Karnataka High Court
Sri A M Krishnamurthy vs State Of Karnataka on 24 October, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
CRL.A No. 786 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 786 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI A M KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O MANJAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/AT HAREKOPPA GADIGESHWARA
ADUVALLI VILLAGE
N.R.PURA TQ., CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.
2. SMT. VANAJA
W/O LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
R/AT GADIGESHWARA
ADUVALLI VILLAGE,
N.R.PURA TQ., CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.
3. SRI. LOKESH H.T.
Digitally signed by
S/O THIMMAPPA GOWDA
LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH OCC: AGRICULTURIST
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
R/AT HAKLU MANE, GADIGESHWARA
ADUVALLI VILLAGE, N.R.PURA TQ., C
HICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.
4. SRI. PRADEEPA
S/O DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/AT HAKLU MANE, GADIGESHWARA
ADUVALLI VILLAGE,
N.R PURA TQ., CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
CRL.A No. 786 of 2012
5. SRI. NARAYANA
S/O NARASIMHA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE, R/AT HAREKOPPA
KARAKESHWARA VILLAGE
N.R.PURA TALUK
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI H P LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BALEHONNUR POLICE STATION
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.
2. SMT. INDIRA
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED MAJOR
R/AT HAREKOPPA, KOPPA MELPAL
CHIKKAMAGALURU KARNATAKA - 577 112.
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED
8.11.2023)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1
SMT. RATTIHALLI GEETHA VEERANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) Cr.P.C
PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHICKMAGALUR IN S.C.No.101/2011 DATED 02.07.2012
CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
IPC AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
CRL.A No. 786 of 2012
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by appellants - accused Nos.
1, 2, 4 to 6 challenging the judgment of conviction and
order on sentence passed in S.C. No. 101/2011 by the
Principal Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, dated
02.07.2012 whereunder the appellants - accused Nos. 1,
2, 4 to 6 have been convicted for offence punishable
under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC sentencing
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period 2 years and
to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. Factual matrix of the case is that, the
complainant - P.W.1 - Smt. Indira, her son Sri. Rajesh
(P.W.2) and daughter - Ms. Kokila were staying in
Harekoppa village in N.R. Koppa Taluk. The deceased -
Ms. Kokila was studying in II PUC in Government PU
College, N.R. Pura and was staying at Bastimath Hostel.
Two months prior to the incident daughter of
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
complainant's elder sister - Ms. Anu had committed
suicide by hanging. As P.W.4 - Smt. Girijamma was alone,
they requested the complainant to send the deceased -
Ms. Kokila to stay with her in Gadigeshwara village. When
the deceased - Ms. Kokila was staying with her aunt at
Gadigeshwara, she used to go to college at N.R. Pura in
bus. About 8 days prior to the incident, P.W.4 - Smt.
Girijamma called P.W.1 - complainant over phone and
informed that accused No. 1 - Krishnamurthy told her that
deceased - Ms. Kokila was going on a motorcycle of
somebody from Ganapathi Katta. When the deceased -
Ms. Kokila came home the complainant asked her about
the same. 3 days thereafter the complainant came to
Gadigeshwara and went to the house of P.W.4 -
Girijamma and there again the matter was discussed.
Then the complainant called accused No.2 - Smt. Vanaja
and asked whether the deceased - Ms. Kokila had gone on
the motorcycle of somebody. She also told that she had
seen the deceased - Ms. Kokila going on a motorbike
when she was going in a car along with some Swamiji and
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
the deceased - Ms. Kokila asked accused No.2 and other
accused that if at all they had seen her going on the
motorbike of somebody why they did not save her by
stopping the car. Then they told that they have heard that
she had gone and requested her to excuse them. She also
told that if she fails in examination she will commit suicide
by consuming poison. On 12.01.2011 at about 06.30 pm
accused No. 3 came to the house of the complainant along
with other accused and again told that the deceased - Ms.
Kokila had gone on the motorbike of somebody. At that
time the deceased - Ms. Kokila told that if accused Nos. 4
to 6 had seen her at Ganapathi Katta they should have
prevented her. When the deceased - Ms. Kokila told that
she is going to file a complaint the accused persons told
that she may file complaint and what is going to be done
on that complaint. Due to the said loose talks of the
accused persons spreading gossip deceased - Ms. Kokila
was disgusted and by their acts, the accused persons
abetted and drove her to commit suicide. As such, on
14.01.2011 deceased - Ms. Kokila committed suicide by
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
hanging in her house at Harekoppa. Charge sheet has
been filed against the accused persons for offence under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned
Magistrate, after taking cognizance, has committed the
case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed
charge for offence punishable under Section 306 read with
Section 34 of IPC against the accused persons. The
prosecution in order to establish its case has examined
P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and
M.O.1. Statement of accused persons came to be recorded
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court after hearing
arguments on both sides has formulated points for
consideration and convicted appellants - accused Nos. 1,
2, 4 to 6 and also accused No. 3 (who is not appellant
herein) for offence punishable under Section 306 read with
Section 34 of IPC. The appellants have challenged the said
judgment of conviction and order on sentence in this
appeal.
3. Heard arguments of learned counsel for
appellants and learned HCGP for respondent - State.
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
4. Learned counsel for appellants would contend
that the alleged act of informing the mother of the
deceased regarding the deceased going on a motorbike of
somebody does not amount to abetment. It has not been
proved that the death note - Ex.P.2 is in the handwriting
of the deceased. Ex.P.8 - report of the handwriting expert
has not been proved since its author is not examined. The
evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 is not sufficient to hold that
the appellants abetted the deceased to commit to suicide.
Without considering all these aspects the learned Sessions
Judge has convicted the appellants. Learned counsel for
appellant has placed reliance on the following citations.
A. Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2017 (1)
SCC 433
B. Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,
2010 (1) SCC 750
C. State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another, AIR
1994 SC 1418
D. K. Ramakrishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka, 2006
Crl.L.J. 4314
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
E. Betu and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
2002 (2) Crimes 16
F. Babu Vs. The State of Karnataka, 2013 (3) KCCR
G. Lokesh and another Vs. State of Karnataka, 2012
(5) KCCR 3921
H. Doddathayamma and another Vs. State of
Karnataka, 2016 (5) KCCR 786
I. Swathi Pai Vs. The State of Karnataka, 2017 (1)
KCCR 250
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has argued that
evidence of P.W.1 and 4 is sufficient to establish that the
accused persons made false propaganda regarding the
deceased going on motorcycle of somebody and the
deceased was upset by that and committed suicide.
Learned Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of
evidence on record, has rightly convicted the appellants.
On these grounds he has prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the material on record the following
point arises for consideration:
"Whether the Sessions Judge has erred in
to 6 for offence under Section 306 of IPC?"
7. My answer to the above question is in the
affirmative for the following reasons:
P.W.1 - Indira is the mother of the deceased - Ms.
Kokila. The deceased - Ms. Kokila was studying in II PUC
in a college at N.R. Pura. The deceased - Ms. Kokila was
residing in Harekoppa along with her mother P.W.1 -
Indira. P.W.4 - Girijamma is the aunt of the deceased -
Ms. Kokila. Daughter of P.W.4, namely Ms. Anu had
committed suicide and P.W.4 was alone and she requested
P.W.1 to send her daughter - deceased - Ms. Kokila to her
house at Gadigeshwara. The deceased - Ms. Kokila was
staying with P.W.4 at Gadigeshwara and used to go to her
college at N.R. Pura. The accusation against the appellants
and accused No. 3 is that they informed P.W.1 and P.W.4
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
that the deceased - Ms. Kokila was going on a motorbike
of somebody and they spread false propaganda in the
village. The death of deceased - Ms. Kokila by suicide is
not in dispute. Whether the act of the appellants in
informing about the deceased - Ms. Kokila going on
motorcycle of somebody to P.W.1 and P.W.4 and
spreading the said news in the village amounts to
abetment?
8. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of the
Indian Penal Code which reads as under:
"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."
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
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 an act when
he actively suggests or stimulates him to act by means of
language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of
express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or
encouragement.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju
alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs Sate of M.P reported in
2002 (5) SCC 371 has 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
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
cannot be taken to be uttered with mens
rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion.........."
10. 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, incite, urge or encourage the
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 Edn.).
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
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
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, and "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:
(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
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
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 is 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."
11. Appellants - accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 have
informed P.W.1 and P.W. 4 regarding the deceased going
on a motorcycle with somebody. The deceased - Ms.
Kokila on coming to know about the same was upset and
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
she had denied the said aspect. The appellants by the said
act of intimating about the deceased going on the
motorcycle of somebody to P.W.1, P.W.4, deceased - Ms.
Kokila and others in the village did not intended to drive
the deceased to commit suicide.
12. 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
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
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
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."
13. 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.
14. 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 the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
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."
15. Ex.P.2 is the death note said to have been
written by the deceased. Ex.P.7 is the answer paper
secured by the Investigating Officer from the college in
which the deceased was studying. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.2 were
sent to the handwriting expert for comparison. The
handwriting expert has given report which is at Ex.P.8.
The handwriting expert has opined that the specimen
handwriting of the deceased contained in Ex.P.7 and the
handwriting contained in Ex.P.2 are of the same person.
Ex.P.2 is the death note said to have been left by the
deceased - Ms. Kokila. In the said Ex.P.2 in the first page
names of accused Nos.1 to 6 have been mentioned stating
that they are responsible for her death. In the said Ex.P.2
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
it is written that accused Nos.1 to 6 have made accusation
against the deceased and therefore, people in the village
were looking at her with suspicion. From a perusal of the
letter addressed to `Madam' which is enclosed to Ex.P.2 -
death note the only accusation is against accused No. 3 -
Anil. Said accused No. 3 - Anil is not an appellant in the
present appeal. In the said letter addressed to some
`Madam' the deceased has made allegation against
accused No. 3 - Anil that he is harassing her. There is no
mention of the names of appellants herein i.e. accused
Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 in the said letter. Considering the
averments of the said letter addressed to some `Madam'
there are serious allegations against accused No. 3 - Anil
that he was harassing the deceased - Ms. Kokila in one or
the other way and he was not allowing the deceased to
lead life and was making false allegations against her.
16. The accusation against appellants is that they
informed P.W.1 and P.W.4 - mother and aunt of -
deceased - Ms. Kokila that the deceased was going on the
motorcycle with somebody. Said alleged act of appellants
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
does not amount to abetment. Since there is no
provocation or insinuation or encouragement there was no
intention on the part of the appellants herein to drive the
deceased to commit suicide. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of M. Mohan supra, has 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". On reading of the entire evidence on record, it
appears, that deceased was sensitive.
17. On consideration of the evidence on record
there is no evidence to show that the appellants had
intention to drive the deceased - Ms. Kokila to commit
suicide. Looking from any angle the act of the appellants
informing P.W.4 about the deceased - Ms. Kokila going on
a motorcycle of somebody does not amount to abetment.
Therefore, learned Sessions Judge has committed an error
in holding that the act of the appellants amounts to
abetment to the deceased - Ms. Kokila to commit suicide.
18. In the result, the following;
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42773
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence
passed in S.C. No. 101/2011 by the Principal
Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, dated
02.07.2012 for offence punishable under Section
306 read with Section 34 of IPC is set aside. So
far as appellants are concerned.
iii. Consequently the appellants - accused Nos. 1, 2,
4 to 6 are acquitted for the offence under Section
306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
iv. Fine, if any, paid by the appellants is ordered to
be refunded to them.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
LRS
