Karnataka High Court
Marimaddaiah @ Mariyappa vs State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
CRL.A No. 213 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 213 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
MARIMADDAIAH @ MARIYAPPA
S/O DODDANALLI CHANNEGOWDA
AGED 60 YEARS
RESIDENT OF CHANDAHALLI VILLAGE
KASBA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK
DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 428.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NITHIN GOWDA K C, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS MADDUR POLICE STATION
MANDYA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
Digitally signed by
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
LAKSHMINARAYANA HIGH COURT BUILDING
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH BANGALORE - 560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. H.S. RAVI
S/O SIDDANNA
AGED 49 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
RESIDENT OF D-HOSUR VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK
DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 428.
3. SMT. LATHA
W/O SRI MAHESHA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
CRL.A No. 213 of 2015
AGED 21 YEARS
OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD WORK
RESIDING AT D-HOSUR VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK
DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 428.
4. KULLAPPA @ KULLEGOWDA
S/O KENCHEGOWDA
AGED 61 YEARS
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
RESIDENT OF D-HOSUR VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK
DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 428.
5. MAHADEVA
S/O SRI KULLAPPA @ KULLEGOWDA
AGED 26 YEARS
RESIDENT OF D-HOSUR VILLAGE
MADDUR TALUK
DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 428.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1
SRI C N RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2-R5)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.372 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUEDGMENT DATED 20.11.2014, PASSED BY THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, IN
S.C.No.24.2013 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of
acquittal dated 20.11.2014 passed in S.C. No. 24/2013 by
the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya,
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
acquitting respondent Nos. 2 to 5 - accused Nos. 1 to 4 for
offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Factual matrix of the prosecution case is, that
the deceased - Mahesha was married to accused No.2 -
Latha who is the daughter of accused No. 3 about 2 years
back from the date of incident and they were residing in
the house of deceased - Mahesha and they were
quarrelling with each other and accused No.2 was having
illicit relationship with accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 to 4
joined together in furtherance of their common intention
and accused No. 2 abused the deceased - Mahesha as
impotent and it is better for him to die. Panchayat came to
be held before the panchayatdars, namely, P.W.2 to P.W.4
and others and they advised accused No. 2 and inspite of
that, accused No. 2 did not stop her illicit relationship with
accused No. 1. On 05.04.2012 the deceased - Mahesha
was returning from his land and accused No. 1 stopped
and abused him in filthy language and threatened the
deceased - Mahesha that with the help of accused Nos. 2
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
to 4 he will kill him and the deceased - Mahesha told the
incident to his mother and unbearing the humiliation and
torture given by them the deceased - Mahesha committed
suicide by hanging himself to a Neem tree in his garden
land at about 05.30 pm. A death note was found in his
shirt pocket. On receipt of complaint filed by P.W.1 a case
came to be registered against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 -
accused Nos. 1 to 4. After investigation charge sheet came
to be filed against them for offence under Section 306
read with Section 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge,
examined 9 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and M.O.1. The accused examined 2
witnesses as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and got marked Ex.D.1.
After hearing arguments on both sides, the trial Court
formulated points for consideration and acquitted the
respondent Nos. 2 to 5 - accused Nos.1 to 4 for offence
under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC by the
impugned judgment which is challenged in this appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
4. Heard arguments of learned counsel for
appellant - complainant, learned HCGP for respondent
No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 -
accused Nos. 1 to 4.
5. Learned counsel for appellant - complainant
argued that the very act of accused No.2 having illicit
relationship with accused No. 1 humiliated, affected his
self respect of the deceased and the same demoralized
him. Accused No. 2, inspite of advice by the panchayat
members, did not stop her illicit relationship with accused
No. 1. On 05.04.2012 accused No. 1 abused deceased -
Mahesha and threatened him that he would be finished by
accused No. 1 with the help of accused Nos.2 to 4. The
deceased - Mahesha unbearable by the said threat and
humiliation has committed suicide on the same day in the
evening. Death note found in the shirt pocket of the
deceased - Mahesha itself goes to show that accused
Nos.1 to 4 are responsible for his death. P.W.1 - father of
deceased - Mahesha, P.W.2 to P.W.4 - panchayatdars and
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
P.W.6 - mother of the deceased have consistently deposed
regarding the illicit relationship of accused No. 2 with
accused No. 1, holding of panchayat and advising accused
No.2. Recovery of death note from the shirt pocket of the
dead body under Ex.P.3 - mahazar has been proved by
the evidence of P.W.7 and the death note is at Ex.P.4.
Signature on the death note has been identified by P.W.1
- father of deceased - Mahesha. The document produced
to prove the signature of the deceased, namely, Ex.D.1 -
mortgage deed is an unregistered and disputed document
and evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 in that regard will not
establish the signature of the deceased - Mahesha on
Ex.D.1 and the same has not been confronted to
prosecution witnesses. The trial Court erred in holding that
the signature of the deceased on Ex.D.1 has been proved.
The trial Court had highlighted on the point of untying of
dead body prior to Ex.P.3 - spot mahazar as the same is
mentioned in the averments of the complaint - Ex.P.1 but
the contents of Ex.P.1 indicate that Police on oral
information came to the spot and in the presence of Police
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
the dead body was untied and laid on the ground.
Photograph of the dead body in hanging position as per
Ex.P.2 itself indicates that the Police had come to the spot
and only thereafter the dead body was untied and brought
to the ground. Learned counsel for appellant further
contended that due to the continued course of conduct of
accused No. 2 having illicit relationship with accused No. 1
the deceased - Mahesha was left with no other option
except to commit suicide. On that point he placed reliance
on the decision of 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. He
further contended that in a similar case where due to the
illicit relationship of the wife the husband had committed
suicide, the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the conviction of
the wife and other accused for offence under Section 306
of IPC in the case of Dammu Sreenu Vs. State of
Andhrapradesh reported in 2009 (14) SCC 249. He
further contends that the act of accused No. 2 perpetualy
humiliated, exploited and demoralized the deceased -
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
Mahesha and hurt his self-respect and therefore it left the
deceased with no other option but to commit suicide as
held in the case of Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of
Uttaranchal and another reported in 2012 (9) SCC
734. He contends that many a times exaggeration or
embellishment will not affect the credibility of the witness
and the Court has to sift the chaff from the grain and find
out the truth and on that point he placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Bhagawan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2016 (10) SCC 547. He
contends that it is not every doubt but only a reasonable
doubt of which benefit can be given to the accused and a
doubt of timid mind cannot be said to be reasonable
doubt. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sureshchandra
Jana Vs. State of West Bengal and others reported in
2017 (16) SCC 466. He also placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinubhai
Rancchodbhai Patel Vs. Rajivbhai Dhdabhai Patel
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
and others reported in 2018 (7) SCC 743 wherein the
Apex Court relying on the decision in the case of Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra reported
in 1973 (2) SCC 793 has observed as under:
"50. We do understand the grievance of the
appellant. The following prophetic words of
V.R.Krishna Iyer deserve to be etched on the
walls of every criminal court in this country:
"6....The Cherished principles or golden
thread of proof beyond reasonable
doubt which runs through the web of
our law should not be stretched
morbidly to embrace every hunch,
hesitancy and degree of doubt. The
excessive solicitude reflected in the
attitude that a thousand guilty men
may go but one innocent martyr shall
not suffer is a false dilemma. Only
reasonable doubts belong to the
accused. Otherwise any practical
system of justice will then break down
and lose credibility with the community.
The evil of acquitting a guilty person
light heartedly as a learned author has
sapiently observed, goes much beyond
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
the simple fact that just one guilty
person has gone unpunished. If
unmerited acquittals become general,
they tend to lead to a cynical disregard
of the law, and this in turn leads to a
public demand for harsher legal
presumptions against indicted "persons"
and more severe punishment of those
who are found guilty. Thus, too
frequent acquittals of the guilty may
lead to a ferocious penal law eventually
eroding the judicial protection of the
guiltless...."
The prophecy came true when Section 21 of
the TADA Act, 1987 burdened the accused
to prove his innocence, and when
Parliament responded to the public outcry
to impose more and more harsher
punishments to persons found guilty of the
offence of rape under Section 376 IPC,
etc.,"
6. He contends that the trial Court erroneously
observed that there is exaggeration by the prosecution
witnesses and the trial Court erred in acquitting
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
respondent Nos. 2 to 5 - accused Nos. 1 to 4. With this he
prayed to allow the appeal and convict respondent Nos. 2
to 5 - accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offence under Section 306
read with Section 34 of IPC.
7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 -
accused Nos. 1 to 4 argued that the trial Court on proper
appreciation of the evidence on record has rightly
acquitted respondent Nos. 2 to 5 - accused Nos. 1 to 4. He
has supported the reasons assigned by the trial Court. He
has further argued that what P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6
have deposed before the Court has not been stated by
them before the Investigating Officer which itself indicate
the exaggeration and improvement of their version.
Material aspects which are not stated by those witnesses
before the Police have been stated before the Court and
the said omissions are proved in the cross-examination of
P.W.9 - Investigating Officer. If those omissions are
excluded, the evidence on record will not establish the
offence charged against the accused. There is no
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
instigation for the deceased to commit suicide by the
accused. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are
interested witnesses. Accused No. 2 lodged complaint of
pouring kerosene on her and the same has been admitted
by P.W.1 and with the help of P.W.2 to P.W.4 he convinced
accused No.2 not to proceed with the complaint. But,
P.W.2 to P.W.4 have denied of having any knowledge
regarding pouring of kerosene on accused No.2 by P.W.1
and others. Signature of the deceased on the death note -
Ex.P.4 is different from the signature found on the
mortgage deed - Ex.D.1 and the said signature of the
deceased has been proved by the evidence of D.W. 1 and
D.W.2. Said signature of the deceased on Ex.D.1 is
different from the signature found on Ex.P.4 - death note.
Said aspect itself goes to show that Ex.P.4 - death note is
suspicious document and might be created with an intent
to implicate these accused persons. He pointed out the
delay in sending the FIR by referring to paragraph Nos. 24
to 26 of the impugned judgment and discrepancy in
untying the dead body under Ex.P.3 - spot mahazar which
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
is in contradiction to the death note found in the shirt
pocket of the deceased as contained in the first
information - Ex.P.1. He placed reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohit Singhhal
and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others
reported in 2023 INSC 1034 wherein it is held that the
accused demanding payment of amount borrowed from
the respondent from her husband by using abusive
language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose
does not amount to abetment to commit suicide. On these
grounds he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. On the grounds made out and arguments
advanced the following point arises for my consideration:
"Whether the trial Court erred in
acquitting the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 -
appellant Nos. 1 to 4 for offence under Section
306 read with Section 34 of IPC?
9. My answer to the above point is in the negative
for the following reasons:
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
Accused No.2 - Smt.Latha was married to the
deceased - Mahesha two years prior to the date of
incident. Accused No.2 and deceased - Mahesha were
earlier residing in the parent's house of deceased -
Mahesha and subsequently they started residing
separately. Deceased - Mahesha died a suicidal death by
hanging himself to a neem tree in his garden land on
05.04.2012 is not in dispute. Accused No.3 is father and
accused No. 4 is the brother of accused No.2. It is
unnatural to contend that accused No. 3 being the father
and accused No. 4 being the brother will support accused
No. 2, the daughter of accused No.3 and sister of accused
No. 4 in her illicit relationship with accused No. 1. It is
quite natural for the parents of the daughter to advice her
if she had any such kind of illicit relationship and asking
her to stop it. Therefore, the case of the complainant
against accused Nos. 3 and 4 is exaggerated.
10. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has admitted
that about 4 -5 days prior to the deceased committing
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
suicide accused No.2 had sustained burn injuries by
pouring of kerosene on her and a case has been registered
against P.W.1 in that regard and she had filed a complaint
against them, the Police in that regard have secured
P.W.1 and his wife and P.W.2 to P.W.4 have brought them
back from the Police Station stating that they will hold
panchayat and settle the matter and they accordingly held
the panchayat and advised him and his family members
and also advised to give food and clothing to accused No.2
who is his daughter-in-law. Even said aspect has been put
to P.W.2 to P.W.4 in their cross-examination. But, they
have denied the same. Said aspect itself goes to show that
P.W.2 to P.W.4 are not trustworthy. Even P.W.6 - mother
of deceased - Mahesha and wife of P.W.1 has denied the
said aspect in her cross-examination and that itself show
that she his hiding the truth.
11. P.W.2 has also further deposed that accused
No. 2 had illicit relationship with accused No.1 and they
were advised that it is not good and accused No.1 has
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
stated that he himself had performed the marriage of
deceased with accused No.2 and they advised accused
No.2 not to continue the said illicit relationship but in the
cross-examination of P.W.9 - Investigation Officer he has
stated that such statements were not given before him.
Those statements made by P.W.2 before the Court goes to
the root of the prosecution case and the said statements
are proved to be omissions. Therefore, the evidence of
P.W.2 is exaggeration and improvement.
12. Even P.W.6 in her chief examination has stated
that accused No.2 used to go to her parents house once in
every 15 days and she had illicit relation with accused No.
1. She did not led marital life with her son. Panchayat was
held in that regard. Accused No.1 used to visit her house
and she questioned him as to why he was spoiling the
marital life of her son. But, P.W.9 - Investigating Officer in
his cross-examination has stated that no such statements
were given by P.W.6 before him. Said statements are
found to be material omissions and such evidence of P.W.6
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
is exaggeration and improvement. If those omissions/
improvements are excluded the other evidence will not
establish the prosecution case against the accused. Even
similar omissions in respect of P.W.4 - Shivalingaiah are
also established in the cross- examination of - P.W.9 -
Investigating Officer.
13. In Ex.P.4 - death note it is stated that accused
Nos. 1 to 4 are responsible for his death. Even considering
the entire evidence of the prosecution how accused Nos. 3
and 4 are responsible to the death of the deceased is not
forthcoming. Therefore, considering the evidence on
record the contents of Ex.P.4 - death note appears to be
improbable. Even considering the evidence of P.W.1,
Ex.D.1 - the mortgage deed and signature of the
deceased on Ex.P.4 death note, it appears that the
signature of the deceased found on death note in Ex.P.4 is
different from signature found on the mortgage deed -
Ex.D.1. Father of the deceased did not produce any
admitted handwriting of the deceased to be compared with
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
the contents of the death note - Ex.P.4. Therefore, the
prosecution has not established that the contents of the
death note Ex.P.4 is in the handwriting of the deceased
and his signature on it.
14. As per the prosecution case and the evidence of
P.W.1 a panchayat was held on 04.04.2012 and in the said
panchayath the panchayat members advised accused No.1
and also advised deceased to take his wife to Bengaluru
for some days. After 04.04.2012 till the time deceased
committed suicide there is no allegation against accused
No. 2 meeting accused No. 1 and continuing her illicit
relationship. The evidence of prosecution only indicate that
accused No.1 gave life threat to the deceased on
05.04.2012. The very said aspect of giving life threat by
accused No.1 to the deceased that he will kill him with the
help of accused Nos. 2 to 4 does not amount to abetment
to commit suicide.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
15. A 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.
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 and the same has been observed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State
reported in 2011 (3) SCC 626.
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
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
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 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 law laid down in the case relied upon by the
learned counsel for appellant in the case of Dammu
Sreenu (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case
on hand as facts of that case are different. In the said case
accused No.1 took accused No. 2 wife of deceased despite
protest by her brother and kept her with him for 4 days
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19930
and in the case on hand there are no such allegations
against accused No. 1. Considering all these aspects, the
learned Sessios Judge has rightly acquitted respondent
Nos.2 to 5 - accused Nos.1 to 4 for offence under
Section306 read with Section 34 of IPC. There are no
grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of
acquittal passed by the trial Court. In the result, the
appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LRS
