Karnataka High Court
Krishnamurthy @ Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1075 OF 2013 (C)
BETWEEN:
KRISHNAMURTHY @ BABU
S/O THIMMARAYA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
OWNER OF PAWN BEEDA STALL
MARUTHI EXTENSION
MALUR, PIN NO-576 169.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MALUR POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed by
MAYAGAIAH HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
VINUTHA AVENUE ROAD
Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560 002.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:25/26.10.13 PASSED BY
THE PRL. DIST., AND S.J., KOLAR IN S.C.NO.151/12 -
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498A AND 306 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is sought by the convicted accused against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
25.10.2013 passed in S.C.No.151/2012 by the Principal District
and Sessions Judge at Kolar (hereinafter referred to as the
'learned Sessions Judge'), wherein the learned Sessions Judge
has convicted the appellant/accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and
also directed him to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, he is further directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence
punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Further, the accused is
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
seven years and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- in
default of payment of the fine, he is directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
The accused is a resident of Malur Town and the
deceased in this case, Gangalakshmamma, was the resident of
Guddamaranahalli Village, Magadi Taluk. In the year 2001 the
deceased lived in a rented room while pursuing her D.Ed.
course at Nethaji Teacher's Training Centre, Malur. The
deceased passed before the accused's store everyday on her
way to the training centre, they became acquainted and
eventually this acquaintance ended in a love entanglement.
Thereafter, they got married in April, 2011.
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that the
deceased lived in a rented house owned by PW.7 and that the
accused was her frequent visitor. Against this backdrop, on the
intervening night of 12 and 13 of June, 2012 the deceased
Gangalakshmamma, committed suicide by hanging, this was
divulged by the accused to her parents i.e., PW.1 and PW.2.
Thereafter, PW.1 and PW.2 along with their son PW.3 rushed to
the house of the deceased-Gangalakshmamma and they found
their daughter being suspended by a rope tied to the roof.
Subsequently, the father of the deceased, lodged a complaint
before the respondent-Police against the accused as per Ex.P1
on 13.06.2012 and on the strength of Ex.P1, PW.11-PSI of
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
respondent-Police registered an FIR against the accused in
Crime.No.127/2012 dated 13.06.2012 for the offences
punishable under Section 302 and 304B of IPC. Subsequently,
PW.12, investigated the case by drawing spot mahazar.
Thereafter, PW.5 conducted the inquest punchanama on the
deceased as per Ex.P9. Later, PW.12 recorded the statement of
all the material witnesses and obtained the necessary
documents from the concerned Authorities and PW.13, laid the
chargesheet against the accused before the committal Court for
the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B, 380 of IPC
and Section 4 of DP Act.
4. After the committal of the case before the learned
Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges
against the accused for the aforementioned offences. However,
during the course of trial, the learned Sessions Judge framed
additional charges for the offence punishable under Section 306
of IPC.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for
the charges levelled against him, the prosecution in total
examined 3 witnesses, i.e. PW.1 to PW.13, marked 23
documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P23 and identified 16 material
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
objects as MO.1 to MO.16. After completion of the prosecution
evidence, the learned Sessions Judge read over the
incriminating evidence of the material witnesses to the accused
as stipulated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the
accused denied the same. The defence of the accused is total
denial and of false implication. Albeit the accused did not
choose to examine any witness on his behalf but got marked 2
documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.
6. After assessment of oral and documentary
evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for
the offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 of IPC and
sentenced him as stated supra. The said judgment is
challenged under this appeal by the appellant/accused.
7. I have heard Sri. Veeranna G. Tigadi, the learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Rai K., the learned
HCGP for the respondent-state.
8. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant that the judgment under this appeal suffers
from perversity and illegality as the learned Sessions Judge has
erred in appreciating the evidence on record in right
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
perspective. He contended that the material witnesses, i.e.,
PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.6, suffers from severe infirmities and on
perusal of their evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove
the essentials of Section 498A or Section 306 of IPC. Further he
contended that PW.1 and PW.2, the parents of the deceased, in
their cross-examination, categorically admitted that there was
neither harassment nor rows between the accused and the
deceased prior to the date of her suicide. Further, as per the
statement of PW.2, while drawing the inquest panchanama,
categorically establishes that the deceased Gangalakshmamma
was suffering from acute depression owing to the
underdevelopment of the foetus. This might have driven the
deceased to commit suicide. Further according to him, as
admitted by the prosecution, the marriage of the deceased and
the accused stood null and void as the accused was already
married. In such circumstances, the offence under Section
498A does not attract. Even the prosecution has failed to prove
Section 306 of IPC, the Sessions Judge has wrongly convicted
the accused and the same is called for interference by this
Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
9. To buttresses his arguments, he placed reliance on
the judgments in the case of SHIVCHARAN LAL VERMA AND
ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in
(2007) 15 SCC 369 and in the case of MARIANO ANTO
BRUNO & ANOTHER. v. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
reported in 2022 Live Law SC 834.
10. Refuting the above submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned
HCGP contended that the judgment challenged under this
appeal neither suffers from perversity nor illegality as the
learned Sessions Judge has meticulously examined the entire
evidence on record and passed a well-reasoned judgment,
which does not call for any interference. According to learned
HCGP, the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and
306 of IPC by placing cogent evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and
PW.6. All these witnesses have categorically deposed before the
Court that the accused ill-treated the deceased following their
wedding by demanding an amount of Rs.2 lakh to purchase a
Tata Sumo vehicle, also he harassed her demanding gold
ornaments. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 further clarified that
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
20 days prior to the date of incident, the victim informed the
harassment meted out by the accused by demanding money to
PW.1 and PW.2. In such circumstances, the offences punishable
under Section 498A of IPC and Section 306 of IPC were
established by the prosecution.
11. He further contended that the accused, to gratify
his monetary avarice, instigated her to commit suicide. The
said aspect was once again proved by the evidence of PW.7
where the deceased was residing at the time of the incident. He
further contended that on considering all these aspects, the
learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused and
accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and on perusing the entire evidence and records placed
before me, the points that arise for my consideration are:
(i) "Whether the judgment under this appeal
suffers from perversity or illegality?"
(ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified
in convicting the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of
IPC?"
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
13. To prove the charges levelled against the accused,
though the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, the
prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.1 to
PW.3 and PW.6. Among these witnesses, PW.1 and 2 are the
parents of the deceased and PW.3 is the brother of the
deceased, and PW.6 is an independent witness.
14. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1 and
PW.2, they have deposed that the accused married the
deceased in April 2011 and thereafter the deceased resided in a
rented house owned by PW.7 and that the accused frequently
visited her, on such visits he demanded a sum of Rs.2 lakh
from the deceased to purchase Tata Sumo Vehicle. Further, it is
also forthcoming from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that the
accused demanded the deceased to get the gold ornaments to
attend the wedding of the deceased's brother, the same was
arranged by PW.2 who handed it over to the deceased.
However, after the wedding, when PW.2 requested to return
the said gold ornaments, there was a row between the accused
and the deceased.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
15. On careful perusal of the cross-examination of
these two witnesses, both these witnesses failed to mention the
approximate date and time of the demand made by the
accused regarding the gold ornaments or for Rs.2 lakh to
purchase the Tata Sumo vehicle.
16. Further in the cross-examination of PW.2, she has
categorically admitted that following the wedding, her son i.e.
the brother of the deceased, the accused and
Gangalakshmamma resided cordially. Further, it is also
forthcoming that the gold ornaments were to be returned after
the baby shower of the deceased. This admission of PW.2, also
corroborates with the testimony of PW.1 i.e. the father of the
deceased. Nevertheless, as rightly contended by the appellant,
in the inquest panchanama i.e., Ex.P9, PW.2 has made the
specific averment that the deceased was pregnant at the time
of her demise and that she was depressed for her fetus being
underdeveloped. This establishes that the accused neither
harassed the deceased nor demanded Rs. 2 lakhs. On perusal
of the evidence of PW.3 albeit he supported the case of the
prosecution and reiterated the version of PWs.1 and 2 and
reiterated the contents of the complaint lodged by PW.1,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
however, he failed to state the appropriate time and date when
the money and ornaments were demanded. No doubt PW.7, the
owner of the house where the deceased was residing at the
time of incident admitted to the said aspect. Nevertheless, in
his evidence he has stated that both the accused and deceased
resided cordially. The other averments of his statements were
denied by him and as such, the prosecution treated him as
partly hostile to the prosecution case. In such circumstances,
there is no such cogent or reliable evidence placed by the
prosecution to prove the aspect that the accused either
harassed the deceased or abated her to commit suicide.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
SHIVCHARAN LAL VERMA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2007) 15 SCC 369,
summarized the law in respect of conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 498A of IPC when the deceased is not
a legal wife. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment held
that the conviction for the offence punishable under Section
498A of IPC is attracted exclusively when the prosecution prove
that the deceased was a legally wedded wife of the accused.
Applying the above guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
facts and circumstances of this case, admittedly it is the
specific case of the prosecution that the accused was a married
man and a father of two children, being well aware of this, the
deceased fell in love with the accused and married him.
However, this aspect was not admitted by PWs.1 to 3, the
family members of the deceased. In such circumstances, I am
of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge has
erred while convicting the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 498A of IPC.
18. In order to prove the offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC, it is required to be borne in mind that in the
case of alleged abatement of suicide, there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement instigating to commit the
crime. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there
being any positive action, proximate to the time of the
occurrence on part of the accused which led or compelled a
person to commit suicide, the conviction under Section 306 of
IPC is not sustainable. In the case on hand, as discussed supra,
the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the parents and brother of the
deceased, nowhere such evidence is forthcoming on record that
the accused abated or committed such positive act soon before
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
her death by abating her to commit suicide. As far as the
harassment meted out by the accused regarding the gold
ornaments which were given by PW.2 to the deceased prior to
the marriage of the deceased's brother, according to PW.2 after
the said marriage they both were happily living together. In
such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
MARIANO ANTO BRUNO & ANOTHER. v. THE INSPECTOR
OF POLICE reported in 2022 Live Law SC 834, held in
paragraphs No.36 and 38 as under:
"36. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC,
there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence.
It also requires an active act or direct act which
leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other
option and the act must be such reflecting intention
of the accused to push deceased into such a
position that he commits suicide. The prosecution
has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the
deceased committed suicide and Appellant No. 1
abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased.
In the present case, both the elements are absent.
38. This Court has time and again reiterated that
before convicting an accused under Section 306
IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts
and circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the
victim had left the victim with no other alternative
but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne
in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of
suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect
acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
Merely on the allegation of harassment without
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
their being any positive action proximate to the
time of occurrence on the part of the accused which
led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable."
19. Thus, on perusal of dictum laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court it is clear that in order to convict the accused under
Section 306 of IPC, the state of mind to commit the crime must
be apparent while determining culpability. There has to be clear
mens rea to commit offence by the accused. As discussed
supra, it also requires an active or direct act driving the
deceased to commit suicide. After warily assessing the evidence
on record, I find that there is no direct evidence to establish
that the appellant by his act either instigated or provoked the
deceased to commit suicide and that he has not acted in any
way that might have driven the deceased to commit suicide.
As such, in my considered opinion, the prosecution failed to
prove the charges even for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC. Against this backdrop, I find it necessary to
interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions
Court and accordingly, I answer Points No.1 and 2 in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5356
ORDER
i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed;
ii. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 25.10.2013 passed by the
Prl. Sessions Judge, Kolar in
S.C.No.151/2012 is set-aside;
iii. Consequent upon setting aside the
judgment of conviction stated supra, the
appellant/accused is hereby acquitted for
the offences punishable under Sections
498A and 306 of IPC for which he was
charged.
iv. The bail bond executed by the
appellant/accused shall stand cancelled.
v. If the appellant/accused has deposited any
fine amount, the same shall be ordered to
be refunded to him on due identification.
Accordingly ordered.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
KTY,HKV
