NC: 2025:KHC:8111
13. It is further submitted that mere delay in lodging the
complaint that itself cannot be the ground to discredit to
the credibility of the witnesses. The pendency of the civil
case between accused and the complainant also may not
be the relevant ground to draw the adverse inference that
they have been falsely implicated in this case.
14. The Trial Court after having considered the evidence
along with the FSL report, opined that the accused are
guilty of the offences stated supra. Therefore,
interference with the said findings may not be necessary.
Having said thus, learned High Court Government Pleader
prays to dismiss the appeal.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties
and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in
recording the conviction, the points which would arise for
my consideration are;
i) Whether the Trial Court is justified in
recording the conviction of the accused
for the offences stated supra?
ii) Whether the appellants have made out a
case to interfere with the said findings?
NC: 2025:KHC:8111
16. Before adverting to the other facts, it is relevant to refer
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
MAHENDRA AWASE v. THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs
No.18, 19 and 20 held as under:
"18. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the
requirement of instigation the accused by his act or
omission or by a continued course of conduct should
have created such circumstances that the deceased
was left with no other option except to commit
suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of
anger and emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.
19. Applying the above principle to the facts of the
present case, we are convinced that there are no
grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC
against the appellant. This is so even if we take the
prosecution's case on a demurrer and at its highest.
A reading of the suicide note reveals that the
appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan
guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to Ritesh
Malakar. It could not be said that the appellant by
performing his duty of realizing outstanding loans at
the behest of his employer can be said to have
Crl.A No. 221/2025 dated 17.01.2025
NC: 2025:KHC:8111
instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Equally
so, with the transcripts, including the portions
emphasized hereinabove. Even taken literally, it could
not be said that the appellant intended to instigate
the commission of suicide. It could certainly not be
said that the appellant by his acts created
circumstances which left the deceased with no other
option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the
armchair of the appellant, the exchanges with the
deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to leave
the deceased with no other option but to commit
suicide. This is the conclusion we draw taking a
realistic approach, keeping the context and the
situation in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been
lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days.
20. This Court has, over the last several decades,
repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated
by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read
with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023] to be attracted. They however seem to have
followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears
to be casually and too readily resorted to by the
police. While the persons involved in genuine cases
where the threshold is met should not be spared, the
provision should not be deployed against individuals,
only to assuage the immediate feelings of the
distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the
proposed accused and the deceased, their
interactions and conversations preceding the
unfortunate death of the deceased should be
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8111
approached from a practical point of view and not
divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles
employed in exchanges should not, without anything
more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide.
It is time the investigating agencies are sensitized to
the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so
that persons are not subjected to the abuse of
process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial
courts also should exercise great caution and
circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe
syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if
the investigating agencies in a given case have
shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section
306."
17. On careful reading of the above said judgment, it makes
it clear that in order to make out an offence under
Section 306 of IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by
Section 107 of IPC has to be made out. It is further held
that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to
abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for
attracting Section 306 of IPC.
18. In another case, in the case of M.MOHAN v. STATE2, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the alleged harassment
(2011) 3 SCC 626
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8111
meted out should have left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases
of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or
indirect act of abetment to commit suicide.
19. On careful reading of the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in respect of abetment to commit suicide, now it is
relevant to refer the brief facts of the case and also
relevant to refer the findings of the Trial Court.
20. The prosecution in order to prove the case, got examined
16 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 16. P.W.1 being a witness to
the inquest mahazar which is marked as Ex.P1, has
stated that he has affixed his signature in the hospital.
21. P.W.2 being another inquest witness, stated to have
affixed his signature at Government Hospital,
Davanagere. He further deposed that he was called by
the police at the time of preparing the seizure mahazar in
respect of the chit said to have been recovered from the
sweater of the deceased. The same is marked as Ex.P2.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that though he has
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8111
affixed his signature to the said mahazar, he was not
aware of the contents thereof.
22. P.W.3 being a younger brother of accused No.1, he stated
to have lodged a complaint against accused No.1 as
accused No.1 and others had instigated or abated his wife
to commit suicide. He admitted that there was a dispute
in respect of property between himself and accused No.1.
He has further deposed that in respect of the said issue,
accused Nos.1 and 2 were abusing himself and his wife
that they should go and die. He further deposed that
when he was searching the sweater of his wife and found
that there was a chit in the sweater which contained the
handwriting of his wife which indicates that the accused
are responsible for her death.
23. Further, he stated to have handed over the said chit to
the police. The police have conducted seizure-mahazar
on the said death note and the same is marked as Ex.P2
and recovery of the said death note is marked as Ex.P3.
He supported the case of the prosecution. On perusal of
Ex.P3, it appears that in addition to accused Nos.1 and 2,
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8111
the names of other persons were also mentioned.
However, the jurisdictional police have filed the charge
sheet only in respect of accused Nos.1 and 2.
24. The accused have denied the writings found on Ex.P3 by
stating that the deceased did not know the writing and
reading, therefore the writing of the letter would not
arise. However, the same has been controverted by the
evidence of P.Ws.4 and 7. All the witnesses viz., P.W.3, 4
and 7 are consistent in their evidence that the deceased
had written the death note and it was found in her
sweater. Though the writings on the said death note was
converted by the defense, that cannot be accepted for the
reason that the family members are the best persons to
speak about the writings of the another family member.
25. Be that as it may, the prosecution should have compared
the disputed writings with the other writings of the
deceased. If the said writings had been subjected to FSL,
the authenticity would have been assessed and the report
would have been given by the competent Authority. In
the absence of the said effort in getting the report from
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8111
the competent authority, it would be very difficult to
accept that the death note has been written by the
deceased. This aspect should have been considered by
the Trial Court while considering the death note.
26. In addition to the above findings, the delay in filing the
complaint against the accused is also one of the material
ground to discard the allegations made against the
accused. It is also necessary to mention that accused
No.1 and P.W.3 are the brothers and there is a civil
dispute in respect of the property pending among them.
27. Having considered the over all facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial
Court has committed grave error in isolating the
allegations in respect of the Appellants though, the
averments of the Ex.P.3-death note discloses the
allegations against all the persons mentioned in the said
death note.
28. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to
answer the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the 'Negative'
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8111
Point No.2 : In the 'Affirmative'
29. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
ii) The judgment of conviction and order on
sentence dated 06.08.2014 passed in S.C.
No.6/2012 by the I Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Davanagere is set aside.
iii) The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are
acquitted for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 504, 306 r/witness Section 34
of IPC.
iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
UN
