Karnataka High Court
Periyana A. Chondamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
CRL.A No.36 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.36 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
PERIYANA A. CHONDAMMA
W/O LATE APPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YERS
KATAKERI VILLAGE
MADIKERI TALUK.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA (BY SRI. S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADV.,)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE C.P.I. MADIKERI CIRCLE
MADIKERI, KODAGU.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 03.12.2012 AND THE ORDER ON
QUANTUM OF SENTENCE DATED 07.12.2012 PASSED BY THE
P.O., F.T.C., KODAGU, MADIKERI IN S.C.NO.43/2006 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498A AND 306 OF IPC & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
CRL.A No.36 of 2013
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the accused being aggrieved
by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
Fast Track Court, Kodagu, Madikeri, in SC.No.43/2006
dated 03.12.2012, whereby convicted the appellant for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
The accused is none other than the mother-in-law of
deceased Chandravathi. PW-1 is the son of accused and
husband of deceased Chandravathi. At the time of
incident, accused, deceased and PW-1 were residing at
Katakeri village of Madikeri Taluk. Prior to 26.02.2006 the
accused being the mother-in-law of deceased
Chandravathi abused her alleging that she has illicit
relationship with some persons in Katakeri Village, thereby
the accused harassed Chandravathi both physically and
mentally. On 26.02.2006 accused picked up quarrel with
Chandravathi at 11.00a.m. and told CW-9 about false
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
allegations in connection with Chandravathi, therefore,
Chandravathi informed the same to her husband PW-1 in
the evening at 07.00p.m., as PW-1 did not take any action
or reply to her statement, on the same day at 09.00p.m.,
she committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her
person and lit fire. PW-1 extinguished fire and immediately
shifted injured Chandravathi to Madikeri Hospital for
treatment and later to Mangaluru Hospital, where she died
on 01.03.2006 on account of burn injuries. This led the
registration of FIR and investigation. The Investigating
Officer visited the scene of occurrence, recorded the
statement of witnesses and filed the charge sheet. Soon
after the receipt of charge sheet, the committal Court
committed the case to the Sessions Court. The trial Court
framed the charge against the accused. The prosecution,
examined in all 18 witnesses as PWs-1 to 18 and
documents marked at Exs.P-1 to P-16, but no material
objects were marked.
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
3. The trial Court, considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306
of IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,500/-, in default of payment of fine, she has to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months for
the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Further,
the trial Court sentenced the accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 306 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and
to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Being aggrieved
by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
trial Court, the accused has preferred this appeal.
4. Sri.S.G.Bhagavan, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant-accused has vehemently contended that
the conviction and sentence are against law & facts and
probabilities of the case. The trial Court erred in
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
formulating the points for consideration and the manner in
which it has done and convicted the appellant for the
offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC in
the absence of any iota of evidence in regard to the
ingredients of those offences. The trial Court failed to
notice that there is no evidence of any witnesses in regard
that the deceased Chandravathi was having contact with
other persons and no investigation was conducted in that
line. It is contended that none of the prosecution
witnesses have attributed the role of the accused to
attract Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. PW-1, the husband
of CW-1/Chandravathi, turned hostile to the case of
prosecution. PW-2/K.R.Ammaiah, the mother of the
deceased, PW-4/Desakodi Mani, co-brother of the PW-1,
PW-5/Indravathi, the sister of the deceased, PW-
9/T.R.Chandrashekar, the brother of the deceased, though
stated in the chief examination supporting the case of the
prosecution, but they have admitted all the suggestions
made by the counsel for the accused and given a clear go
by to the prosecution case and thus, there is no clear,
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
consistent and convincing evidence to attract the
ingredients of Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.
5. It is further contended by the learned counsel
for the appellant-accused that the neighbouring witnesses
viz., PW-7/B.B.Neelamma, PW-13/Nanaiah and PW-
14/Poovaiah have turned hostile to the case of
prosecution, hence their evidence cannot come to the aid
of the prosecution. It is contended that the trial Court
ought to have taken the entire evidence on record and
appreciated the case. But, the trial Court considering only
the examination-in-chief of the close relatives of the
deceased viz., PWs-2, 4, 5 and 9, on the ground that it
was tendered about one year prior to their cross-
examination and the trial Court proceeded on that line to
convict the appellant without considering their cross-
examination.
6. It is also contended by the learned counsel for
the appellant that PW-2, the mother of the deceased, has
falsely implicated the accused. PW-4, brother-in-law of the
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
deceased has clearly stated that the appellant was not
giving any sort of harassment to the deceased and she
was having poor eyesight and her ears were not clearly
audible. He has clearly stated that the accused never ill-
treated the deceased and he further stated that he
accompanied the injured to the hospital and at that time
she was unconscious and she has not regained her
consciousness till her death. PW-5, the elder sister of the
deceased, has stated in a similar version as that of PW-4
by deposing before the Court. But the trial Court based on
the oral testimony of PW-8/K.M.Chengappa, the retired
Head Constable, who recorded the statement of victim,
PW-11/Dr.Anand Menan, the Doctor Who conducted
postmortem examination, PW-12/K.B.Ramachandra, the
retired Tahasildar, who recorded Inquest mahazar and
PW-16/Dr.N.Manju, in whose presence Ex.P-5 statement
was recorded by PW-8, has proceeded to convict the
accused. In fact, there is no clear and convincing evidence
by any of the prosecution witnesses. Hence, learned
counsel prays to allow the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader
vehemently contended that PWs-2, 4, 5 and 9 have clearly
stated about the role of the accused regarding the alleged
harassment made by the accused to the deceased
Chandravathi. The trial Court, based on the dying
declaration of the deceased, recorded by PW-8 in the
presence of PW-6 has rightly convicted the accused.
Hence, no interference is called for in that regard. Thus,
he prays to dismiss the appeal.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for both parties, the points that arise for Court's
consideration is as follows:
"i. Whether the prosecution proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused,
who was the mother-in-law of the
deceased, ill-treated the deceased
Chandravathi making the allegations that
deceased had affair with some other
persons and in that regard, on 26.02.2006
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
she committed suicide by pouring kerosene
on her person and succumbed to burn
injuries on 01.03.2006?
ii. Whether the appellant proves that the
judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court requires
interference?"
9. It is the case of the prosecution that the
accused being the mother-in-law, harassed the daughter-
in-law Chandravathi alleging that Chandravathi had illegal
affair with some persons and it was informed to CW 9,
therefore, on the same day at 9:00p.m. she committed
suicide by pouring kerosene on her person. In order to
establish this aspect, the prosecution examined PW-
1/Periyana Suresha, the husband of the deceased. PW-1
has not supported the prosecution case. Thus, he turned
hostile. Thereby, nothing is stated against the accused.
10. PW-2/Ammaiah, the mother of the deceased,
has stated that her daughter Chandravathi committed
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
suicide by pouring kerosene on her person due to the
harassment made by the accused. She has stated in her
chief examination that she is an eyewitness to the
incident, but in her cross-examination, she has
categorically admitted that accused was residing with her
another son separately and this aspect is not denied by
her. She further admits that the relationship of deceased
Chandravathi, her husband and accused was cordial and
she never stayed in the house of the deceased and she
never enquired about the role of the accused prior to the
death of deceased. She further admitted that she do not
know the contents of her statement. Thereby, PW-2 the
mother of deceased, given clear go by to her chief
examination.
11. PW-3, Raju, the neighbour of PW-1, who shifted
the injured to hospital, but he turned hostile to the case of
the prosecution. PW-4/Desakodi Mani, brother-in-law of
the deceased Chandravati, has stated that the appellant
was not giving any sort of harassment to the deceased.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
The accused was not properly hearing and her eyesight
was very poor and was under treatment prior to the
incident. In the cross-examination, he categorically
admitted that there was no harassment to the life of
Chandravathi by the accused and her husband, more
particularly, accused never harassed the deceased
Chandravathi. He further admits that he do not know the
cause of death of deceased Chandravathi on 26.02.2006.
He further admits that Chandravathi admitted to the
hospital on 26.02.2006 at 9:00p.m. and died on
01.03.2006, during this period she was totally
unconscious.
12. PW-5/Indravathi, the elder sister of the
deceased, has deposed in the similar manner as that of
PW-4. But in her cross-examination, PW-5 has clearly
admitted that there was no quarrel between the accused
and the deceased and the accused never harassed the
deceased Chandravathi. She specifically admitted that she
do not know as to why Chandravathi committed suicide by
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
pouring kerosene on her person. She admitted in clear
terms that the relationship of accused and deceased
Chandravathi was cordial and therefore there was no
nexus between the cause of death and the accused.
13. PW-7/Neelamma, the neighbour of the accused
turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
14. PW-9/Chandrashekar, brother of the deceased
has stated in line with PWs-2, 4 and 5, but he turned
hostile to the case of the prosecution. In the cross-
examination done by the learned counsel for the accused,
PW-9 has categorically admitted that prior to the death of
Chandravathi, her relationship with the accused was very
cordial.
15. PWs-13 and 14, the independent witnesses,
who are the neighbours of the accused, also turned hostile
to the case of prosecution.
16. In the absence of these witnesses, only the
evidence of official witnesses is available. PW-
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
8/Chengappa, the Head Constable, who recorded the
statement of injured as per Ex.P-5 in the presence of PW-
16, has stated that after receipt of MLC intimation, he
visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the
injured as per Ex.P-5. But, in the cross-examination, he
admits that the statement of injured is not in Question and
Answer format. He admits that one Umesh has endorsed
Ex.P-5, but said Umesh is not examined before the Court.
In Ex.P-5, there is an endorsement, but he does not know
as to who made such endorsement on it. In Ex.P-5
statement, there is no endorsement by any doctor as to
the physical and mental fitness of injured to give
statement.
17. PW-16/Dr.N.Manju has stated that as per the
request made by the police, he examined the injured on
26.02.2006 at 08:35p.m. and on examination, he found
that the entire person of the deceased Chandravathi was
burnt. Hence, he sent the MLC intimation as per Ex.P-4 to
the police. Soon after the receipt of MLC intimation, the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
police came and recorded the statement as per Ex.P-5. In
the cross-examination, the doctor admits that he has not
made any endorsement on Ex.P-5 as to whether the
injured was fit to give the statement. He further admits
that in Ex.P-13, MLC Register, there was 90% burn injury
on the person of Chandravathi and there is no entry in
Ex.P-13 as to physical and mental fitness of injured to give
statement. PW-16 Doctor has clearly admitted that in
Ex.P-13(a) the history was recorded as the injured herself
poured kerosene oil on her person and lit fire, and as she
has not assigned any reason as to why she poured
kerosene on her person and lit fire, he has not mentioned
the reason.
18. PW-17 is the police inspector, who registered
the case and conducted mahazar. PW-18, is the inspector
who conducted the investigation.
19. It transpires from the case of the prosecution
that that the marriage of PW1 was performed with
deceased Chandravathi as per the customs prevailing in
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
their society and their marriage was performed on
17.04.2003 at Madikeri. After the marriage, the
relationship of PW-1 and deceased was cordial. Thereafter,
the accused, being mother-in-law of the deceased, has
started harassing the deceased. It is stated that on
26.02.2006 at 10:30 p.m., the deceased committed
suicide by pouring kerosene on her person and set her
ablaze and it is stated that the accused has instigated the
deceased to commit suicide. As a result of her hue and
cry, out of severe burns, her husband PW-1 and
neighbours shifted her to hospital. However, in view of
sustaining severe burn injuries, she died in the hospital
while under treatment on 01.03.2006. On the basis of the
said allegations, the complaint was filed by the
complainant.
20. From the perusal of the material available on
record, it appears that the criminal law was set into
motion based on the statement of deceased recorded by
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
PW-8 in the presence of PW-12 which is in the nature of
dying declaration.
21. As per Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, there can be no dispute that dying declaration can
be sole basis for conviction. However, such a dying
declaration has to be proved to be wholly reliable,
voluntary and truthful and the maker thereof in a fit
medical condition to make it. This was exhaustively
addressed in the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Waikhom Yaima Singh vs. State of
Manipur reported in JT 2011 6 SC 355.
22. In the decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Nanhar vs. State of
Haryana reported in JT 2010(6) SC 196, it is held that,
"dying declaration should be such, which should
immensely strike to be genuine and stating true story of
its maker. It should be free from all doubts and on going
through it, an impression has to be registered immediately
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
in mind that it is genuine, true and not tainted with
doubts. Further it should not be result of tutoring."
23. In the instant case, the dying declaration at
Ex.P-5 recorded by PW-8, the Head Constable, in the
presence of PW-12/Doctor which is in a running paragraph
and not recorded in a Question and Answer format. The
deceased Chandravathi had suffered severe burn injuries
and was admitted to Government hospital and she
answered to the questions posed by the Head Constable.
There was infirmity in recording the statement of deceased
to make an oral dying declaration and unnatural conduct
given by the deceased which was disclosed to the Head
Constable. The doctor, in whose presence the dying
declaration was recorded as per Ex.P-5, has clearly stated
that there was no endorsement on Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-13 as
to the injured Chandravathi was in a fit condition to make
statement. PW-4, the brother-in-law of the deceased has
also clearly stated that soon after the incident till the
death of Chandravathi, she was unconscious.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
24. But in the instant case, a doubt arises in the
mind of the Court relating to Ex.P-5 in view of the fact that
the deceased Chandravathi had sustained severe burn
injuries to an extent of 90% and despite the fact that her
statement was recorded. Even the doctor has given
evidence that the deceased was in a fit condition to give
her statement, but in Exs.P-5 and P-13 there was no such
endorsement. PW-8 and PW-12 being responsible official
witnesses said to have recorded the dying declaration of
deceased Chandravathi. The trial Court had a
responsibility to assess their evidence in a strict sense
manner keeping in mind Section 32 of the Indian Evidence
Act. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JAYAMMA AND
ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in
(2021) 5 SCR 11. In this reliance, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has addressed the scope of Section 32 of Indian
Evidence Act and observed that conviction of the accused
cannot be upheld only on the basis of the dying
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
declaration; narration of events in the dying declaration
were so accurate to be believed and owing to 80% burn
injuries suffered by the victim on all vital parts of the
body, the possibility of her not being in a fit state, cannot
be completely ruled out.
25. In view of the facts and circumstances, the
contents of the dying declaration at Ex.P-5 and the ratio
laid down, supra, it clearly reveals that soon after the
incident, until the death of the deceased, she was not
conscious and there is a doubt regarding recording of
dying declaration by PW-8 in the presence of PW-12.
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kashibai
and Others vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2023
SCC OnLine SC 575 at paragraph Nos.6 to 10 observed
as under:
"6. At this juncture, it would be beneficial
to reproduce the relevant provision contained in
Section 306 IPC pertaining to Abetment of suicide.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
"306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission
of such suicide, shall be punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine."
7. What is "Abetment of a thing" has been
described in Section 107 which reads as under:
"107. 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 willful
misrepresentation, or by willful 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."
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
8. From the bare reading of the said
provisions, it clearly transpires that in order to
convict a person for the offences under Section
306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence
namely where the death was suicidal and
whether there was an abetment on the part of
the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC
have to be established.
9. In M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by
the Deputy Superintendent of Police1, this Court
has elaborately dealt with the provisions
contained in Section 306 read with Section 107
IPC, and after discussing various earlier
decisions has observed as under: -
"41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh
Kumar [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri)
1088] has examined different shades of the
meaning of "instigation".
Para 20 reads as under : (SCC p. 629) "20.
Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the
requirement of instigation though it is not
necessary that actual words must be used to
that effect or what constitutes instigation must
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to
incite the consequence must be capable of being
spelt out. The present one is not a case where
the accused had 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 in
which case an instigation may have been
inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
In the said case this Court came to the
conclusion that there is no evidence and
material available on record wherefrom an
inference of the appellant-accused having
abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the
appellant's 1 (2011) 3 SCC 626 wife therein)
may necessarily be drawn.
42. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal
[(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this
Court has cautioned that (SCC p. 90, para 17)
the Court should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each
case and the evidence adduced in the trial for
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
the purpose of finding whether the cruelty
meted out to the victim had in fact induced her
to end her life by committing suicide. If it
appears to the Court that a victim committing
suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary
petulance, discord and difference in domestic
life, quite common to the society, to which the
victim belonged and such petulance, discord and
difference were not 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.
43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC
605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion
to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court
dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word
"instigation" and "goading". The Court opined
that there should be intention to provoke, incite
or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
Each person's suicidability pattern is different
from the others. Each person has his own idea
of self-esteem and self- respect. Therefore, it is
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula
in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be
decided on the basis of its own facts and
circumstances.
44. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without a positive
act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid
in committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained.
45. The intention of the legislature and the
ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear
that in order to convict a person under Section
306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence. It also requires an active
act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and this act
must have been intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he/she committed
suicide."
10. In view of the above, it is quite clear
that in order to bring the case within the
purview of 'Abetment' under Section 107 IPC,
there has to be an evidence with regard to the
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the
part of the accused. For the purpose proving the
charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to
be an evidence with regard to the positive act
on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to
drive a person to commit suicide.
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vaijnath
Kondiba vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
reported in (2018) 7 SCC 781 at paragraph Nos.7 and 8,
has held as under:
"7. In the backdrop of these two lines of
cases, we have gone through the material on
record. There is no suicide note left behind by
the deceased and the only material on record is
in the form of assertions made by his wife in her
reporting to the police. It is true that if a
situation is created deliberately so as to drive a
person to commit suicide, there would be room
for attracting Section 306 IPC. However, the facts
on record in the present case are completely
inadequate and insufficient. As a superior
officer, if some work was assigned by the
applicant to the deceased, merely on that count
it cannot be said that there was any guilty mind
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
or criminal intent. The exigencies of work and
the situation may call for certain action on part
of a superior including stopping of salary of a
junior officer for a month. That action simplicitor
cannot be considered to be a pointer against
such superior officer. The allegations in the FIR
are completely inadequate and do not satisfy
the requirements under Section 306 IPC. In our
view, the facts in the present case stand on a
footing better than that in Madan Mohan Singh
(supra) and there is absolutely no room for
invoking provisions of Section 306 IPC. We are of
the firm view that the interest of justice
demands that the proceedings initiated against
the appellant are required to be quashed.
8. We, therefore, allow this appeal and
quash criminal case lodged in pursuance of FIR
No.268 of 2017 registered with Police Station
MIDC, CIDCO, Aurangabad."
28. In Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another reported in (2021) 13 SCC 806,
the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.25, has observed
as under:
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
"25. Abetment involves a mental process
of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without a positive
act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid
in committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the legislature and
the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is
clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased
to commit suicide seeing no option and that act
must have been intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he committed suicide."
29. If complaint discloses prima facie case as to
cognizable offence, the Investigating Officer has to probe
the matter as per the established principles of law. This
ratio is laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of M/s.Sabare Travel Technologies Private
Limited vs. State of Karnataka and Others in Criminal
Petition No.154/2021 dated 19.02.2021.
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
30. The counsel for petitioner relied upon Criminal
Petition No.3502/2022, disposed on 10.05.2022, wherein,
the Coordinate Bench of this Court at paragraph No.7 held
as under:
"7. The commission of suicide by the
father of the complainant by consuming
tablets containing poison on 26.02.2022, is
not in dispute. The exact abuses hurled on
the father of the complainant is
"§zÀÄQgÀĪÀÅzÀÄQÌAvÀ J°è DzÀgÀÆ ºÉÆÃV ¸Á¬Ä." This is
hurled on 23-02-2022, three days prior to
the date of commission of suicide. There is no
foundation laid in the complaint by narration
that the petitioners were present or have
instigated the deceased to commit suicide to
an extent that there was no other option left
to the accused. At this stage, it is
appropriate to notice the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of M.ARJUNAN
v. THE STATE - (2019) 3 SCC
315, wherein the Apex Court has held as
follows:
"7. The essential ingredients of the
offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
abetment; (ii) the intention of the
accused to aid or instigate or abet the
deceased to commit suicide. The act of
the accused, however, insulting the
deceased by using abusive language will
no, by itself, constitute the abetment of
suicide. There should be evidence
capable of suggesting that the accused
intended by such act to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide..."
Later, the Apex Court in the
judgment of UDE SINGH AND
OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA -
(2019)17 SCC 301, has held as
follows:
"For the purpose of finding out if a
person has abetted commission of
suicide by another, the consideration
would be if the accused is guilty of the
act of instigation of the act of suicide.
As explained and reiterated by this Court
in the decisions above referred,
instigation means to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do an
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
act. If the persons who committed
suicide had been hypersensitive and the
action of accused is otherwise not
ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced person to commit suicide,
it may not be safe to hold the accused
guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the
other hand, if the accused by his acts
and by his continuous course of conduct
creates a situation which leads the
deceased perceiving no other option
except to commit suicide, the case may
fall within the four corners of Section
306 IPC."
The Apex Court clearly holds that if
the accused by his acts and continuous
course of conduct creates a situation,
which leads the deceased perceiving no
other option except to commit suicide,
the case may fall within the four-
corners of Section 306 of the IPC. The
facts narrated hereinabove, the abuses
quoted supra and the incident taking
place three days after the alleged abuse
would all lead to a prima facie
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
conclusion that there was no proximity
as is required in law to drive home
abetment of suicide under Section 306
of the IPC. It is also to be noticed that
there are no criminal antecedents of the
petitioners. Though the offence alleged
is punishable with imprisonment upto 10
years, the narration in the complaint of
the incident would not mean that the
petitioners are not entitled to grant of
anticipatory bail albeit imposing
stringent conditions."
31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Gurucharan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 200, summarized principles, which
necessitate the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC, in
paragraph Nos.15 to 18, which is as under:
"15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be
established. To prove the offence of abetment,
as specified under Sec 107 of the 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
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
record to establish or show that the appellant
herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of
that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the
deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be
assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be
visible and conspicuous. However, what
transpires in the present matter is that both the
Trial Court as well as the High Court never
examined whether appellant had the mens rea
for the crime, he is held to have committed. The
conviction of Appellant by the Trial Court as well
as the High Court on the theory that the woman
with two young kids might have committed
suicide, possibly because of the harassment
faced by her in the matrimonial house, is not at
all borne out by the evidence in the case.
Testimonies of the PWs do not show that the
wife was unhappy because of the appellant and
she was forced to take such a step on his
account.
16. The necessary ingredients for the
offence under section 306 IPC was considered in
the case SS Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan1
where explaining the concept of abetment,
Justice Dalveer Bhandari wrote as under:-
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
"25. Abetment involves a mental process
of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a 1
(2010) 12 SCC 190 person in doing of a thing.
Without a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid in committing
suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The
intention of the legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this Court is clear that in order
to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there
has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or direct
act which led the deceased to commit suicide
seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he committed suicide."
17. While dealing with a case of abetment
of suicide in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State
of West Bengal2, Dr. Justice M.K. Sharma
writing for the Division Bench explained the
parameters of Section 306 IPC in the following
terms:
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently
taken the view that before holding an accused
guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the
court must scrupulously examine the facts and
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether the cruelty and harassment meted out
to the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life. It is
also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide.
Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action
proximate to the 2 (2010) 1 SCC 707 time of
occurrence on the part of the accused which led
or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the
purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a
case of suicide and in the commission of the
said offence, the 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. Therefore, the act of abetment by the
person charged with the said offence must be
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
proved and established by the prosecution
before he could be convicted under Section 306
IPC.
18. In the case Mangat Ram Vs. State of
Haryana3, which again was a case of wife's
unnatural death, speaking for the Division
Bench, Justice K.S.P. Radhakrishnanan rightly
observed as under:-
"24. We find it difficult to comprehend the
reasoning of the High Court that "no prudent
man is to commit suicide unless abetted to do
so". A woman may attempt to commit suicide
due to various reasons, such as, depression,
financial difficulties, disappointment in love,
tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic
ailments and so on and need not be due to
abetment. The reasoning of the High Court that
no prudent man will commit suicide unless
abetted to do so by someone else, is a perverse
reasoning." 3 (2014) 12 SCC 595."
32. Further, in order to attract Section 306 IPC,
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It
also requires an active act or direct act which led the
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act
must have been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he committed suicide.
33. From the perusal of the aforesaid decision, it
appears that there is no clear and corroborative evidence
so as to attract the ingredient of Section 498A and 306 of
IPC particularly against the mother-in-law of the deceased.
The manner of dying declaration is doubtful and it cannot
be relied upon to sustain the conviction of accused under
Section 306 of IPC. The dying declaration does not reveal
entire truth and it has to be considered only as a piece of
evidence. Hence, the conviction cannot be rested solely on
the basis of such dying declaration. If the dying
declaration was recorded in the presence of the relatives
of the deceased, the possibilities that the deceased being
tutored cannot be ruled out. The dying declaration cannot
be treated as wholly trustworthy as it is shredded with
many doubts. The Court may not be satisfied that the
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
deceased was in state of mind to observe and identify the
role of all the accused.
34. In the instant case, several witnesses have
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and their
contrary statements have been got marked. Despite the
fact that no cogent and consistent evidence has been
facilitated on the part of the prosecution and despite there
are infirmities and inconsistencies in the statement of
witnesses, the trial Court rendered a conviction judgment
for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306
of IPC. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court requires interference for the
aforesaid reasons and the findings. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal preferred by the appellant.
under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is hereby
allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the Fast Track Court, Kodagu,
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30899
Madikeri, in SC.No.43/2006 dated
03.12.2012 for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC is
hereby set aside.
iii. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the
aforesaid offences.
iv. The bail bond of accused and that of surety
stand cancelled.
v. The fine amount deposited by the
appellant-accused shall be returned to her.
vi. The Registry shall send the copy of this
judgment, along with the trial Court record
to the trial Court.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
BSR/AMA
