Karnataka High Court

Sri Muniraju vs State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2023

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                           -1-
                                                       NC: 2023:KHC:45014
                                                 CRL.A No. 1518 of 2018




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                        BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1518 OF 2018
               BETWEEN:

               1.    SRI MUNIRAJU
                     S/O KRISHNAPPA
                     R/AT OBALAHALLI VILLAGE
                     NANDAGUDI HOBLI
                     HOSKOTE TALUK-562114
                     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
                                                             ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI. KARTHIK SHANKARAPA, ADVOCATE FOR
                     SRI. SHANKARAPPA S., ADVOCATE)
               AND:

               1.    STATE OF KARNAATAKA
                     REP BY NANDAGUDI POLICE STATION
                     HOSKOTE TALUK
Digitally            BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
signed by            BY ITS GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SUMITHRA             HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX
R                    BANGALORE-01.
Location:                                                  ...RESPONDENT
High Court     (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP)
of Karnataka
                    THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
               SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.08.2018
               PASSED BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
               JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN
               S.C.NO.161/2015 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
               FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 OF IPC.

                    THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
               THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2023:KHC:45014
                                     CRL.A No. 1518 of 2018




                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and

Order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the Court of VIII

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural

District, Bengaluru, in SC No.161/2015, wherein the

appellant/accused is convicted for the offence under

Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for 08 years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-,

in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the appellant, the learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent-State and perused the entire evidence and

material on record.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that the first

informant-PW4 is a resident of Obalahalli in Hoskote Taluk.

The deceased Sushma is her daughter. She studied upto

S.S.L.C. About 1½ year prior to the date of incident, the

deceased had assaulted the accused with chappal since he

NC: 2023:KHC:45014

had teased her. The said incident was informed to the

head of the villagers. A panchayat was held and the

accused was warned not to trouble the deceased.

Thereafter, the first informant sent her daughter to her

sister's house in Hosapete Village, Shidlaghatta Taluk.

The deceased was working in a garment factory in

Pillugumpe. Since she had hit the accused with a chappal

and insulted him, accused with an ulterior motive

pretended to love her. Coming to know that the deceased

was working in a garment factory, accused started to visit

the said place and quarrel with the deceased. The

deceased was brought back to her village and she was

going to work in the factory from her village. The accused

was threatening the deceased and pressurizing her to love

him or else he would throw acid on her so that no other

person could marry her and then he will also commit

suicide. He forced the deceased to love him and thereafter

refused to marry her. Hence, on 05.01.2015 at about 6.00

p.m. the deceased poured kerosene and set fire to herself.

She succumbed to the burn injuries on 08.01.2015 at

NC: 2023:KHC:45014

about 7.15 p.m., while undergoing treatment at Victoria

Hospital.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that the

accused pressurized the deceased to love him and gave

threat of pouring acid on her face, if she did not love him

and later refused to marry and abetted and instigated her

to commit suicide and therefore, the deceased committed

suicide by pouring kerosene and setting fire to herself.

5. The prosecution in all got examined

11 witnesses and got marked 06 documents and

MOs.1 to 3. The defence of the accused was one of total

denial. The learned Sessions Judge, appreciating the oral

and documentary evidence on record came to the

conclusion that the prosecution is successful in

establishing the complete chain of circumstances which

goes against the accused to prove his guilt beyond

reasonable doubt and further held that the accused by his

acts instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

NC: 2023:KHC:45014

6. PWs.1 and 2 are the signatories to the spot

mahazar i.e., Ex.P1 under which MOs.1 to 3 were seized.

Further, PW2 has deposed that on 05.01.2015 at about

6.00 p.m. when he went to the house of Gangappa, he

found the deceased with burn injuries and crying for help.

She was then shifted to Victoria hospital in an ambulance

and on 08.01.2015 she died of burn injuries. He has

stated that the accused was loving the deceased and he

had promised to marry but he did not marry her. Further,

the deceased had assaulted the accused with a chappal

about a year prior to the date of the incident and

therefore, he is responsible for her death.

7. PW3 speak about the love affair between the

accused and the deceased and the incident which took

place on 05.01.2015 at about 5.30 p.m.

8. PW4 is the first informant and she is the mother

of the victim.

9. PWs.5 and 6 are the brothers of the deceased.

NC: 2023:KHC:45014

10. PW7 is a witness to the inquest mahazar-Ex.P3.

He has stated that about a year prior to the date of the

incident, a panchayat was held in the village and the

accused undertook in the panchayat that he will not give

trouble to the deceased.

11. PW8 is the father of the deceased and PW9 is

the aunt of the deceased.

12. PW11 is the PSI who registered the case and

laid the charge sheet.

13. PW10 is the doctor who conducted the post

mortem examination. Post mortem report is marked as

Ex.P4.

14. Cause of death is not seriously disputed. PW10

has conducted the post mortem examination over the

dead body and issued the post mortem report which is

marked as Ex.P4. As per the said report, the death is due

to Septicemia as a result of burn injuries sustained.

PW10 has deposed that he conducted the post mortem

NC: 2023:KHC:45014

examination on 09.01.2015 between 2.15 p.m. and

3.00 p.m. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the

deceased died of burn injuries.

15. It is contended by the learned counsel for the

appellant that according to the prosecution witnesses

there was a love affair between the appellant and the

deceased but it is not established that the accused has

abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He contends

that the ingredients of abetment are not made out and

even according to the close relatives of the deceased, the

accused and the deceased wanted to leave the house but

due to some financial problem, accused was not ready to

go with the deceased. He has contended that there is no

material to show that the accused has either provoked or

encouraged or instigated the deceased to commit suicide

and that he created such circumstances that the deceased

was left with no other option except to commit suicide.

He contends that the trial Court has not properly

NC: 2023:KHC:45014

appreciated the above aspect and erroneously convicted

the accused.

16. The learned High Court Government Pleader

has contended that there is sufficient evidence placed on

record to show that prior to the incident, the accused was

troubling the deceased and forcing her to marry him, as

the deceased had assaulted him with chappal. She

contends that the accused has induced the deceased to

love him and later refused to marry her thereby

intentionally aided her to commit suicide. She contends

that the ingredients of the abetment are made out and

therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused

for the charged offence. She therefore sought for

dismissal of the appeal.

17. From the complaint-Ex.P1 lodged by the

victim's mother-PW4, it can be gathered that the incident

of deceased assaulting the accused with a chappal was

1½ year prior to the incident in question. Thereafter, a

panchayat was held wherein the accused was warned not

NC: 2023:KHC:45014

to trouble the deceased. Further, the complainant sent

her daughter to the house of her sister-PW9 from where

she was going to work in a garment factory. It is stated

that even thereafter the accused used to visit the said

place and forcing the deceased to love him and therefore,

again the accused was warned by the family members of

the deceased. According to the prosecution, since the

accused told the deceased that he will pour acid and he

will also commit suicide, she started to love him but later,

he refused to marry her and thus abetted her to commit

sucide.

18. PW4, in her evidence has stated that the

accused was forcing and pressurizing her daughter to love

him and he was following her due to previous enmity.

PW5, brother of the deceased has also deposed that the

accused was pressurizing the deceased to marry her and

later he refused to marry since the deceased had

assaulted him with chappal. However, according to

PW6-another brother of the deceased, the deceased had a

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:45014

love affair with the accused and they had agreed to give

his sister in marriage to the accused. He has stated that

they were ready for celebrating the marriage of the

accused with his sister but the accused was not ready for

the marriage and therefore, the accused is responsible for

his sister's death.

19. The love affair between the deceased and the

accused is also spoken by PW7. A perusal of his

cross-examination shows that the police had called both

the accused as well as the deceased to the police station,

warned them and later a panchayat was also held in the

village wherein, the accused told that he will not marry the

deceased. He admitted in his cross-examination that

there used to be quarrel between the two families because

of the deceased.

20. PW8 is the father of the deceased. He has

deposed that his daughter had a love affair with the

accused. He has stated that about 4-5 days prior to the

incident, his daughter told him that she and accused will

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:45014

leave the house but the accused was not ready due to

some financial problem. Similar is the evidence of

PW9-aunt of the deceased in whose house the deceased

was residing for about 8-9 months.

21. A perusal of the above evidence clearly shows

that there was a love affair between the accused and the

deceased and in this connection the police had warned

both of them and panchayat was also held. The accused

and the deceased wanted to leave the house, but due to

financial problem, the accused was not ready to leave the

house.

22. The incident has taken place on 05.01.2015 at

about 6.00 p.m. There was no complaint lodged

immediately by any of the family members of the

deceased. As per Ex.P1, the victim was shifted to Victoria

Hospital and she died in the said hospital while undergoing

treatment on 08.01.2015 at around 8.00 p.m. The

prosecution has not placed any medical documents

pertaining to the condition of the victim when she was

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:45014

admitted to the hospital. No MLC was sent from the

hospital to the jurisdictional police about the admission of

the patient. It is not forthcoming as to what was the

history furnished to the hospital authority when the victim

was admitted to the hospital. The prosecution has not

placed any material to show as to whether the deceased

was in a position to speak or give her statement when she

was admitted to the hospital or till her death on

08.01.2015.

23. The learned counsel for the appellant has

contended that as per Exs.P1 and P2, the door of the

house where the victim committed suicide was locked from

outside and it is stated by PW4 in her complaint that they

opened the latch and then entered the house. He

contends that as per Ex.P2 the door was intact showing

that it was not broke open and therefore, he contends that

the prosecution has not projected its case in a true

manner and a doubt arises as to actual cause of death. It

is his contention that since the prosecution witnesses have

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:45014

admitted in their evidence that there was a love affair

between the accused and the deceased and both of them

wanted to leave the house, some foul play has been

played, but the deceased has not committed suicide on

account of any act of the accused.

24. The case of the prosecution is that on account

of the instigation and abetment by the accused, the

deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and

setting herself ablaze. A perusal of the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses shows that the incident of deceased

assaulting the accused with a chappal was 1½ year prior.

A panchayat was also held and in the panchayat the

accused was warned not to trouble the deceased.

However, the witnesses have stated that there was a love

affair between the deceased and accused and both of them

wanted to leave the house but due to some financial

problem the accused refused to take her.

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC:45014

25. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on

a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Punjab

(Crl.A.No.40/2011) decided on 01.10.2020 wherein it

is held that in all crimes, mens rea has to be established.

To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under

Section 107 of IPC, the state of mind to commit a

particular crime must be visible, to determine the

culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be

something on record to establish or show that the

appellant had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that

state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.

26. In the present case though it is alleged by the

prosecution that due to previous enmity, the accused

forced the deceased to love him and later refused to

marry, as already discussed supra, the incident of

deceased hitting the accused with a chappal is 1½ year

prior to the date of committing suicide. It cannot be said

that due to the said enmity, accused intentionally

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC:45014

pressurized the deceased to love him and later refused to

marry and thereby abetted her to commit suicide. It can

be clearly gathered from the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses that there was a love affair between the

deceased and the accused. There is no material except

the oral testimony to show that the accused had refused

to marry the deceased or that he had a guilty mind and he

intentionally aided or abetted the deceased to commit

suicide.

27 . In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618, it is held that to attract

the ingredients of abetment, there must be a reasonable

certainty to incite the consequence and the accused by his

acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct

created such circumstances that the deceased was left

with no other option except to commit suicide.

28. The case on hand is not the one wherein it can

be held that the ingredients of 'abetment' are fulfilled.

The trial Court was therefore not justified in convicting the

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC:45014

accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of

IPC. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of

conviction and sentence passed against the

appellant/accused is liable to be set aside. Accordingly,

the following:

ORDER

i. appeal is allowed.

ii. The Judgment and Order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in S.C.No.161/2015 is set aside.