Karnataka High Court
Shivanna vs State By Karnataka on 5 June, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
CRL.A No. 1026 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1026 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
SHIVANNA
S/O NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDENT OF HOBALAPALYA
NEAR MADAPURA, GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 576 121.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA (BY SRI A H BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
STATE BY KARNATAKA
BY BELLAVI POLICE
REPTD. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
03.10.2013 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND S.J.,
TUMKUR IN S.C.No.296/2012 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
CRL.A No. 1026 of 2013
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 03.10.2013 passed
in S.C. No. 296/2012 by the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Tumakuru, convicting the appellant - accused for the
offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentencing him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to
pay fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 10 months.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the
complainant (P.W.1) had a daughter by name Renukamma.
Her marriage was fixed with the appellant - accused and the
marriage engagement was held. It was decided to hold the
marriage on 14th and 15th April. Thereafter, the proposed
husband, i.e., appellant - accused was visiting her house and
talking to her daughter Renukamma - proposed bride. On
07.03.2012, in the evening at about 07.00 pm the accused
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
once again went to her house and was talking to
Renukamma. He enquired as to which are all the places that
Renukamma had gone during the previous week. Even
though Renukamma stated that she had been nowhere and
that she was at home, he did not agree to it, on the other
hand suspected the character and chastity of Renukamma.
He also stated that Renukamma had developed relationship
with some other person and that her character was bad. He
also stated that she should not continue to live, better to
die. The complainant had advised the accused but he left the
place. Thereafter, the complainant went away from the
house for some work and at that time, in the night between
07.00 pm to 08.00 pm Renukamma who was alone in the
house poured kerosene on herself and put herself into fire.
She sustained severe burn injuries. Despite treatment given
to her, she succumbed to the injuries in the morning of
08.03.2012. The complainant has alleged that the abetment
by the appellant - accused is the cause for the death of her
daughter Renukamma. After investigation charge sheet
came to be filed against the appellant - accused for offence
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
under Section 306 of IPC. After committal of the case by the
learned Magistrate, the Sessions Court framed charge
against the appellant - accused for offence under Section
306 of IPC.
3. The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses as
P.W.1 to P.W.13 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and also
got marked M.O.1 and M.O.2. The statement of the accused
came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
4. After hearing arguments on both sides the trial
Court formulated points for consideration and convicted the
appellant - accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC.
The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is
challenged by the appellant - accused in this appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for appellant - accused
and learned HCGP for respondent - State.
6. Learned counsel for appellant - accused argued
that evidence on record is not sufficient to attract the
ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
and ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. The entire case of the
prosecution is based on the dying declaration - Ex.P.2
recorded by P.W.5 - Tahsildar and evidence of the mother of
the deceased who has been examined as P.W.1. Even if the
contents of the dying declaration and evidence of P.W.1 are
taken, they will not establish that this appellant - accused
abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The appellant -
accused had no intention to drive the deceased to commit
suicide. The appellant - accused had earlier visited the house
of the deceased six times and it was the seventh time when
he visited the deceased on 07.03.2012. In the cross-
examination of P.W.1 a suggestion was put that the
deceased had liked a person and she intended to marry him
and P.W.1 has not denied the same but she has stated that
she do not know about that. The very said aspect goes to
show that said suggestion may be true. The deceased has
studied II PUC and the appellant - accused was a coolie and
that might also be the cause for the deceased to commit
suicide. A solitary instance will not make abetment to
suicide. He placed reliance on the following decisions:
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
I. M. Arjunan Vs. State, represented by its
Inspector of Police, 2019 (2) SCC (Cri) 219
II. K.M. Ibrahim Vs. K.P. Mohammed and another,
2010 (1) SCC (Crl) 921
III. Mahendra Singh and another Gayatribai Vs. State
of M.P., 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157
IV. Sonti Rama Krishna Vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and
another, 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 578
V. Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of
M.P., 2002 SCC (Cri) 1141
7. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent - state
argued that the trial Court on proper appreciation of the
evidence on record has rightly convicted the appellant -
accused. He has supported the reasons assigned by the trial
Court. He further argued that the evidence of P.W.1 and
Ex.P.2 - the dying declaration are sufficient to convict the
appellant - accused for the offence alleged against him. The
appellant - accused suspected the chastity of the deceased
who was engaged with him for marriage and asked her to
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
die and therefore, the deceased committed suicide and the
same amounts to abetment to commit suicide. The appellant
- accused has not let in any evidence to establish the love
affair of the deceased with any other person and the name
of that person is also not suggested to the prosecution
witnesses. On these grounds he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. On the grounds made out and considering the
arguments advanced, the following point arises for my
consideration:
"Whether the trial Court erred in convicting
the appellant - accused for offence under Section
306 of IPC?"
9. My answer to the above point is in the affirmative
for the following reasons:
It is not in dispute that the marriage of the appellant -
accused was fixed with the deceased and he used to visit her
house and on earlier six occasions he had visited the house
of the deceased. Even it is also not in dispute that the
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
appellant - accused visited the house of the deceased on
07.03.2012 and met the deceased. The death of the
deceased is suicidal is also not in dispute. Even the recording
of the dying declaration of the deceased as per Ex.P.2 by
P.W.5 - Tahsildar is also not in dispute. The main contention
of the learned counsel for appellant - accused is that even if
the evidence of P.W.1 and contents of Ex.P.2 - dying
declaration are considered as it is that will not amount to
abetment to commit suicide. What is stated in Ex.P.2 - dying
declaration is extracted below and it reads thus:
"F ¢£À vÁjÃRÄ 07.03.12 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 7.00
UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ²ªÀªÀÄä E§âgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÉݪÀÅ, £ÀªÀÄä
vÀAzÉ J¯ÉÆèà CAUÀrUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝgÀÄ. F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ ²ªÀtÚ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß
eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár £Á£ÀÄ MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀ¢AzÀ §A¢®è ¤Ã£ÀÄ J¯Éè°è
ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ JAvÁ PÉýzÀ, CzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ J®èUÀÆ ºÉÆÃV®è ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀįÉèà EzÉÝ
CAvÁ ºÉýzÉ. £À£ÀUÉ®è UÉÆvÀÄÛ ¤Ã£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÁågÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ
EmÉÆÌAr¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ JAvÁ ºÉý ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸Àj¬Ä®è PÉlÖªÀ¼ÀÄ. ¤£Àß §UÉÎ
UÉÆwÛ®èzÉà £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ M¦àzÉ. FUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀ®è ¤£ÀßAvÀ
PÉlÖªÀ¼ÀÄ F ¨sÀÆ«Ä ªÉÄÃ¯É §zÀÄQgÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ ªÀÄÄR
vÉÆÃj¸ÀzÉ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÛgÉ £À£ÀUÉ £ÉªÀÄä¢ CAvÁ ¨ÉÊzÀ£ÀÄ,
¤£ÀßAvÀªÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£Éà C®è ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ¤Ã£ÀÄ
¨sÀÆ«Ä ªÉÄÃ¯É MAzÀÄ PÀ¼ÀAPÀ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÄÛ
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ £ÉªÀÄä¢, ªÀÄÄAqÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä JAvÁ ºÉýzÀ. DUÀ £À£Àß
vÁ¬Ä PÉý¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀgÀÄ, DUÀ ²ªÀtÚ ¹lÄÖ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ C°èAzÀ
ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ."
10. Even P.W.1 - mother of the deceased has stated
the same in her evidence stating that deceased had stated it
before her. Said words uttered by appellant - accused are
that he questioned the deceased where she had gone and
whom she met, with whom she is having relation and
without knowing that he had agreed to marry her and he
refused to marry her stating that she is bad and she should
not live and she has to go and die and nobody will marry her
and she is bad on the earth (PÀ¼ÀAP) and if she dies he will get
peace and so saying he abused her and went away from the
house of the deceased. The deceased on the same night
poured kerosene on herself and set fire to herself and she
was taken to the hospital and she died on the next day in
the hospital. Whether the said words uttered by the
appellant - accused amounts to abetment is required to
considered.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
11. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC and
it reads thus:
"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 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."
12. 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 instigated another to act when he
actively suggests or stimulates him to act by means of
language, direct or indirect, when it takes the form of
express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or
encouragement.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
13. Learned counsel for appellant - accused has
placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Sanju Sanjay Singh Snegar Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in 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 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......."
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh
Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
reported in 2009 (16) SCC 605 has observed as under:
"17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a
person who instigates another has to provoke,
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
incite, urge or encourage 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 Edition).
18. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or
try hard to persuade somebody to do something
or to make a person to move 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, an "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:
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
(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
(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 his
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
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 self-protection or an
escapism from intolerable self."
15. The appellant - accused suspected that the
deceased had relation with some one and therefore he
uttered the said words. There was no intention on the part of
appellant - accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide.
The deceased had completed her II PUC and the appellant -
accused was a coolie.
16. 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
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
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
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, selfconfidence and
upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be
dealt with on its own facts and circumstance".
17. The person 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 same has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana
reported in reported in AIR 2014 SC 178.
18. The Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs.
State reported in 2011 (3) SCC 626 has observed as under:
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
"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."
19. The Apex Court in the said decision also observed
as under:
"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 in the same
situation."
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amalendu
Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal reported on
2010 (1) SCC 707 has observed thus:
"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 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 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."
21. In view of the said words of the appellant -
accused whether there was any other alternative to the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
deceased other than to commit suicide is required to be
considered. By the said words the appellant - accused
intended to cut off the relation with the deceased and he did
not intended to marry her. He suspected her chastity. As
marriage had not yet taken place the other option for the
deceased was to cut off the relation with the accused and
cancel their proposed marriage. Suicide was not the only
option for the deceased. The act of accused abusing the
deceased, suspecting her chastity and telling her that he will
not marry her will not itself constitute abetment. There
should be evidence capable of suggesting that the appellant
- accused intended by the said act to instigate the deceased
to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are specified the
appellant - accused cannot be convicted for offence under
Section 306 of IPC and the same has been held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Arjunan (supra). It
appears that the deceased was hyper sensitive. The Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010 (1) SCC 750
has observed thus:
"15. In the instant case, the deceased was
undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary
petulance, discord and differences which happen
in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each
individual differs from the other. Different people
behave differently in the same situation."
22. It is also to be taken into consideration that the
deceased had completed her II PUC and the appellant -
accused who is the proposed husband was a coolie and for
that whether she had no intention of marrying the deceased.
Considering all these aspects the words uttered by the
appellant - accused, which are stated by the deceased in
her dying declaration - Ex.P.2, does not amount to
abetment to commit suicide. Therefore, the conviction of the
appellant - accused cannot be sustained. Consequently the
appeal filed by the appellant - accused deserves to be
allowed.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19506
23. In view of the above, the following;
ORDER
I. The appeal is allowed.
II. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 03.10.2013 passed in S.C. No.
296/2012 by the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Tumakuru, is set aside.
III. The appellant - accused is acquitted of offence
under Section 306 of IPC. Fine, if any, paid by the
appellant - accused is ordered to be refunded to
him.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LRS
