Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs G.A.Lokesh on 7 November, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1305 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NAZARBAD POLICE,
MYSURU
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 01. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP)
AND:
G.A. LOKESH
S/O. APPUGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
BEO, R/AT NO.113,
6TH CROSS, II STAGE,
Digitally signed by BRINDAVAN EXTENSION,
MAHALAKSHMI B M MYSURU - 570 001. ... RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMNAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2016 PASSED IN S.C.NO.102/2014 BY THE
III ADDL. S.J., MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 306 OF IPC AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 227 OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP and Sri C H
Jadhav, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.
2. State is in revision challenging the order passed
by the learned Sessions Judge discharging the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the revision petition are as under -
A complaint came to be lodged by Sri Raghu S/o
Annaiah with Nazarabad police station, Mysuru, contending
that he is working as System Coordinator in Infosys, Mysuru
and he had married Smt. Roopa (herein after referred to as
'deceased'). Marriage had last five years and the couple had
a son by name Diganth. His wife Roopa was working in BEO
Office as a ECO at T.Narasipura. Wife of complainant used to
travel to T.Narasipura from Mysuru everyday. He further
contended that the BEO of T Narasipura used to mentally
harass his wife which was being reported to the complainant
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
by the deceased and complainant had pacified the feelings of
the deceased and advised her to put up with the difficulties
and discharge the job. On 11.02.2013 also the deceased
had told the alleged mental harassment by the B.E.O. and
had cried with the complainant. Complainant said to have
assured her that he would make his best efforts to get her
transferred from that place and till such time she should
show patience and proceed with the job. Since both the
couple were working, their son Diganth was being reared in
the parental house of the complainant.
4. When the matter stood thus, that on 12.02.2013
at about 8.00 a.m. complainant had been to his work as
usual and his wife was all alone in the house. She had also
intimated the complainant that she would not go to the work
on that day and he had also told her that if she is not
comfortable let her not go to the work and take rest. At
about 10.50 a.m. on the same day, when the complainant
called the mobile telephone of his wife there was no
response. Accordingly, complainant told the owner of the
house Smt. Pushpa to visit their house and ask wife of the
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
complainant to call the complainant. Accordingly, Pushpa
visited the house and tried to call the deceased. There was
no response. The same was intimated to the complainant
and therefore complainant immediately rushed to the house
around 12 noon. There was no response for the complainant
as well and they tried to peep into the house by breaking
open the walls of the window. But they could not find
anything. Therefore ultimately they broke open the front
door and went inside the house.
5. For their utter shock, they found that wife of the
complainant had hung herself with the help of a vail to the
iron hook found in the dining hall. With the help of the
neighbors, the body was brought down from the hanging
position and wife of the complainant was shifted to Cauvery
hospital. The doctor who examined the wife of the
complainant declared that she was no more and the
complainant found a death note.
6. Based on the above factual aspects, he lodged
the complaint with Nazarabad police station. Police after
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
registering the case investigated the matter in detail and
filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section
306 IPC against the respondent.
7. Learned trial Magistrate took cognizance and
committed the matter to the Sessions Court. Learned Judge
in the Sessions Court summoned the accused. The accused
appeared before the Court, engaged the services of an
advocate and filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
seeking his discharge as there was no nexus between the
suicidal death of the wife of the complainant and the
accused. Prosecution opposed the application by filing detail
written objections.
8. Learned Sessions Judge heard the parties in detail
and based on the material found in the charge sheet and the
contentions urged on behalf of the accused, by impugned
order discharged the accused inter alia holding in paragraph
Nos.11 and 12 as under:
"11. The Death Note left by the deceased is
produced at page-48 of the charge sheet. In the
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
said Death Note, the deceased has firstly apologized
to her husband for taking the extreme step. Then
the deceased goes on to say that, she is unable to
tolerate the harassment meted to her by the
accused. She still has to continue in the same office
for another 2 years since, she will not get transfer
nor be deputed to school and therefore, she is going
to go mad. Therefore, she is unable to understand
what to do. Then the deceased has stated that it is
the B.E.Ο., [accused] who is responsible for her
suicide, because he is issuing Memos to her for
small things. Then, the Death Note deals with
various other mattes wherein the deceased has
informed her husband regarding where she has kept
various LIC Policies, FD Receipts etc.,. Therefore,
the sum and substance of the allegations against
the accused in the Death Note is that, he is issuing
Memos to the deceased for small things and thus
harassing her. In so far as the inability of the
deceased to get transfer is concerned, as already
noted supra, the accused has nothing to do with it
because it is in the domain of the superior officers of
the BEO.
12. On the basis of the above allegations and the
material produced by the prosecution, I have to
determine whether there is sufficient material to
proceed against the accused in the present case.
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
Before adverting to the allegations against the
accused, I deem It appropriate to refer to the Post
Mortem Report of the deceased, which states the
opinion that she died due to asphyxia. I also deem
it appropriate to refer to the Medical Certificate
produced by the prosecution at page-51 of the
charge sheet. The said, Medical Certificate is dated
29.03.2012, i.e. almost one year prior to the suicide
of the deceased. Said Medical Certificate states that
the deceased was suffering from "major depressive
disorder with obsessive compulsive disorder and
deliberate self harm", It is to be noted that, said
depression would not occur over night and
therefore, it is clear that the deceased was suffering
from "major depressive disorder with obsessive
compulsive disorder and deliberate self harm" much
prior to the date on which the said Medical
Certificate was issued. Therefore, it is clear that,
even prior to the alleged harassment at the hands of
the accused commenced, the deceased was already
suffering from depression. Infact, even in the charge
sheet and the statements recorded by the police,
reference is made to the fact that the deceased was
a very sensitive lady. It is in the context of these
facts that, I have to determine whether there is
sufficient material to frame charge against the
accused for offence punishable under Section 306 of
I.P.C. It is to be noted that, the sum and substance
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
of the allegations against the accused are that, he
used to issue Memos for small reasons and thus
resulted in harassment of deceased and drove her
to commit suicide. In particular, the learned Public
Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the Memo
dated 23.07.2012 at page-54 of the charge sheet as
a manifestation of the harassment meted out to the
deceased by the accused wherein the accused has
issued Memo on the ground that, on 23.06.2012,
the deceased has issued Report stating that she has
visited Halekempaiahnahundi school. But the said
Report is not signed by her, but only signed by Sri
Prakash and asking her explanation for the same.
The deceased has replied to the said Memo on
04.08.2012 stating that, by oversight, she has not
signed the said Report, but the said Report is in her
hand-writing. On 14.08.2012, the accused has
issued another show-cause notice calling upon her
to explain who gave her the permission to visit the
said School, to which the deceased has replied on
28.08.2012 stating that, she has visited the said
School as per the order of the accused himself. By
referring the said correspondence, It is the
argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that,
when on 23.07.2012, the accused himself sought
explanation from deceased as to why she has not
signed the Report, the accused himself issues
another Memo on 28.08.2012 asking the deceased
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
who gave her permission to visit the said School.
Thus, it is the argument of the learned Public
Prosecutor that, the above correspondence shows
unreasonable harassment meted out to deceased by
the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor has also
referred to various other Memos issued by the
accused to the deceased, i.e. Memo, dated
01.12.2013, seeking explanation from the deceased
as to why she did not visit a particular School where
a quarrel took place between the students. It is not
necessary for me to consider the said Memos in
detail because I am not sitting in appeal over the
said Memos or the replies issued to the said Memos
by the deceased. This Court is only considering,
whether the accused has abetted suicide of the
deceased and whether the acts of the accused
comes within the scope of Section 306 of I.P.C. In
my opinion, a close perusal of the Death Note and
also on the allegations made by the prosecution in
the charge sheet, do not reveal that the accused has
done anything apart from his official duty. The only
allegation against the accused in the Death Note as
well as in the charge sheet is that the accused has
harassed the deceased by issuing Memos. The
documents produced by the prosecution along with
the charge sheet itself reveals that the deceased has
suitably replied to all the Memos. It is also to be
noted that, although the allegation against the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
accused is that he was harassing the deceased for
the past 1½ years prior to suicide of the deceased,
the deceased has not preferred to make any
representation / complaint to the superiors of BEO
against the alleged acts of the BEO. Therefore, at
this stage, without going into the question whether
the accused was justified in issuing the said Memos
or not, suffice it to say that, by issuing the said
Memos, the accused was only doing his official duty
as a superior officer and the issuance of said Memos
do not disclose any mens rea on the part of the
accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide. At
this stage, it is relevant to refer to the law laid down
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 at
paragraph-17, it is held as follows:
"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
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
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."
(Underlining by me)
From the perusal of the above Ruling, it is clear
that, in order to convict a person under Section 306
of I.P.C., 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. The discussions made
supra reveals that, there was no mens rea on the
part of the accused and his acts of issuing memos
were not intended to push the deceased to commit
suicide. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
material placed by the prosecution along with the
charge sheet do not make out a case for framing
charge against the accused for the offence under
Section 306 of I.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that, this is a fit case to discharge the accused for
the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. Accordingly,
I answer the Point for consideration in the
Affirmative, and proceed to pass the following:
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
:: ORDER ::
The application for discharge filed by the
accused is allowed.
The accused is discharged of the offence
under Section 306 of I.P.C.
The accused is on bail and his ball bond and
that of his surety stand cancelled."
9. Being aggrieved by the same, State is in revision
on the following grounds.
"1. That the impugned order passed by the
Court below allowing the application and discharging
the accused is against to law and the probabilities of
the case. The learned Sessions Judge has
completely misread the complaint averments and
the contents mentioned in the complaint and the
nature of the allegations made in the complaint
which itself constitutes an offence under Section
306 of IPC, in spite the learned Sessions Judge
allowed the application and discharged the accused
on erroneous grounds. Hence, the same resulted in
miscarriage of justice.
2. That on perusal of statements of the
witnesses and the materials collected by the
Investigation Officer, prima-facie which shows that
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
the accused was mentally harassing the deceased
and he was also obstructing the deceased in
performing her duties and he was also not
sanctioning the leave to the deceased. In spite of
these allegations, the Sessions Judge has allowed
the application and discharged the accused, hence
the order of the Sessions Judge is not in accordance
with law.
3. That on perusal of the Death Note of the
deceased, it is clear that the deceased has clearly
narrated all the incidents in her Death Note in detail
and also stated as to how the accused was
harassing the deceased and the deceased has also
stated that the accused is solely responsible for the
death of the deceased. Hence, on perusal of the
same, it is clear that the prosecution has made out
a prima-facie case, therefore, discharging the
accused on technicalities is not just and proper.
4. That the learned Sessions Judge has not
properly appreciated the statements of the
prosecution witnesses namely Puttaswamy Gowda,
Sudha Rani, Smt. Anitha, Eshwar Kumar, etc., who
have given a categorical statement alleging that the
accused was mentally harassing the deceased and
due to the said harassment when the deceased was
alone at home, she committed suicide. Therefore,
the Accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
and hence, the accused is solely responsible for the
death of the deceased and the prosecution has
proved its case connecting the crime to the accused.
5. That the learned Sessions Judge has not
discussed about the statements of the remaining
prosecution witnesses and the materials collected by
the Investigation Officer, which prima-facie proves
that the accused abetted the deceased to commit
suicide. Hence, the order of the Sessions Judge
requires to be set-aside. Thus viewed from any
angle, the judgment and order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge is not only illegal but also
perverse and calls for interference of this Hon'ble
Court."
10. Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP reiterating
the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that the
learned Sessions Judge erred in law in discharging the
accused inasmuch as there was a triable issue to the effect
that whether the alleged ill treatment by the accused was
sufficient enough to drive the deceased to commit the suicide
and whereby sufficient ingredients were found as is required
under Section 109 IPC so as to convict the accused for the
offence under Section 306 IPC. Learned Sessions Judge
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
without undertaking such a measure, based on the
submissions made on behalf of the accused, has passed the
impugned order, resulting in miscarriage of justice and
sought for allowing the revision.
11. Per contra, Sri C H Jadhav, learned Senior
counsel representing the accused revision petitioner
contended that on bare reading of the death note which is
the prime document for the investigation agency to file
charge sheet against the accused would itself would go to
show that hardly there could be any nexus between the
accused and the incident.
12. He invited the attention of this Court to the death
note which reads as under:
" ¦æÃwAiÀÄ gÀWÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ F jÃw ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ
ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉAiÀÄzÁV sorry. £À£ÀUÉ D¦søï£À°è BEO PÁlªÀ£ÀÄß
vÁ¼À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀÄwÛ®è £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV §ºÀ¼À
»A¸ÉAiÀiÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. E£ÀÆß JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀð EzÉà D¦søï£À°è PÉ®¸À
ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ºÀÅZÀÄÑ »rAiÀÄÄvÀÛzÉ. mÁæ£ïì¥üÀgï DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
School UÉ deputation ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ K£ÀÄ
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
ªÀiÁqÀ°. £À£Àß ¸Á«UÉ BEO £Éà PÁgÀt. aPÀÌ¥ÀÅlÖzÀÝPÉÌ®è Memo
PÉÆlÄÖ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÁÝ£É. £À£ÀßzÀÄ MlÄÖ 3
LIC Policy UÀ½ªÉ. MAzÀÄ Policy AiÀÄ£ÀÄß D¦søï£À°è
©ÃgÀÄ«£À°ènÖzÉÝãÉ. JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èªÉ. MAzÀÄ RD ºÁUÀÆ
PLI £ÀÄß £ÀgÀ¹Ã¥ÀÅgÀzÀ Post Office £À°è PÀlÄÖwÛzÉÝÃ£É RD book
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÉ. PLI book ¥ÀŤÃvï ºÀvÀæ EzÉ »ÃUÉ
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀë«Ä¹ gÀWÀÄ
Please. Office £À°ègÀĪÀ Policy No. 623445953. EzÀÄ
aPÀ̪ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è PÉƼÉîUÁ®PÉÌ transfer UÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉ."
13. He further pointed out that except mentioning
that there was a mental harassment by issuing memo for
minor incidents, no other details are forthcoming as to what
is the nature of the harassment that is meted out to the
deceased by the accused. Therefore, the learned Sessions
Judge was justified in discharging the accused.
14. He further pointed out that the material on record
also points out that the deceased was suffering from serious
depressive disorder which has been taken note of by the
learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order and such
persons if they commit suicide and in the absence of any
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
cogent material evidence on record, proceeding against the
accused and made him to stand for the trial is nothing but
abuse of process of law. Therefore, the same has been
rightly appreciated by the learned trial Judge in the
impugned order and rightly discharged the accused and
therefore sought for dismissal of the revision.
15. Having heard the parties in detail this Court
perused the material on record meticulously. On such
perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that bare
reading of the contents of the death note referred to supra
would not make out what is the nature of harassment that
has been meted out by the accused to the deceased. The
material on record also shows that the deceased was
suffering from psychological issues including the major
depressive disorder with obsessive/compulsive disorder and
deliberate self harm. Such a person would be usually
suffering from suicidal tendency. If at all the deceased had
any such serious issues with regard to conduct of accused, it
was always open for her to give up her job or atleast the
harassment if any, should have been brought to the higher
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
officials of the Education Department with specific details.
No such efforts being made by the deceased. Further, even
the complaint averments would also not reveal as to what is
the nature of harassment that has been meted out by the
accused to the deceased. Complainant being the husband
should have also taken necessary steps to see that the
alleged harassment if any brought to the notice of the higher
officials of Education Department. More so, the complainant
being the System Administrator working in Infosys, who is
well educated.
16. In the absence of any such previous complaint to
the higher officials of the accused or making any efforts to
give up the job if the harassment is so imminent, coupled
with the major depressive disorder suffered by the deceased,
proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 306 IPC is thus rightly considered as abuse of
process of law by the learned trial Judge and has rightly
discharged the accused.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44957
17. Taking note of the scope of the revisional
jurisdiction, this Court does not find any grounds whatsoever
muchless good grounds to interfere with the well reasoned
order of the learned trial Judge. In view of foregoing
discussion, the following:
ORDER
The revision petition is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
ykl
