the doing of a

thing is required before a person can be said to

be abetting the commission of offence under

Section 306 of IPC.

13. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal

Jaiswal7, this Court has observed that the courts

should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and

circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced

in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the

cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her

to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires

to the Court that a victim committing suicide was

hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord

and differences in domestic life quite common to

the society to which the victim belonged and

such petulance discord and differences were not

AIR (1994) SC 1418

- 16 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

expected to induce a similarly circumstanced

individual in a given', society to commit suicide,

the conscience of the Court should not be

satisfied for basing a finding that the accused

charged of abetting the offence of suicide should

be found guilty."

(Emphasis supplied)

15. In para 7 of the judgment in M.Arjunan's case

referred to supra it was held that insulting the deceased by

using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the

abetment of suicide. It was held that there should be evidence

capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to

instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

16. In Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar's case

referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to its

earlier judgments in paragraph Nos.8 to 12 of the judgment

held that the mere remarks during the quarrel to the deceased

"to go and die" were not even prima facie enough to instigate

- 17 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

the deceased to commit suicide. It was further held that the

dying declaration of the deceased to the effect that her

husband has illicit connection with his sister-in-law so she

wants to die by burning does not amount to abetment to

sustain charge under Section 306 of IPC.

17. In K.V. Prakash Babu's case referred to supra

while dealing with the question whether extra marital affair

invites conviction under Section 306 of IPC in para 19 of the

judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

"19. Having said that we intend to make it

clear that if the husband gets involved in an

extra-marital affair that may not in all

circumstances invite conviction under Section

306 of the IPC but definitely that can be a

ground for divorce or other reliefs in a

matrimonial dispute under other enactments.

And we so clarify."

(Emphasis supplied)

- 18 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

18. In Kanchan Sharma's case referred to supra the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 of the judgment held that to

proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306

of IPC, it requires an active or direct act intended to push the

deceased into such a position that he commits suicide

seeing no other option than to commit suicide. It was

further held that the suicidability pattern is different from other

and held each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-

respect and it is impossible to lay down any straight jacket

formula.

19. Referring to its earlier judgments the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of

West Bengal8 held that to hold an accused guilty of offence

under Section 306 of IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine

the facts and circumstances of the case, assess the evidence to

find out whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had left

the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her

life. It was held that in such cases there must be proof of

direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of

(2020) 1 SCC 707

- 19 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

suicide and such act must be positive and proximate to

the time of the suicide. It was held that the accused must

have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing

certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.

20. In the light of the above principles, this Court has to

examine whether the alleged acts of the accused amount to the

offences punishable under Sections 109 and 306 of IPC and

whether they had committed such acts. Firstly, the prosecution

has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 and

2 had extra marital relationship and that drove the deceased

to commit suicide.

21. Admittedly accused No.1 and the victim had

married about 8 to 10 years prior to the victim committing

suicide and they had three children out of the said marriage.

As per the prosecution itself, the alleged illicit relationship

between accused Nos.1 and 2 started one year prior to

commission of suicide. According to the prosecution, the denial

of accused No.1 on 07.09.2015 and 11.09.2015 to join

matrimonial fold of the deceased drove him to commit suicide.

- 20 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

22. First of all, as per the ratio of the judgments

discussed above, extra marital relationship of a spouse can be

a ground for divorce or other reliefs in a matrimonial

dispute under other enactments and not an abetment to

commit suicide. Needles to say that accused Nos.1 and 2

seriously disputed the story of the alleged extra marital

relationship between them. Furhter, if after having three

children accused No.1 indulged in the alleged extra marital

relationship, that damages her self-esteem and reputation

more than that of the deceased. Moreover, nothing was

brought out either in the complaint or in the evidence that the

alleged act of accused Nos.1 and 2 had brought down the self-

esteem or reputation of the deceased so as to drive him to

commit the suicide.

23. So far as the proximity between the alleged act of

abetment and the death, as per the complaint and the

prosecution evidence, the alleged extra marital relationship was

since one year prior to the suicide. As per the complaint, last

visit of the deceased to the parental house of accused No.1 was

on 07.09.2015 and during such visit, accused No.1 abused the

- 21 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

victim saying that she will not join him, he should give divorce

and go somewhere and die. Thereafter, he committed suicide

during the intervening night of 11/12.9.2015.

24. So far as the incident of 11.09.2015 in the

compliant, first it is written that the complainant, his the

parents and elders of the village went to Katenahalli to bring

back accused No.1. Later in the complaint, the words "my

elder brother" that means victim are interpolated to project

that he too had gone with them. But in the compliant there

were no allegations that on 11.09.2015, accused No.1 said

anything. It is only said that her parents told the complainant

and others that they will not send their daughter to the

matrimonial home. Absolutely, there are no allegations in the

complaint imputing any abetment on 11.09.2015 to accused

No.1. Therefore, the alleged incitement or instigation dated

07.09.2015 are the extra marital relationship since one year

were not proximate to the date of the commission of the

suicide.

- 22 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

25. So far as accused No.2 neither in the compliant nor

in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there are any

allegations or whisper that accused No.2 at any time abused or

insulted the deceased in the back ground of his alleged

relationship with accused No.1. Further to prove the alleged

illicit relationship which is motive as well as an act of abetment,

the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1-the complainant

PW2-the inquest mahazar witness/the alleged elder of the

village who participated in the panchayat, PW3 the father of the

deceased, PW4-the mother of the deceased, PWs.7 and 11-

the other elders who allegedly participated in the panchayat.

26. PW1 in his chief examination itself states that he

learnt about the illicit relationship of accused Nos.1 and 2

through others. Therefore, his evidence was hearsay one. In

his chief examination, he did not speak anything about the

incident dated 07.09.2015 and 11.09.2015. Only on treating

him hostile, the public prosecutor elicited the same by way of

cross examination. In the cross examination by the defence

counsel PW1 admits that his brother Sannatammappa was

living separately with his children in the old house. He further

- 23 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

admits that after accused No.1 going to her parental house,

deceased lived with her in her parental house for 15 days.

27. The evidence of PW2 shows that he had no personal

knowledge of the alleged illicit relationship between the

accused. He says that because that was known to all the

villagers, he knows that and accused No.1 had revealed that

before him. Accused No.1 deny any such relation or revelation.

PW2 did not reveal the particulars when and before whom she

revealed that before him.

28. PW3 in his chief-examination itself states that

himself and deceased came to know about the illicit relationship

of the accused only when they heard that from their villagers

and the residents of his lane. Therefore, his evidence is also

hearsay one. In his cross examination by the counsel for

accused No.2, he admitted that Sannatammappa was

consuming alcohol which was suppressed by the other

witnesses. PW4 also in her chief-examination states that she

was not aware of the illicit relationship initially and later she

- 24 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

came to know about the same. She also admits that her son

was consuming alcohol.

29. PW.6 is the mother of accused No.1. She did not

support the case of the prosecution regarding alleged illicit

relationship or abetment of the accused to commit suicide.

PW7 who allegedly participated in the Panchayat and witness to

the abetment did not support the prosecution case.

30. PW11 in his chief-examination itself states that he

came to know about the illicit relationship of the accused as all

villagers knew that through deceased Sannatammappa.

Therefore, his evidence with regard to the illicit relationship is

hearsay. He admits in his cross examination that he is an

activist in the village. His evidence further shows that he

belongs to the scheduled caste, his wife filed a complaint

against the family members of one Giddabasanagoudar alleging

the offences under the SC/ST (PA) Act. He admits that

deceased Sannatammappa was doing painting work in Haveri.

31. In the evidence of all the above said witnesses, it is

suggested that deceased Sannatammappa was living in a old

- 25 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

house with his family and his parents and brother had not

acceded to his request to give due share in the family

properties and more particularly in the house, therefore,

deceased was forced to live in the house of his parents in law in

Katenahalli. Though the witnesses denied the theory of

demand of share, they admitted that the deceased and his

family were living in the old house and later, accused No.1 and

her children were living in her parental house. As already

noted, PW1 admitted the deceased living with his wife and

children in the house of his parents-in-law for sometime.

32. The evidence on record shows that couple were

married 8 to 10 years prior to the death of Sannatammappa,

had three children out of such marriage, he was in the habit of

consuming alcohol and lived for sometime with his wife and

children in his parents-in-law's house. The evidence on record

further shows that prior to the present complaint,

Sannatammappa had not initiated any proceedings against the

accused under the marital laws or under the criminal laws.

PWs.1, 3 and 4 being the brother and parents of the deceased

and PW2 and PW11 being the villagers of the deceased were

- 26 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

interested witnesses. Having regard to the said fact, the

circumstances and the quality of their evidence as discussed

above, their evidence was not sufficient to hold that there was

illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 and at any rate

that amounted to abetment to Sannatammappa to commit

suicide or they abetted him to commit suicide.

Reg: offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act

33. So far as the offences under the SC/ST (PA) Act,

first of all the alleged illicit relationship of accused Nos.1 and 2

was not proved. Secondly, neither in the complaint it was

alleged that accused No.2 developed the illicit relationship with

accused No.1 to commit caste based atrocity against her or her

husband nor the same was proved during the evidence.

Therefore, the said charge is also not sustainable.

Conclusion

34. The aforesaid discussion shows that trial Court

without appreciating the fact that the witnesses who spoke

about the illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 were

all interested witnesses, even their evidence was not cogent

- 27 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

and consistent to prove the charges and the ratio laid down by

the Honb'le Supreme Court regarding the abetment to commit

suicide in the context of the case on hand, by the impugned

judgment and order proceeded to convict and sentence the

accused. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

35. Hence the following:-

ORDER

The appeals are allowed.

The impugned judgment and order of conviction and

sentence against accused Nos.1 and 2/appellants for the

offences punishable under Sections 109 and 306 read with

Section 34 IPC and the order of conviction and sentence

against appellant/accused No.2 for the offence under Sections

3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are hereby set aside.

Appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the

charges for the offences punishable under Sections 109 and

306 read with Section 34 IPC and appellant/accused No.2 is

acquitted of the charge for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of

- 28 -

CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018

the Act. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused Nos.1 and 2

and their sureties shall stand discharged.

The order with regard to the disposal of the properties is

maintained.

The fine amount deposited, if any, by the accused shall

be refunded to them.

Acting under Section 357A Cr.P.C., the matter is referred

to the District Legal Services Authority, Haveri, for

determination of amount of compensation payable to PW4-the

mother of the deceased and the children of the deceased.

(Sd/-) JUDGE

(Sd/-) JUDGE

Vmb