Karnataka High Court
Jayaram vs State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
CRL.A No. 1300 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1300 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. JAYARAM
S/O SUBBEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
2. PANDU
S/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
3. DILEEPKUMAR @
DEEPU
S/O PANDU
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.
4. RAJU
S/O KRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST
Digitally signed by RESIDING AT
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI RAMPURA VILLAGE
Location: HIGH SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK-571 438.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. RAMULA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SRIRANGAPATNA
POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
CRL.A No. 1300 of 2012
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 07.11.2012 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.,
SRIRANGAPATNA IN S.C. No. 229/2011 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 326, 504 AND
306 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by appellants - accused Nos. 1
to 4 praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 07.11.2012 passed in S.C. No.
229/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court at
Srirangapatna. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been
convicted for offence under Sections 306, 326 and 504 of
IPC. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and
to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for offence under Section 306
of IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to
pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each for offence under Section 326 of
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for
offence under Section 504 of IPC. The trial Court ordered all
the sentences to run concurrently.
2. Factual matrix of the prosecution is that, P.W.1 -
Swamygowda and C.W.2 - Sarojamma are husband and wife
and residents of Rampura village, Srirangapatna taluk. They
had 5 daughters namely, Radha, Komala, Kavitha, Sowmya
and Shruthi. Elder daughter Sowmya was given in marriage
to the brother-in-law of accused No. 1. Accused No. 3 -
Deepu had lent a loan of Rs.15,000/- to Shruti - daughter of
P.W.1. For non-repayment of the said loan, on 27.12.2009 at
about 02.00 pm, appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 in
furtherance of their common intention came near the house
of P.W.1 and started abusing Shruti in filthy language for
non-payment of loan to accused No. 3. At that time, P.W.1 -
father of Shruti intervened and tried to console them and
requested them not to make any quarrel in front of the
house. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 being enraged upon
the intervention of P.W.1, accused No. 1 assaulted on his
right shoulder by club, accused No. 3 assaulted on his right
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
forearm with club and caused hurt. Immediately he was
shifted to Government Hospital and then to K.R. Hospital,
Mysuru for treatment. He took treatment as inpatient and
was discharged on 01.01.2010 and he returned home. When
he prepared to lodge a complaint in the matter P.W.2, P.W.5
and P.W.6 consoled him saying that they will convene the
panchayath and until then requested him not to lodge a
complaint. Considering the request of elders, P.W.1 did not
lodge complaint. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 after
coming to know the fact that a panchayath is being convened
in connection with the incident, they, in furtherance of their
common intention, on 03.01.2010, at about 10.00 pm, came
near the house of P.W.1 situated at Rampura village and
started abusing, insulting and abetting the said Shruti by
saying "¤Ã£ÀÄ §zÀÄQgÀĪÀÅzÀQÌAvÀ £ÉÃtÄ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ CxÀªÁ ¤ÃjUÉ ©zÀÄÝ
¸Á¬Ä". Said Shruti being disgusted in her life due to the
assault of by appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 to her father,
insulting herself and her father in public place in front of her
house, by leaving a death note saying that the accused are
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
the cause for her death, committed suicide by hanging in her
cattle-shed in the midnight between 12.30 am to 01.00 am
by means a veil. Charge sheet came to be filed against
appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offence under Sections
326, 304, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial Court
framed charges for the aforesaid offences. In order to prove
the charge the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and
got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 and M.O.1. Statement of P.W.3
has been marked as Ex.D.1. Statement of appellants -
accused Nos. 1 to 4 came to be recorded under Section 313
of Cr.P.C. The trial Court after hearing arguments formulated
points for consideration and after appreciating the evidence
on record convicted appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 and
sentenced them as noted above. Said judgment of conviction
and order of sentence has been challenged in this appeal.
3. Heard arguments of learned counsel appearing for
appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 and learned HCGP for
respondent - State.
4. Learned counsel for appellants - accused Nos. 1
to 4 would contend that the alleged assault is made on
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
27.12.2009 and complaint came to be filed on 04.01.2010
and there is a delay in filing the complaint. Even the MLC
intimation has not been sent by the Doctor who examined
P.W.1 to the concerned Police Station. P.W.4 - co-brother of
P.W.1 has not stated regarding the alleged incident dated
27.12.2009. P.W.2 - one of the eye witnesses to the incident
that took place on 27.12.2009 in his cross-examination has
admitted that one Nagendra - brother of accused No. 1 has
filed a complaint against his brother and mother regarding
giving poison to hen and said aspect would show that he is
having enmity with appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4. She has
further stated that P.W.3 has stated that all appellants -
accused Nos. 1 to 4 have assaulted P.W.1 and no specific
overt act has been deposed by her. As per the wound
certificate it is Kavitha who brought P.W.1 to hospital, but, in
her cross-examination P.W.3 has stated that her mother
P.W.4 and P.W.6 took P.W.1 to the hospital. The prosecution
has not established that P.W.5 who is stated to have advised
P.W.1 not to file complaint and panchayat will be held has
turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution.
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
P.W.6 is the brother of wife of P.W.1 and he is an interested
witness and there is a contradiction with regard to the time of
the incident. There is no recovery of club which is alleged to
have been used by appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 to
assault P.W.1. P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 have not
stated regarding abuse by appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4
to P.W.1 and the deceased to attract offence under Section
504 of IPC. Note book of deceased (Ex.P.6) has been seized
under mahazar dated 12.02.2010 which is after one month of
the incident, but, P.W.1 says that it is after 2 - 3 days of the
incident. P.W.1 has produced the said note book but he did
not know the handwriting of the deceased. Ex.P.10 - death
note has been marked in the evidence of P.W.3 who is in no
way concerned with the said death note as it is not seized at
her instance or she is not panch to mahazar - Ex.P.7 and at
the time of marking, counsel for accused has objected and it
is marked subject to objection. Panchas to mahazar - Ex.P.7,
namely, P.W.7 and P.W.8 have not supported the case of the
prosecution. Therefore, seizure of Ex.P.6 - note book
containing handwriting of deceased is not proved. Said death
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
note - Ex.P.6 not only contains the names of appellants -
accused Nos. 1 to 4 but it also contains the names of other
persons and the Investigating Officer has not investigated
regarding the persons or names of other persons other than
the accused. The deceased had earlier attempted to commit
suicide by consuming rabbit poison and the same has been
noted in paragraph No. 45 of the judgment of the trial Court.
Said aspect will go to show that the deceased had suicidal
tendency. Learned counsel for appellant further contended
that merely asking for re-payment of loan amount and asking
the deceased to go and die does not amount to abetment to
commit suicide. On that point learned counsel for appellant
has placed reliance on the following decisions:
I. Mangala Gowri vs. State of Karnataka, 2023
SCC Online Kar 64
II. Mohit Singhal and another vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others, 2024 (1) SCC 417
III. Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu vs. State of West
Bengal, 2010 (1) SCC 707
IV. Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
2001 (9) SCC 618
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
V. Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, 2010 (1) SCC 750
VI. Jangam Ravinder vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,
VII. Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of
M.P., 2002 (5) SCC 371
VIII. Netai Dutta vs. State of W.B, 2005 (2) SCC
IX. Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and
Another, 2010 (8) SCC 628
X. Md. Jabbar Ali and Others vs. State of Assam,
2022 SCC Online SC 1440
5. Learned counsel for appellants - accused Nos. 1
to 4 contended that P.W.2 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 are interested
witnesses and therefore, their evidence is required to be
scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. In this
connection she placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Md. Jabbar Ali and Others v
State of Assam reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1440. On
these grounds she prayed to allow the appeal and prayed for
setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence and acquit appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
6. Per contra, learned HCGP argued that the trial
Court on proper appreciation of evidence on record has
rightly convicted appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4. He
supported the reasons assigned by the trial Court. He further
argued that evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 is
sufficient to convict appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 for
offence alleged against them. He contends that merely
because the witnesses are relatives it cannot be said that
they are interested witnesses. On these grounds he sought
for dismissal of the appeal.
7. On the grounds made out and considering the
arguments advanced, the following point arises for my
consideration:
"Whether the trial Court erred in convicting
appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offence
under Sections 306, 326 and 504 of IPC?
8. My answer to the above point is in the affirmative
for the following reasons:
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
Deceased Shruti hanged herself with a veil in the
cowshed on 03.01.2010 and committed suicide. P.W.10 - the
Doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the
dead body of the deceased has opined that the death is due
to asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Therefore,
said aspect itself establishes that death of the deceased is
suicidal.
9. P.W.3 is the sister of the deceased and she has
deposed that accused No. 3 had lent Rs.15,000/- to her
younger sister Shruti. The accused persons on 27.12.2009
went to the house of the deceased and demanded repayment
of the loan amount. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 also
went to the house of deceased on 03.01.2010 and demanded
repayment of loan amount and abused her and asked her to
go and die by having or by falling in water. On the same
night itself, the deceased Shruti committed suicide by having
with a veil in the cowshed. P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 have
deposed regarding the accused persons demanding
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
repayment of loan amount, abusing the deceased Shruti and
asking her to go and die by hanging or by falling in water.
10. On the basis of the said evidence, what can be
gathered is that the deceased Shruti had borrowed money
from accused No.3 and appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4
demanded repayment of money borrowed by the deceased
and abused her and asked her to go and die. Whether the
said aspect of insisting the deceased to repay the loan
borrowed and asking her to die amounts to abetment to
commit suicide or not? Similar case has been considered by
this Court in the case of Mangala Gowri vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in 2023 SCC Online 64 wherein it is
held as under:
"16. Abetment is defined under Section 107
of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing.- A person is
said abet 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
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
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."
17. As per the aforesaid definition there
should be instigation to do that thing and then it
amounts to abetment. A person is said to have
instigate another to an act when he actively
suggests or stimulates him to act by means of
language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the
form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation
or encouragement.
18. The learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh
Sengar Vs Sate of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371 wherein
it is held as under:
"..............Even if we accept the
prosecution story that the appellant did tell
the deceased "to go and die", that itself
does not constitute the ingredient of
"instigation". The word "instigate" denotes
incitement or urging to do some drastic or
inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite.
Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
necessary concomitant of instigation. It is
common knowledge that the words uttered
in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment
cannot be taken to be uttered with mens
rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion........."
19. The learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs Sate
(Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605
wherein it is observed as under:
"17. Thus to constitute "instigation", a
person who instigates another has to
provoke, incite, urge or encourage the
doing of an act by the other by "goading"
or "urging forward". The dictionary
meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that
stimulates someone into action; provoke to
action or reaction" (see Concise Oxford
English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or
annoying somebody until he reacts" (see
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th
Edn.).
18. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try
hard to persuade somebody to do
something or to make a person to move
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
more quickly and or in a particular
direction, especially by pushing or forcing
such person. Therefore, a person who
instigates another has to "goad" or "urge
forward" the latter with intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the doing of
an act by the latter.
19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar, where
the accused by his acts or by a continued
course of conduct creates such
circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit
suicide, and "instigation" may be inferred.
In other words, in order to prove that the
accused abetted commission of suicide by a
person, it has to be established that:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or
annoying the deceased by words, deeds or
wilful omission or conduct which may even
be a wilful silence until the deceased
reacted or pushed or forced the deceased
by his deeds, words or wilful omission or
conduct to make the deceased move
forward more quickly in a forward
direction; and
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
(ii) that the accused had the intention to
provoke, urge or encourage the deceased
to commit suicide while acting in the
manner noted above. Undoubtedly,
presence of mens rea is the necessary
concomitant of instigation."
20. In the background of this legal
position, we may advert to the case at
hand. The question as to what is the cause
of a suicide has no easy answers because
suicidal ideation and behaviours in human
beings are complex and multifaceted.
Different individuals in the same situation
react and behave differently because of the
personal meaning they add to each event,
thus accounting for individual vulnerability
to suicide. Each individual's suicidability
pattern depends on is inner subjective
experience of mental pain, fear and loss of
self-respect. Each of these factors are
crucial and exacerbating contributor to an
individual's vulnerability to end his own life,
which may either be an attempt for
selfprotection or an escapism from
intolerable self."
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
11. In the case of Mohit Singhal and another vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others reported in 2024 (1)
SCC 417 the Hon'ble Apex Court considering similar case for
abetment to commit suicide has observed thus:
"10.. In the facts of the case, secondly and
thirdly in Section 107, will have no application.
Hence, the question is whether the appellants
instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To
attract the first clause, there must be instigation
in some form on the part of the accused to cause
the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the
accused must have mens rea to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation
must be of such intensity that it is intended to
push the deceased to such a position under which
he or she has no choice but to commit suicide.
Such instigation must be in close proximity to the
act of committing suicide."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amalendu
Pal Alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, reported in
2010 (1) SCC 417 has held that in case of alleged abetment
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect incitement
to the commission of suicide.
13. Learned counsel for appellants - accused Nos. 1
to 4 would contend that the deceased was hypersensitive and
she had earlier also attempted to commit suicide a month
prior to the alleged incident. Said aspect has been considered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gangula Mohan
Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010 (1)
SCC 750 wherein it is held as under:
"13. In State of W.B. Vs. orilla Jaiswa this
Court has cautioned that the Court should be
extremely careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case and the evidence
adduced in the trail 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 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
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
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.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
17. 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 this act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he committed suicide."
14. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 insisted the
deceased Shruti to repay the money borrowed by her. There
was no intention on the part of appellants - accused Nos. 1
to 4 to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The appellants
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
- accused Nos. 1 to 4 were interested in getting back the
money lent to the deceased Shruti. In the case of suicide
mere allegation of harassing of the deceased by another
person would not suffice unless there be such an action on
the part of the accused which compel the person to commit
suicide and such an offending action or to be proximate to
the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the
commission of suicide of another or not can only be gathered
from the facts and circumstances of each case.
15. How a human mind reacts has been observed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ude Singh Vs. State
of Haryana reported in 2019 (17) SCC 301 wherein it is
observed as under:
"16.2. We may also observe that human
mind could be affected and could react in myriad
ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of
another carries several imponderables. Similar
actions are dealt with differently by different
persons; and so far a particular person's reaction
to any other human's action is concerned, there
is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or
assess the same. Even in regard to the factors
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
related with the question of harassment of a girl,
many factors are to be considered like age,
personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups,
education, etc. Even the response to the ill
action of eve teasing and its impact on a young
girl could also vary for a variety of factors,
including those of background, self-confidence
and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to
be dealt with on its own facts and circumstance"
16. A person may attempt to commit suicide due to
various reasons such as depression, financial difficulties,
disappointment of love, tired of domestic worries, acute or
chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment
and the same has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana, reported
in AIR 2014 SC 178.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan
Vs. State reported in 2011 (3) SCC 626 has observed as
under:
"44. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing a thing. Without a positive act
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
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."
18. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 had lent money
to the deceased Shruti. They were interested in getting back
the money. They had no intention to take the life of deceased
Shruti. Therefore, there is no mens rea on the part of the
appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 to abet the deceased to
commit suicide.
19. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from
person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self-
esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
in the same situation. The deceased Shruti had left a suicide
note - Ex.P.6 stating the names of persons contained in it are
responsible for her death. Said suicide note not only contains
the names of accused persons but it also contains the names
of others. What act of these appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4
abetted the deceased Shruti to commit suicide has not been
mentioned in Ex.P.6 - suicide note. The Investigating Officer
has not investigated what is the role of other persons named
in the suicide note in the death of deceased Shruti. Even
some names were written by Ballpoint Pen on the hand of the
deceased which not only contained the names of accused
persons but also names of other persons. Therefore, said
suicide note - Ex.P.6 does not establish that appellants -
accused Nos. 1 to 4 abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
This Court in the case of Mangala Gowri (supra),
considering the judgment of Gujarath High Court has
observed as under:
30. The Gujarat High Court in the similar set of
facts has quashed the proceedings for the offence
under Section 306, 384, 385, 387 of Indian Penal
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
Code and Section 40 of the Gujurath Money
Lenders Act, in the case of the Jorubhai Amrubhai
Varu Vs State of Gujarat 2020 SCC Online Guj
1189 wherein it is observed as under:
"11. Admittedly, the allegation in FIR is of
deceased having borrowed money from
the present applicant. The deceased failed
to repay the amount with interest. The
applicant was constantly demanding the
money and alleged to have threatened the
deceased. Such act of demanding the
repayment of money would not bring case
within the meaning of section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code. There would not be
any mens rea of the applicant as he would
not benefited from the act of suicide of
the deceased and thus, prima facie the
allegation in the FIR, taken at its face
value do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the
accused."
20. On consideration of the evidence on record there
is no evidence to show that appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4
had any intention to drive out the deceased Shruti to commit
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
suicide. Looking from any angle the act of appellants -
accused Nos. 1 to 4 harassing the deceased for repayment of
money borrowed by her and asking her to commit suicide
does not amount to abetment. Therefore, learned sessions
Judge has committed an error in holding that the act of
appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 amounts to abetment of the
deceased Shruti to commit suicide.
21. It is accusation that appellants - accused Nos. 1
to 4 assaulted P.W.1 on 27.12.2009 and caused grievous
hurt. Ex.P.13 is the wound certificate of P.W.1. The Doctor -
P.W.10 has issued the said wound certificate - Ex.P.13 and
he has opined that out of two injuries, injury No. 2 is simple
in nature and injury No. 1 is grievous in nature. Said opinion
of the Doctor is based on the X-Ray report dated 27.12.2009.
Even in the history it is mentioned that assault is by Pandu,
Jayaram, Dileep and others, but no MLC intimation was
issued by the Doctor - P.W.10 to the jurisdictional Police. The
Doctor - P.W.10 has stated in the cross-examination that
case is registered as MLC case, Police Station is at a distance
of 2 - 3 KMs from the hospital and there was no hurdle for
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
sending the MLC intimation to the Police Station and MLC
intimation was not sent to the Police Station. P.W.1 was
accompanied by Kavitha (P.W.3) to the hospital. Said Kavitha
- P.W.3, P.W.2 and P.W.4 are stated to be the eye witnesses
to the incident. None of them have chosen to file any
complaint against appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4. P.W.1
came to be discharged on 01.01.2010. He did not file any
complaint immediately after his discharge. It is the case of
prosecution that P.W.5 and others advised him not to file
complaint and they will hold panchayat and settle the matter.
Said aspect has not been established since P.W.5 has not
supported the case of the prosecution in that regard.
Therefore, there is no reason assigned for delay in lodging
the complaint. The complaint came to be lodged only on
04.01.2010, that too, after the death of the deceased -
Shruti. P.W.10 - the Doctor in his cross-examination has
admitted the suggestion that if a person falls on hard surface
injuries noted in Ex.P.13 - wound certificate can be caused.
P.W.3 - Kavitha has deposed that her mother P.W.4 and
P.W.6 took her father P.W.1 to the hospital but in the wound
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
certificate - Ex.P.13 it is stated that P.W.3 - Kavitha brought
P.W.1 to the hospital. P.W.2 had enmity with the accused
persons as brother of accused No.1 had filed complaint
against his wife and mother which he has admitted in his
cross-examination. P.W.3 is the daughter of P.W.1 and she
has not specifically stated as to which accused person
assaulted P.W.1 and with what weapon. P.W.4 has admitted
that his wife and wife of P.W.1 are sisters. Therefore, P.W.4
is the co-brother of P.W.1. P.W.1 had grudge against the
accused persons as they came to his house and made galata
demanding repayment of loan amount borrowed by his
daughter - Shruti. It appears, that P.W.1, after commission
of suicide by his daughter Shruti has filed complaint against
appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 to take revenge against
them. P.W.2 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 have not deposed regarding
abuse by accused persons to P.W.1 and the deceased.
Therefore, except the evidence of P.W.1 there is no
corroboration by other witnesses regarding abuse by accused
persons to P.W.1 and the deceased. Therefore a doubt arises
regarding accused persons assaulting P.W.1 and abusing him.
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6013
Therefore, benefit of doubt requires to be extended to the
accused persons. Considering the above aspects the Trial
Court has erred in convicting the appellants - accused Nos. 1
to 4 for offences punishable under Sections 326 and 504 of
IPC.
22. In the result, the following;
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed.
II. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 07.11.2012 passed in
S.C.No.229/2011 by the Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court, Srirangapatna is set aside.
III. Appellants - accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted
for offence punishable under Section 326, 504
and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LRS
