Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs Shiraijahammad on 16 February, 2024

                                             -1-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820
                                                   CRL.A No. 100031 of 2017




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                          BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100031 OF 2017 (A)


                   BETWEEN:

                   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                   BY PSI OF RANEBENNUR
                   TOWN POLICE STATION,
                   TALUK RANEBENNUR,
                   THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                   ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
                   HIGHH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
                                                            ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.)

                   AND:

                   SHIRAJAHAMMAD S/O. MEHABUBSAB DHARWAD,
                   AGE: 25 YEARS,
                   R/O: MARUTI NAGAR, RANEBENNUR,
                   TALUK AND DIST: HAVERI.
Digitally signed
by                                                      ...RESPONDENT
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH
Date:              (BY SRI. AVINASH ANGADI, AMICUS CURIE)
2024.02.23
11:56:43 +0530

                        THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378
                   (1) & (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO
                   APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND TO SET ASIDE THE
                   JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 19.10.2016
                   PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
                   HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) SO FAR IT RELATES TO
                   ACQUITTAL OF RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
                   PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC IN S.C. NO. 97 OF
                   2012 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT /ACCUSED FOR THE
                   OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC, IN THE
                   INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                             -2-
                                  NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820
                                  CRL.A No. 100031 of 2017




     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

The State has preferred this appeal against the

judgment passed in SC No.97/2012 dated 19.10.2016 by

the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri

(sitting at to Ranebennur), wherein, the learned Sessions

Judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable

under Section 306 of IPC. However, convicted the accused

for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC

and thereby, sentenced the accused to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 1 year and 6 months for the

said offence and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-

and in default of payment of fine, directed to further

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

Aggrieved, the State has preferred this appeal against the

acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 306 of IPC. On verification of records, the accused

has not preferred any appeal against the conviction for the

offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Though

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

notice was issued to the accused and the same was served

on him, he opted to remain unrepresented. Since, the

appeal is of the year 2017, this Court appointed the

learned counsel Sri.Avinash Angadi as Amicus-Curiae on

09.02.2022 to represent the accused/respondent.

2 Brief facts of the prosecution case are that;

Accused/respondent married one Reshma (now the

deceased in this case) the daughter of PW.1/complainant

on 21.03.2012. After the marriage, for a period of 3 to 4

months they were cordial with each other. It is the further

case of the prosecution that, thereafter, the accused

started to harass her both physically and mentally for the

reason that, she was not good looking. On that reason, the

accused was quarrelling with her and also used to abuse

her in filthy language. It is the further case of the

prosecution that, on 10.07.2012, the accused harassed his

wife i.e., the deceased in this case and she called her

father i.e., PW.1 through mobile phone and informed the

same. To that effect, himself and the other elder members

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

of his community went to the house of the accused and

pacified and advised him to not to indulge in such

activities and thereby, the elders advised the accused to

live happy marital life and in spite of the same, the

accused continued to abuse her. As such, on 02.08.2012,

at about 4:00 pm, in her matrimonial house, situated at

6th cross, Maruti Nagar Ranebennur, she has committed

suicide by hanging herself in the kitchen roof. Thereafter,

the accused and PWs.10 and 12 who are the neighbors,

shifted the deceased to the Hospital and the Doctor

declared her as brought dead. Hence, PW.1 lodged a

complaint before the respondent/Police against the

accused as per Ex.P.1 on 03.08.2012. The same came to

be registered in Crime No.73/2012, dated 03.08.2012,

against the accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. Subsequently, PW.19-the

Taluka Executive Magistrate conducted the Inquest

Panchanama on the dead body of the deceased as per

Ex.P.14, in the presence of the Investigation Officer-

PW.20, so also, the witnesses. Subsequently, PW.20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

conducted the investigation by arresting the accused and

thereafter, based on his voluntary statement, conducted

the Spot Mahazar as per Ex.P.2. Subsequently, by

obtaining the necessary documents from the concerned

authorities, he laid the chargesheet before the committal

Court.

3. Post committal, the learned Sessions Judge

framed the charges against the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and read

over the same to the accused. However, the accused

denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the charges leveled against

the accused, the prosecution in total has examined 20

witnesses as PW.1 to PW.20, so also, got marked 31

documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31 and also identified two

material objects as MO.1 and MO.2.

5. After completion of the prosecution evidence,

the learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

evidence of the material witnesses to the accused as

contemplated under the provisions of Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same and he

neither chose to examine any evidence on his behalf, nor

got marked any documents.

6. Post assessment of the oral and documentary

evidence placed before the learned Sessions Judge, the

learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and however,

convicted the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him as stated supra.

The legality and correctness of acquittal order in the said

judgment is challenged under this appeal by the

appellant/State.

7. Heard the learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor for the appellant/ State, so also, the learned

counsel Sri. Avinash Angadi for the respondent/accused.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

8. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

would vehemently contend that, the judgment under this

appeal suffers from perversity and illegality, since the

learned Sessions Judge totally erred in appreciating the

evidence available on record. According to the learned

Additional State Public Prosecutor, though the prosecution

has placed sufficient evidences by examining all the

material witnesses to prove the charges leveled against

the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306

of IPC, in spite of it, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted

the accused for the aforesaid offence, which is not

sustainable under law. He would further contend that, the

evidence of PW.1 i.e., the father of the deceased, so also,

the evidence of PW.4-the paternal uncle of the deceased

and PW.7-Nagaraj Devaraddi and PW.15-the sister of the

deceased, have categorically deposed about the

harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased, for

the reason that, she was not good looking. All these

witnesses have also deposed about the earlier Panchayat

held in the house of the accused on 10.07.2012 and they

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

have advised the accused, not to indulge in such activity

and to lead a happy marital life. Even then, the accused

continued his illegal act and as such, on 02.08.2012, the

deceased committed suicide in the matrimonial home.

9. According to the learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor, it is an admitted fact that, the deceased has

committed suicide in the matrimonial home within a period

of 8 months from the date of marriage. The presence of

the accused is also not disputed by the defense. In such

circumstances, without any such explanation by the

accused for the reason to commit suicide by the deceased

in his house, a presumption can be drawn against the

accused under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act.

Hence, the prosecution has proved the offence punishable

under Section 306 IPC. He would also contend that the

Spot Mahazar and Inquest Mahazar witnesses have also

supported the case of the prosecution. Further, the

defense put forth by the accused is not a probable or

believable one as he had stated that the deceased had

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

extra marital affair with some other boy and in spite of

that, PW.1 performed her marriage with the accused and

hence, she committed suicide. In order to substantiate

the said defense of the accused, he failed to examine any

witnesses so also to explain the same in his 313

statement. In such circumstances, in my opinion, his

defense cannot be taken into consideration.

10. Moreover, one day prior to the date of incident,

the deceased called her father PW.1/Complaint and

informed about the harassment meted out by the accused

to her and immediately, on the next day, she committed

suicide. In such circumstances, the prosecution has

successfully proved the positive act committed by the

accused, which compelled the deceased to commit suicide.

Hence, according to counsel, the ingredients of Section

306 of IPC attribute against the accused and the

prosecution has successfully proved the charges leveled

against the accused for the offences punishable under

Section 306 of IPC. In spite of it, the learned Sessions

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

Judge failed to convict the accused for the said offence.

With these grounds, the learned State Public Prosecutor

prays to allow the appeal and to convict the accused for

the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

11. Refuting the above submissions made by the

learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, the learned

Amicus Curiae Sri.Avinash Angadi appearing for the

respondent/accused, vehemently contends that, the

learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the accused for

the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC by

meticulously examining the evidence of all the witnesses

deposed before the trial Court. According to the learned

counsel, the evidence of PW.1 and the complaint lodged by

him as per Ex.P.1, are quite contradictory in respect of the

alleged date of incident, so also the reasons for the

commission of suicide by the deceased. According to the

learned counsel, on perusal of Ex.P.1, PW.1 has narrated

that, on 02.08.2012, at about 10:00 a.m, his daughter

had called him through mobile phone and informed him

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

about the harassment meted out by the accused.

However, he further stated in the complaint that, on

03.08.2012, at about 4:30 pm i.e., on the date of lodging

the complaint, he received an information that, his

daughter committed suicide and she was shifted to

Ranebennur KIMS Hospital. Thereafter, himself and his

relatives rushed to the said Hospital. On perusal of the

Post-Mortem report and Inquest report, according to the

prosecution, the deceased committed suicide on

02.08.2012 itself. Further, on perusal of the evidence of

PW.1 and Ex.P.1, except bald allegations that, the accused

used to harass the deceased for the reason that, she was

not good looking; absolutely, there are no allegations

forthcoming as against the accused. Nevertheless, prior to

the date of alleged incident, no such positive act is

committed by the accused, in order to drive the deceased

to commit suicide. Such being the scenario, the

prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against

the accused for the offences punishable under Section 306

of IPC.

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

12. The learned counsel also emphasizes on the

evidence of all other witnesses examined by the

prosecution who are the relatives of the deceased i.e.,

PWs.4, 6, 7 and 15 in their evidence. But, none of them

have stated that, the accused has harassed the deceased

in such a manner, to compel her to commit suicide.

Moreover, the neighbors i.e., PWs.9 and 10 have turned

hostile to the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the

prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against

the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306

of IPC. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal filed by

the State.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and so also, having perused the entire material available

on record, the only Point that would arise for my

consideration is,

"Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality?"

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

14. This Court being the appellate Court, is

mandated to re-appreciate the entire evidence available on

record. Accordingly, on cursory glance of the evidence

placed by the prosecution before the trial Court, I find-

PW.1-Abdul Aziz, father of the deceased, lodged the

complaint in this case as per Ex.P.1., reiterated the

contents of complaint/Ex.P.1 and deposed that, his

daughter was given in marriage with the accused on

02.08.2012 and she was residing along with the accused

in her matrimonial home. Thereafter, for a period of 3 to 4

months they were residing cordially and thenceforth, the

accused started to harass her on the ground that, she was

not good looking. On 02.08.2012, in between 11:00 to

12:00 pm, he received a mobile call and he was informed

that his daughter has committed suicide in the

matrimonial home and thereafter, her husband and other

neighbors shifted her to the Hospital. As such, he rushed

to the Hospital and there he came to know that her

daughter has expired. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

before the Police as per Ex.P.1 and subsequently, the

Police conducted the Spot Mahazar in the house of accused

as per Ex.P.2.

PW.2-Rehana, sister of the deceased, witness for

Inquest Panchnama drawn by the Police as per Ex.P.14.

PW.3-Mohammad Jafar, witness for Spot Mahazar,

drawn in the house of the accused at Ex.P.2.

PW.4-Sayyad Sadiq, relative of the deceased and

according to him, the marriage of the accused was

solemnized with the deceased on 21.03.2012, thereafter,

the deceased was residing in her matrimonial home

happily and after 3 to 4 months from the date of marriage,

the accused started to harass her, for the reason that, she

was not good looking and those facts were informed by

the deceased to him. Subsequently, on 02.08.2012, his

sister called him in the evening hours and informed him

that the deceased had committed suicide at her

matrimonial house.

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

PW.5-Dadapeer, witness for Spot Mahazar drawn as

per Ex.P.2.

PW.6-Kutubuddin Antarvalli, relative of the deceased

and also a witness for Inquest Mahazar drawn on the dead

body of the deceased as per Ex.P.14.

PW.7-Nagaraj Devaraddi, scribe of the complaint,

deposed about the Panchayat conducted by him and the

other villagers in respect of the strained relationship of the

accused and the deceased before her death.

PW.8-Shaira, aunt of accused and a circumstantial

witness, turned hostile to the prosecution case.

PWs.9, 10, 11 and 12 are the circumstantial

witnesses, among them PWs.9 and 10 are the neighbors of

the deceased and accused and they completely turned

hostile to the prosecution case. PWs.11 and 12 are the

relatives of the accused, they also turned hostile in respect

of the allegations of harassment, meted out by the

accused to the deceased.

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

PW.13, Medical Officer, conducted the autopsy over

the dead body of the deceased and issued a Post-Mortem

report as per Ex.P.20. He has also given his opinion in

respect of the rope which is used by the deceased to

commit suicide by hanging herself as per Ex.P.22.

PW.14-Ramesh G, Assistant Executive Engineer,

drawn the Spot Sketch as per Ex.P.23.

PW.15-Shirinbhanu, sister of deceased, reiterated the

evidence of PW.1 and deposed about the harassment

meted out by the accused to the deceased.

PW.16-Parameshwarappa, the then Head Constable,

watched the dead body and subsequently, handed over

the dead body to the family members of the deceased.

PW.17-Rajesab, the then Tahsildar, issued property

extract of the accused as per Ex.P.26.

PW.18-Dr.Ningappa Kamakeri, Medical Officer,

Assistant Professor in KIMS Hospital, Ranebennur, issued a

report as per Ex.P.21 subsequent to examining the skin

- 17 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

ligature mark and neck structure of the deceased in this

case.

PW.19-Iliyas Ahamad, Taluka Executive Magistrate,

conducted the Inquest Panchnama on the dead body of

the deceased as per Ex.P.14 based on the requisition

made by the Investigation Officer as per Ex.P.27 and

subsequently, forwarded the dead body of the deceased to

the Post-mortem examination.

P.W.20- Muttanagouda Goudappagoudar, the then

PSI of the Ranebennur Police Station. He received the

written complaint from P.W.1 as per Ex.P.1 and registered

FIR against the accused in Crime No.73/2012 as per

Ex.P.30. Subsequently, he conducted investigation in this

case and laid charge-sheet against the accused for the

aforementioned offences.

15. On careful perusal of the above evidence, in

order to prove the charges leveled against the accused,

the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1

- 18 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

i.e., the father of the deceased, so also, the evidence of

P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.15 i.e., the relatives of the

deceased who have deposed about the ill-treatment of the

accused to the deceased which led her to commit suicide

in this case. Further, in order to prove the suicidal death of

the deceased in the matrimonial house of the accused, the

prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of the

Doctor P.W.13, so also, on the post-mortem report as per

Ex.P.20. On careful perusal of Ex.P.20, the Doctor has

opined that, the 'death is due to the shock and respiratory

failure secondary to ligature mark around the neck and it

is ante mortem in nature'. In addition to this, the

prosecution has also relied on the evidence of P.W.19 i.e.,

the then Taluka Executive Magistrate, who conducted

inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased as

per Ex.P.14. Even on perusal of Ex.P.14 also, the same

depicts that, there are ligature mark found on the neck of

the deceased. P.W.2 and P.W.6 are the witness for Ex.P.14

the inquest panchanama. They also supported the case of

the prosecution. Nevertheless, P.W.18 is the Doctor

- 19 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

working in the Pathological department. The Doctor after

examining the skin ligature mark and neck structure

opined that, they are of the anti mortem changes (before

death) as per Ex.P.21. Further the defense has also not

seriously disputed the suicidal death of the deceased in

the house of accused. Hence, on a collective reading of the

above evidences, in my considered view, the prosecution

has successfully proved the suicidal death of the deceased.

16. In order to connect the accused for the suicidal

death of the deceased, as stated supra, the prosecution

mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and the other

relatives. On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, i.e.,

father of the deceased, who lodged the complaint, he

stated in the complaint that, eight months prior to the

date of the incident, deceased was given in marriage to

the accused and thereafter they lived happily for a period

of four months and subsequently, the accused started to

harass her both physically and mentally for the reason

that, she was not good looking. On perusal of the

- 20 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

complaint lodged by P.W.1 and his evidence, there seems,

absolutely no other allegations meted out by the accused

are forthcoming. Further, as admitted by P.W.1 in his

evidence, the engagement of the accused and the

deceased was performed, six months prior to the date of

marriage and ever since, accused and deceased knew each

other and on 21.03.2012, their marriage was solemnized.

Post marriage also, they were cordial for a period of three

to four months. It is the allegation that, after four months

of the marriage, the accused started to harass the

deceased. That too for the reason that, she is not good

looking. Hence, it is clear that, the harassment meted by

the accused has not lead the deceased to commit suicide.

If viewed along with provisions of Section 498-A, it can be

inferred from the evidence that, at the most, the case of

the prosecution may attract the above provision against

the accused.

17. The defense of the accused in this case is that,

before the marriage, the deceased had an affair with some

- 21 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

other person and the parents i.e., P.W.1 and her mother

performed her marriage with accused, against her will. As

such, she committed suicide in the matrimonial home. In

order to substantiate the same, a suggestion was put to

P.W.1 in his cross-examination to which he admitted that

the deceased used to quarrel with her parents post her

marriage. Further, he has also admitted in his cross-

examination that, the deceased had an affair with some

other person and as such, the marriage of his second

daughter was also broken. Further, on careful perusal of

the evidence of P.W.1, there is no such allegations are

forthcoming that, the accused was harassing the deceased

and thereby instigating her to commit suicide.

18. Though the evidence of P.W.1 inspires the

confidence of this Court in respect of the harassment

meted out by him, to the deceased, after the marriage,

but at the same time, the prosecution has failed to prove

that, due to the said harassment meted out by the

accused, she has committed suicide.

- 22 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

19. On perusal of the evidence of the other

witnesses i.e., P.W.4 i.e., Maternal Uncle of the deceased,

and P.W.6 P.W.7 and P.W.15, all these witnesses have

deposed before the Court that, after the marriage, the

deceased was residing at her matrimonial home and the

deceased has informed them about the harassment meted

out by the accused to her for the reason that, she was not

good looking. Though all these witnesses are hearsay

witnesses to the prosecution case, but they have

consistently deposed about the harassment meted out by

the accused to the deceased after marriage. In the same

time, these witnesses have also failed to depose that some

alleged positive act committed by the accused to prove the

deceased to commit suicide.

20. Learned Addl.SPP vehemently contended that,

once the suicidal death of the deceased is proved by the

prosecution in the matrimonial home without any such

explanation by the accused for the said death, a

presumption can be drawn by the Court under Section

- 23 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, against the accused

that, he is solely responsible for the same. However, on

careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, as discussed

supra, the accused has taken a defense that, the deceased

had an affair and against her will the parents have

performed her marriage with the accused. As such, she

has committed suicide. The said defense of the accused is

partially admitted by P.W.1 in his evidence also. All the

evidences of the material witnesses discussed supra, goes

to show that, there was a panchayat held in the house of

the accused about 20 days prior to the date of the incident

in respect of the strained relationship between the accused

and the deceased. However, the prosecution has failed to

prove by way of producing any material evidences or

documents that, due to the harassment of the accused,

the deceased committed suicide. To further emphasize,

this court would deem it appropriate to cite Section 306 of

the IPC, which reads thus;

"306. Abetment of suicide- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of

- 24 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

21. Additionally, The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Geo Verghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and another,

reported in AIR 2021 SC 4764, at paragraph Nos.14 and

15 has proceeded to hold as under:

"14. Through, the IPC does not define the word 'Suicide' but the ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is 'self-killing'. The word derived from a modern latin word 'suicidium', 'sui' means 'oneself' and 'cidium' means 'killing'. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of 'self- killing'. In other words, act of death must be committed by the deceased himself, irrespective of the means adopted by him in achieving the object of killing himself.

15. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC which reads as under:-

"107. abetment of thing-A person abets the doing of thing, who-first.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or

- 25 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

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. Explanation 2.-Whoever either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

22. Further, The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of

Judgments has held that, the 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 for the offence

- 26 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

punishable under Section 306 of IPC. It requires an active

act or direct act which leads the deceased to commit

suicide seeing no option, and that act must have been

intended to push the deceased into such a position that to

commit suicide.

23. Hon'ble Apex Court has also made it clear that,

the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt against

the accused does not stand altered even after the

introduction of Section 498-A of IPC and Section 113-A of

the Indian Evidence Act. This view of mine, is fortified by

the Judgment referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and

another, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 73.

24. Accordingly, on careful perusal of the dictum

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above

mentioned Judgments to the case on hand, the

prosecution has failed to prove any such positive act

committed by the accused to drive the deceased to

commit suicide. Though the prosecution has successfully

- 27 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

proved harassment meted out by the accused on the

deceased, in the matrimonial home, the learned Sessions

Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. However, the

prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against

the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306

of IPC. In the Judgment discussed supra, the Hon'ble Apex

Court has made it clear that, the difference between the

degree of harassment committed by the accused to attract

the ingredients of Section 498-A and Section 306 of IPC

differs from each other. As such, in this case, though the

prosecution has successfully proved the charges leveled

against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A of

IPC, in the same time the prosecution has failed to prove

the degree of harassment meted out by the accused to

drive the deceased to commit suicide. In such

circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly

acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 306 of IPC.

- 28 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

25. Further, this is an appeal preferred by the State

against the acquittal of the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 306 of IPC. As such, I find no

such compelling reasons forthcoming to interfere in the

reasoning recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, since,

the same does not suffer from any perversity for the

reasons discussed above.

26. It could be seen from the records of the trial

Court that, after passing of the conviction order under

Section 498-A of IPC, though the learned Sessions Judge,

suspended the sentence of the accused for a limited period

of two months i.e., till the appeal period is completed. But,

the accused has not preferred any appeal before this Court

against the conviction for the offence punishable under

Section 498-A of IPC. Further the learned Sessions Judge

has also failed to take any appropriate steps to secure the

presence of the accused to commit him to prison, to

undergo sentence for the offence punishable under Section

498-A of IPC.

- 29 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3820

27. Hence, in view of the discussion made

hereinabove, I answer the Point raised above in the

negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal preferred by the State is dismissed;

(ii) However, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to secure the presence of the accused within four weeks from the date of copy of the receipt of this order to undergo remaining sentence by the accused, awarded by the learned sessions for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.