Karnataka High Court
Sri Onkarappa G.H vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 May, 2024
-1-
CRL.RP No. 141 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 141 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. ONKARAPPA G H
S/O SRI G HANUMANTHAPPA
AGRD ABOUT 66 YEARS
2. SMT. ANUSUYAMMA
W/O SRI. ONKARAPPA G H
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SWAMY
VIVEKANANDA EXTENSION
'B' BLOCK, H.NO. 83
NANSU NILAYA
SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ARUN SHYAM S, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUYOG HERELE E, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH TUNGANAGARA P S
SHIVAMOGGA RURAL CIRCLE
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2023
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHIVAMOGGA IN S.C. NO.126/2022, THEREBY REJECTING THE
-2-
CRL.RP No. 141 of 2024
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS SEEKING THEIR
DISCHARGE UNDER SECTION 227 OF CR.P.C. AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 01.03.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated
18.12.2023 in S.C No.126/2022 passed by the Prl. District
and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, wherein the Trial Court
rejected the application filed by the petitioners/accused
Nos.1 and 2 under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C."), has preferred this revision
petition.
Brief facts of the case :
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased
Shruthi was working as a maid in the house of
Sri. G.H. Omkarappa and Smt. Anusuyamma at Shivamogga.
The deceased was staying with them since two years. The
complainant being a mother of the deceased-Shruthi used to
visit the house where Shruthi was working often and she was
enquiring about the welfare of her daughter. Such being the
fact, she has received a message from the reliable source that
her daughter committed suicide in the house of the accused
around 2.00 pm.
3. Immediately after receiving the said information,
the complainant and others went to Shivamogga and learnt
that the deceased Shruthi committed suicide inside the room
and it was bolted from inside. It is further stated in the
complaint that, the door was opened with the help of the
localites in the presence of police. On opening the said room,
the complainant found that her daughter was hanging from the
ceiling fan and also noticed a chit said to have written by the
deceased. Hence, she lodged a complaint.
4. Upon the complaint, the jurisdictional police
registered a case in Cr.No.207/2015 for the offence under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. After conducting
investigation submitted charge sheet. Being aggrieved by filing
of the charge sheet, the petitioner herein filed an application
under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure Act (for short,
'Cr.P.C.'). The said application came to be rejected by the Trial
Court. Hence, this revision.
5. Heard Sri. Arun Shyam, learned Senior Counsel for
Sri. Suyog Herele, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri. Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader for the
State.
6. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel that
the findings of the Trial Court in rejecting the application for
discharge is erroneous and against to the facts of the case.
Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
7. It is further submitted that the contents of the
charge sheet do not disclose the ingredients of Section 306 of
IPC. In fact, the complainant in her complaint stated that she
was visiting the house of the accused and she was enquiring
about the welfare of her daughter. The averments of the
complaint did not disclose either instigation or harassment to
commit suicide.
8. It is further submitted that a letter said to have
been found in the room where the deceased committed suicide
clearly discloses that, the deceased was loving a boy and she
mentioned the phone numbers and narrated certain facts in it.
However, the deceased mentioned in the end of the said letter,
that accused are responsible for her suicide. That itself is not
sufficient to attract the ingredients of instigation or abetment to
commit suicide. Such being the fact, asking the petitioner to
face the trial, certainly, amounts to an abuse of process of law.
Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. Making such
submissions, the learned Senior Counsel prays to allow the
petition.
9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
vehemently justified the order of rejection passed by the Trial
Court and submitted that as per the averments of the
complaint, the deceased Shruthi was working in the house of
the accused as a maid and she committed suicide in their house
by leaving death note. The said death note contains some facts
and the same are required to be proved during full-fledged
trial. In case, if the petition is allowed, the facts remain
unchallenged. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
Making such submission, the learned High Court Government
Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective
parties and also after having perused the findings of the Trial
Court, the Trial Court while rejecting the application opined that
at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to see only
prima-facie material and further opined that the contents of the
death note are required to be proved during trial.
11. Regard being had to be findings and also the facts
of the case, it is relevant to refer Section 306 of IPC which
reads thus:
"306-Abetment of suicide.-If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of
such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
12. On careful reading of the ingredients of the
provisions, it makes clear that if any person commits suicide
and whoever abets the commission of such suicide, of course,
such persons shall be punished under said provisions.
13. It is settled principles of law that in order to convict
a person under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear
mensrea to commit the offence. Further, it also requires an
active act or direct act which lead 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.
14. Now, it is also relevant to refer to the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MOHIT SINGHAL
AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND
OTHERS1 paragraphs numbers 9 and 10 which read thus:
"9. Section 306 IPC makes abetment to commit
suicide as an offence. Section 107 IPC, which defines the
"abetment of a thing", reads thus:
107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing
of a thing, who-First.-Instigates any person to do that
thing; or secondly.- Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of
that thing; or thirdly.- Intentionally aides, 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.
10. In the fact s 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 tom commit suicide. The act of instigation must
be of such intensity that it is intended to push the
deceased such a position under which he or she has no
choice but commit suicide. Such instigation must be in
close proximity to the act of committing suicide."
15. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it makes clear that to attract the ingredients of
abetment, there must be an instigation in some form on the
part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide.
(2024) 1 SCC 417
16. In the present case, either the averments of the
complaint or averments of the charge sheet do not disclose
neither mens-rea nor instigation. Even assuming that the
contents of the death note are true, it can be inferred from the
averments that the deceased was loving a boy and she
mentioned the phone numbers and expressed her willingness to
meet him and at the same time, she mentioned the reason for
committing suicide. "Mere mentioning that the accused are
responsible for committing suicide", is not sufficient to attract
the ingredients of abetment. Such being the facts, asking
accused to face the trial, certainly would be considered as an
abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petition deserves to be
allowed.
17. It is needless to say that the Trial Court while
considering the application for discharge must satisfy as to
whether the material placed in the charge sheet are sufficient
to record the conviction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court time and
again reiterated that the Trial Court shall not act as a post
office between prosecution and investigating agency. Of
course, the Trial Court while framing the charge must prima
facie satisfy that the materials are sufficient to frame the
charge. However, the said word "prima facie" would mean that,
even if no other material is placed by the investigating agency,
the conviction can be recorded based on the charge sheet
materials.
18. In the light of the observation made above, I
proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 18.12.2023 in S.C
No.126/2023 passed by the Prl. District and
Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, is hereby set
aside.
(iii) The petitioners are discharged for the
offence punishable under Sections 306 read
with Section 34 of IPC.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JS/-
