Karnataka High Court
Jagadevamma vs State By Jayapura Police on 24 March, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1229 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
JAGADEVAMMA,
W/O LATE SHANKARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF MADALLI VILLAGE,
JAYAPURA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT
[BY SRI.SRINIVASA D.C, ADVOCATE]
AND:
STATE BY JAYAPURA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI.R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP]
----
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE DT.8.11.2011 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. S.J. MYSORE
IN S.C.NO.123/2011-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 OF IPC.
THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I.
FOR THREE YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.3,000/- IN DEFAULT OF
PAYMENT OF FINE SHE SHALL UNDER S.I. FOR FURTHER PERIOD
OF SIX MONTHS-FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 OF IPC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by accused No.1 against
the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2011 passed in
SC No.123/2011 by the Court of IV Additional Sessions
Judge, Mysore, wherein the learned Sessions Judge has
convicted her for offence punishable under Section 306
of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-
and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of six months.
2. Heard both side and perused the material on
record.
3. Charges were framed against accused Nos.1
and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read
with 34 of IPC. The Trial Court, on appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence on record was pleased to
acquit accused No.2 and convict accused No.1 for the
charged offence.
4. The case of the prosecution is that accused
No.1 is the wife of the deceased namely Shankaraiah.
She was having an illicit relationship with accused No.2.
In spite of deceased advising her, she continued the said
relationship and in this regard there used to be quarrel
between them. On 22.03.2010 at about 10.00 p.m. a
quarrel took place between the deceased and accused
No.1 and in view of the conduct and abetment of the
accused persons, deceased committed suicide on
23.03.2010 at about 6.00 a.m. by hanging himself to the
tree situated in his land.
5. In order to establish the guilt of the accused,
the prosecution has got examined PWs.1 to 10 and got
marked documents Exs.1 to 8 and MOs.1 to 5.
6. PW.1 is the first informant. He is the son of
the deceased as well as accused No.1. The complaint is
marked as Ex.P1.
7. PW.2 is the brother of the deceased. He
speaks about the illicit relationship between accused
No.1 and accused No.2.
8. PW3 is one of the villager. However, he has
turned hostile.
9. PW4 is the panch witness to the inquest
mahazar-Ex.P4.
10. PWs.5 to 7 are independent witnesses who
speak about the illicit relationship between accused
Nos.1 and 2.
11. PW.8 is the panch witness to spot mahazar-
Ex.P2 under which Mos.1 to 5 are seized.
12. PW.9 is the ASI, who received the complaint
from PW1 and registered the case and conducted part of
the investigation.
13. PW.10 is the PSI, who has completed the
investigation and filed charge sheet.
14. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion
that in so far as accused No.2 is concerned, all the
witnesses have stated about him having illicit
relationship with accused No.1. But, they have not stated
about the deceased talking to him or advising him to
discontinue the same. Thus, there is no active
participation by the said accused. Further, the evidence
on record does not disclose the active involvement of
accused No.2 in commission of suicide by Shankaraiah
and even there is no indirect involvement by him. It is
further observed that his interest at best was to continue
his relationship with accused No.1 and not for eliminating
the deceased. Thus, there is no instigation or goading
on the part of accused No.2 in the commission of suicide
by Shankaraiah. The Trial Court has opined that Section
306 IPC is not attracted in so far as accused No.2 is
concerned.
15. To come to the conclusion that accused No.1
is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 of
IPC, the Trial Court has opined that the witnesses are
residing near the house of Shankaraiah and all these
witnesses have consistently stated about the illicit
relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 and deceased
advising accused No.1 not to continue the same and in
spite of that accused No.1 did not agree. Further,
relying on the evidence of PW1, with regard to the
quarrel which took place between accused No.1 and the
deceased wherein, the deceased told accused No.1 that if
she continues her relationship with accused No.2, he will
commit suicide, for that accused No.1 replied that he can
do whatever he want and he can even die. Immediately
thereafter, Shankaraiah left the house and on the next
morning he was noticed hanging himself. Thus, there is
proximity in the commission of suicide and the quarrel
which took place between the deceased and accused
No.1. It is further observed that naturally, the illicit
relationship of the accused persons would have lowered
the image of the deceased in the Society. Therefore, the
conduct of accused No.1 definitely comes within the
purview of instigation or goading of Shankaraiah to
commit suicide.
16. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that
Shankaraiah committed suicide at about 6.00 a.m. on
23.03.2010. The complaint is lodged by his son
Kendaganna. He is examined as PW1. Complaint is
marked as Ex.P1.
17. A perusal of the complaint averments would
reveal that the complainant was residing along with his
parents and his two siblings i.e., his younger brother and
younger sister. There was an illicit relationship between
his mother / accused No.1 and accused No.2 since
5-6 years. This fact was known to his father and he was
repeatedly telling accused No.1 not to continue the said
relationship. In this regard, there used to be quarrel in
the house. On 22.03.2010 at about 10.00 p.m. his
parents started quarrelling and when the deceased told
accused No.1 that because of her conduct his image in
the Society is being lowered and therefore, he will
commit suicide, accused No.1 told him that if he commits
suicide, she will live with accused No.2 and therefore, he
can die. The deceased was found hanging on the next
morning at about 6.00 a.m.
18. Apart from PW1, the prosecution has relied on
the evidence of PWs.2, 5 to 7. They have deposed with
regard to the illicit relationship between accused Nos.1
and 2.
19. The learned counsel for the appellant has
pointed out that PWs.6 and 7 have admitted in their
cross-examination that their statements are not recorded
by the police. Therefore, for the first time they have
deposed before the Court that there was illicit
relationship between accused No.1 and accused No.2.
However, even discarding the evidence of PWs.6 and 7,
perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 namely the
brothers of the deceased, the prosecution has been able
to establish that there was an illicit relationship between
accused No.1 and accused No.2 and in this connection,
the deceased was advising accused No.1. There is
nothing elicited in the cross-examination of the said
witnesses to disbelieve the same. The question is as to
whether accused No.1 has intentionally aided or abetted
her husband to commit suicide.
20. It is contended by the learned counsel for
appellant that the first informant's sister by name Prema
married a boy from Lakshmipura and it was a love
marriage and accused No.1 was visiting the house of her
daughter, which was not liked by the deceased as well as
the first informant. He would point out from the
cross-examination of PW1 to contend that, earlier there
was an incident where PW1 had assaulted accused No.1
and in this connection she had lodged a complaint
against him. He contends that PW1 has not disputed the
same. He, therefore, contends that relationship between
them was not cordial and therefore, a story was created
saying that on the 22.03.2010 at 10.00 p.m. there was a
quarrel between accused No.1 and the deceased etc., It
is also his contention that admittedly both the children of
the deceased were present in the house and
non-examination of the said witnesses throws doubt in
the prosecution case.
21. Learned HCGP contends that PW1 is none
other than the son of the deceased and accused No.1.
He has categorically stated about the quarrel took place
on the previous night and the illicit relationship between
accused No.1 and accused No.2. Therefore, he contends
that by virtue of the conduct of accused No.1 and due to
her instigation and abetment, Shankaraiah committed
suicide. He, therefore, contends that the trial Court has
rightly convicted the appellant/accused for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
22. PW5 has stated that the illicit relationship
between accused Nos.1 and 2 was there since three
years. PW7 has stated that for about 7-8 years, accused
Nos.1 and 2 were having the said relationship.
Accepting Ex.P1 itself, wherein PW1 has stated that the
illicit relationship was there between accused Nos.1 and
2 for about 5-6 years and this was known to the
deceased and there used to be quarrel between the
deceased and accused No.1.
23. In this background, it is necessary to see as
to what was the reason for the deceased to commit
suicide on the morning of 23.03.2010. According to
prosecution, a quarrel took place between the deceased
and accused No.1 on 22.03.2010 at about 10.00 p.m. in
connection with the illicit relationship between the
accused persons. When the deceased told accused No.1
that he will commit suicide, accused No.1 replied that if
he commits suicide she will live with accused No.2 and
he can do whatever he want and he can even die. The
learned Sessions Judge was of the view that this is an
instigation or goading the deceased to commit suicide.
24. It is relevant to see that in Ex.P1, PW1 has
stated that he was living along with his parents and two
other siblings. He has admitted in the cross-examination
that when the incident took place, his sister was also
present. The prosecution has not examined either his
brother or sister. Therefore, the only witness who speak
about the incident of quarrel which took place on the
night of 22.03.2010 is PW1. In his evidence, PW1 has
deposed that a quarrel took place between his father and
his mother i.e., accused No.1. His father told accused
No.1 not to continue illicit relationship with accused No.1
and not to call him to the house. His mother replied
saying that he will not leave accused No.2. His father
replied that if she continues the same, he will do
something. His mother replied he can do whatever he
wants. On the same night, the father left the house and
on the next day morning at 6.00 a.m. was found hanging
to a tree. In his evidence, PW1 has not stated that his
father told his mother that he will commit suicide and his
mother replied to him that he can go and die.
On the other hand, it is stated that his father told his
mother he will do something; for that his mother replied
that he can do whatever he want.
25. In order to bring the case within the purview
of Section 306 of IPC, a person who is said to have
abetted the commission of suicide must have played an
active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act
to facilitate the commission of suicide. The act of
abetment by a person charged with the said offence
must be proved like any other offence, beyond
reasonable doubt.
26. In the case on hand, the prosecution has
established that there was illicit relationship between
accused No.1 and accused No.2 and in this regard there
used to be quarrel between the deceased and his wife
i.e., accused No.1. However, the material on record
goes to show that the said illicit relationship was existing
for more than 5-6 years. Therefore, the incident which
occurred on the night of 22.03.2010 assumes
importance. The only witness who speak about the
incident is PW1. He has not corroborated the contents
of Ex.P1, with regard to the actual words used by
accused No.1 and the deceased when the quarrel took
place. Even otherwise, the prosecution has not examined
two material witnesses i.e., brother and sister of PW1,
who according to PW1 were staying in the house. PW1
has specifically stated that his sister was very much
present when the incident took place. Non-examination
of the above witnesses creates doubt in the mind of the
Court about the incident which took place on the
previous night and the reason for the deceased to
commit suicide. The evidence of PW1 is not corroborated
with the evidence of other witnesses with regard to the
incident of quarrel which took place at 10.00 p.m. on
22.03.2010. Even otherwise, in a case under Section
306 of IPC establishment and attribution of mens rea on
the part of the accused is of great importance. Mere
illicit relationship between accused No.1 and accused
No.2 itself is not a ground to hold that there was
abetment by accused No.1. In the case on hand, the
prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of
Section 107 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The
impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, therefore
requires interference. In the result, the appeal succeeds
and accordingly the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The Judgment and Order dated
08.11.2011 passed in SC No.123/2011 by
the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge,
Mysore, is set aside.
iii. Accused No.1-Smt.Jagadevamma is
acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC. Her Bail bonds shall stand
cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TL
