Karnataka High Court

Nataraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2024

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                               -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC:45546
                                                        CRL.A No. 381 of 2012




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                             BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 381 OF 2012
                      BETWEEN:

                         NATARAJU
                         AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
                         S/O LATE BASAPPA
                         R/O BASAVESHWARA EXTENSION
                         CHELURU VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK
                         TUMKUR DISTRICT.
                                                                ...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI       (BY SRI S G RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             AND:

                         THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         BY GUBBI POLICE STATION
                         BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                         HIGH COURT BUILDINGS AT
                         BANGALORE - 01.
                                                              ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

                           THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C
                      PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
                      DATED 17/19.3.2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL S.J. TUMKUR
                      IN S.C.No.131/11-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
                      THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 AND 506 OF
                      IPC AND ETC.,

                          THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
                      JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                            -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:45546
                                     CRL.A No. 381 of 2012




CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                   ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - accused

praying to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order

on sentence passed in S.C.No.131/2011 by the Principal

Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, whereunder, the appellant -

accused has been convicted for the offence under Section

306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter

referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six years and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment

for a period of five months. The appellant - accused has

been acquitted of the offence under Section 506 of IPC.

2. The factual matrix of this case is that; PW1 -

Sri.Karegowda - brother of the deceased has filed the

written complaint - Ex.P1 stating that his younger sister

Smt.Siddamma died in a suspicious circumstance and a

case came to be registered in U.D.R.No.33/2010 under

Section 174(c) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short

NC: 2024:KHC:45546

hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C'). The police went to the

spot and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased as

per Ex.P6. Thereafter, on 14.09.2010, PW1 -

Sri.Karegowda lodged a complaint as per Ex.P2, accusing

that the appellant - accused and one Smt.Rajamma are

the reason for suicide of his sister Smt.Siddamma and it is

registered in Crime No.130/2010 for the offences

punishable under Sections 306 and 506 r/w Section 34 of

IPC. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet

against the appellant - accused for the offences under

Sections 306 and 506 of IPC. The Investigating Officer

has not filed the charge sheet against the said

Smt.Rajamma. The said case came to be committed to the

Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed the charge

against the appellant - accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 306 and 506 of IPC.

(i) In order to prove the charge, the prosecution

has examined twelve witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and got

marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The statement of

NC: 2024:KHC:45546

the appellant - accused came to be recorded under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court after hearing the

arguments on both sides, has formulated the points for

consideration and thereafter, passed the impugned

judgment convicting the appellant - accused for the

offence under Section 306 of IPC and acquitted him of the

offence under Section 506 of IPC. The said judgment of

conviction and order on sentence is challenged in this

appeal.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

appellant - accused and learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused would

contend that;

(i) marriage of the appellant - accused and the

deceased Smt.Siddamma had taken place fifteen years

prior to the date of death of the deceased. The deceased

during her lifetime, had not alleged any harassment or

NC: 2024:KHC:45546

ill-treatment by her husband and she had not filed any

complaint in that regard. There are material contradictions

in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, 8 and 9. None of the

witnesses who are the residents of Cheluru village,

wherein the deceased was residing, were examined. The

deceased and the appellant - accused had two daughters

by names Kum.Lavanya, aged twelve years and

Kum.Shwetha, aged nine years and they were residing

with the appellant - accused and the deceased and they

have not been examined. The witnesses who are examined

ie., PWs.1 to 5 are not the residents of Cheluru village and

they are the relatives of PW1. The evidence of PWs.4

and 9 itself would indicate that the deceased was not

making any complaint against her husband before her

elder brother PW1 - Sri.Karegowda. The complaint filed

by PW1 as per Ex.P1 was on 24.08.2010 and in that there

is no allegation of any harassment or ill-treatment by the

appellant - accused on the deceased. Thereafter, another

complaint came to be filed as per Ex.P2 on 14.09.2010

making false allegation against the appellant - accused

NC: 2024:KHC:45546

and it is an after thought. PW1, who was a law student as

on the date of filing the complaint and his explanation for

filing the complaint belatedly cannot be accepted. There is

no charge against the appellant - accused for the offence

under Section 498A of IPC. A mere illicit relationship of

the husband with another lady does not amount to

abetment to commit suicide. On that point, he placed

reliance on the decision of this Court in

Crl.A.No.54/2013 decided on 04.11.2024.

(ii) PW8 has deposed that husband and wife were

in good terms and there is no harassment by the appellant

- accused to his wife - deceased Smt.Siddamma. There

are lot of improvements in the evidence of PW1. The

alleged harassment is hearsay. The evidence on record

would not establish that there was abetment by the

appellant - accused to the deceased to commit suicide.

Merely, the appellant - accused coming drunk to the

house and quarrelling with his wife does not amount to

abetment. The alleged ill-treatment is not to such an

NC: 2024:KHC:45546

extent that it drove the deceased to commit suicide. The

deceased was happily residing with her husband in his

house, more so, PW1 was getting constructed a house for

her in the land of the appellant - accused. He has also

placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case

of Smt.Mangala Gowri Vs. State of Karnataka in

Crl.A.No.276/2023. On these grounds, he prayed for

allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant -

accused.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

for the respondent - State would contend that the Trial

Court on proper appreciation of the evidence on record has

rightly convicted the appellant - accused. He has

supported the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court. He

has further argued that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and 9

is sufficient to convict the appellant - accused for the

offences alleged against him. On these grounds, he

sought for dismissal of the appeal.

NC: 2024:KHC:45546

6. On the grounds made out and considering the

argument advanced, the following point arises for my

consideration;

"Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant - accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC?"

7. My answer to the above point is in the affirmative

for the following reasons;

The appellant - accused was husband of the

deceased Smt.Siddamma and their marriage had taken

place fifteen years prior to her death. The deceased

Smt.Siddamma was residing in the house of her husband.

The deceased and the appellant - accused had two

daughters, one by name Kum.Lavanya, aged twelve years

and another by name Kum.Shwetha, aged nine years.

Both the daughters were residing with the appellant -

accused and the deceased.

NC: 2024:KHC:45546

8. On coming to know that the deceased

Smt.Siddamma had committed suicide, PW1 - her brother

came to her village and filed complaint - Ex.P1 which

came to be registered under U.D.R.No.33/2010. In the

said complaint, there is no allegation of any harassment or

ill-treatment by the appellant - accused to the deceased.

What is stated in Ex.P1 is that the husband and wife were

quarrelling since last six months with regard to small

issues and in that regard, they called both of them and

advised them. Another aspect what is alleged in Ex.P1 is

that the appellant - accused had an illicit relationship with

one Smt.Rajamma, which might be the cause for suicide of

the deceased. There is no allegation of the appellant -

accused consuming alcohol, harassing and assaulting her

in Ex.P1. Ex.P2 - another complaint came to be filed on

14.09.2010 after twenty days of filing of earlier complaint

as per Ex.P1. In Ex.P2 several allegations are made

against the appellant - accused regarding he consuming

alcohol, harassing and ill-treating his wife Smt.Siddamma

and having illicit relationship with Smt.Rajamma. There

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45546

was a complaint against Smt.Rajamma also in Ex.P2 and

she has been arraigned as accused No.2 in the F.I.R. At

the time of filing the charge sheet, her name was left out

and the charge sheet has been filed only against this

appellant - accused. The appellant - accused and the

deceased Smt.Siddamma were residing in Cheluru village.

PW1 was residing in Gadiankanahalli. PWs.2 and 3 are

also the residents of the said village. PWs.4, 5 and 9 are

not the residents of Cheluru village. None of the residents

of Cheluru village have been examined in order to

establish the alleged harassment and ill-treatment by the

appellant - accused to his wife deceased - Smt.Siddamma,

more so, the two daughters of the appellant - accused and

the deceased, whose names and ages are also stated in

Ex.P2 - complaint, are also not examined. Those two

daughters of the appellant - accused and the deceased are

the witnesses with regard to the alleged harassment and

ill-treatment and the appellant - accused consuming

alcohol and ill-treating his wife - the deceased

Smt.Siddamma. No independent witnesses were examined

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45546

by the prosecution in order to establish the alleged

harassment and ill-treatment by the appellant - accused

to the deceased - Smt.Siddamma.

9. The evidence of PW1 would indicate that he has been

constructing a house for his sister deceased -

Smt.Siddamma in the land which was allotted to the share

of the appellant - accused. In that regard, he had

constructed foundation and stored building materials.

PW8 has deposed that after the marriage, husband and

wife were cordial and they begot two daughters. Even

PW2 - relative of PW1 and the deceased, in his chief

examination has deposed that till the death, the appellant

- accused and his wife were cordial. PW2 in the cross

examination has also admitted that whenever the

deceased used to come to her village, she was not making

any complaint against her husband. Therefore, the

evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that the

appellant - accused has abetted the deceased to commit

suicide.

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45546

10. There is an allegation that this appellant - accused

had an illicit relationship with one Smt.Rajamma. It

appears that as the deceased was upset with the said illicit

relationship of her husband with the said Smt.Rajamma,

she might have committed suicide. This Court in the case

of Prema and another Vs. State of Karnataka in

Crl.A.No.54/2013 decided on 04.11.2024 has held that

the act of the accused persons having illicit relationship

does not amount to abetment to commit suicide.

11. How a human mind reacts has been observed by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ude Singh and Other

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 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

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45546

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, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstance."

12. 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 AIR 2014 SC 178.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the M. Mohan

Vs State reported in 2011 (3) SCC 626 has observed as

under:

"44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45546

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."

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision also

observed that "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".

15. It appears that the deceased was sensitive and on

coming to know that the appellant - accused had an illicit

relationship with another lady, upset with the same, she

might have committed suicide. Unless the ingredients of

instigation / abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, the

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC:45546