Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Najiya W/O Mahamdtousif Alias Nyajo ... on 10 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100355 OF 2019 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
AND:
1. NAJIYA W/O. MAHAMDTOUSIF @ NYAJO KALADAGI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KELGARI, GOUDAR ONI, DHARWAD,
DIST. DHARWAD.
Digitally
2. MAHAMMAD IQBAL S/O. HAJARATALI MULLA,
YASHAVANT
signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
NARAYANKAR Date:
AGE: 28 YEARS,
2025.07.17
11:10:48
+0530 OCC. GOVERNMENT SERVANT (VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT),
R/O. KERUR, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADV. FOR R2; R1-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND
(3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
27.03.2019 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN S.C. NO.150/2016 AND TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
27.03.2019 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN S.C.NO.150/2016 AND CONVICT
THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 306 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
This appeal is directed against the judgment of
acquittal dated 27.03.2019 passed in SC.150/2016 by the
IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad
[hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Sessions Judge' for
short] whereby, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the
respondents-accused for the offence punishable under
Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in
brief as under;
The complainant-PW.9 is the father of deceased
Mohammed Tousif @ Nyajo. On 17.04.2014, the deceased
committed suicide by consuming poisonous insecticide in
the garden at HDMC Corporation, Dharwad. Immediately,
he was shifted to General Hospital, Dharwad, the Doctor
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
HC-KAR
referred to the KIMS Hospital for higher treatment,
however he was taken to SDM Hospital, Dharwad. On the
way to the said Hospital, the deceased succumbed. Later,
the Unnatural Death Report was filed by PW.14-the
brother of the deceased as per Ex.P.14 on 18.04.2014 i.e.,
on the next day of incident. Accordingly, the same was
registered in UDR No.21/2014 by PW.10-the ASI of
respondent-Police as per Ex.P.16. Subsequently, an
Inquest Panchanama was conducted by PW.3 on the body
of deceased as per Ex.P.3 on the same day. After lapse of
five days i.e., on 22.04.2014, the father of deceased-PW.9
lodged a complaint before the Police as per Ex.P.11
alleging that accused No.1 being the wife of deceased had
an extramarital relationship with accused No.2; the
deceased objected the same, hence the accused used to
assault him and instigated him to commit suicide by
saying that 'he may live or die, it would not make any
difference to them'. As such, the deceased committed
suicide by consuming poisonous insecticide on 17.04.2014.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
HC-KAR
On the strength of Ex.P.11, PW.17-the Police Inspector of
appellant-Police registered the FIR against accused Nos.1
and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w
Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.101/2014 as per Ex.P.18.
Subsequently, PW.17 conducted the investigation by
drawing a spot mahazar, after recording the statement of
all the witnesses and on obtaining relevant documents
from the concerned authorities, he laid charge-sheet
against accused for the aforementioned offence before the
committal Court.
3. After committal of the case before the Sessions
Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges
against the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and read over the same
to the accused. However, the accused denied the charges
and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the charges leveled against the
accused, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses as PW.1
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
HC-KAR
to PW.22 and marked 25 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.25 so
also identified 4 material objects as MO.1 to MO.4. Though
the accused not examined any witnesses on their behalf,
marked two documents as Ex.D.1 and D.2.
5. On assessment of oral and documentary
evidence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused
for the charges leveled against him as stated supra. The
said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the State.
6. Heard the learned High Court Government
Pleader Smt. Girija S. Hiremath for the appellant-
complainant and the learned counsel Sri. Neelendra D.
Gunde for the respondents-accused.
7. The primary contention of the learned High
Court Government Pleader is that the learned Sessions
Judge erred while acquitting the accused without
appreciating the evidence and the documents on record in
a right perspective. She contended that the evidence of
PW.9-the father of deceased, PWs.11 and 12-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
HC-KAR
Panchayatdars clearly established the charges leveled
against the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 306 of IPC. All these witnesses categorically stated
that accused No.1 had an extramarital affair with accused
No.2 and they both use to threaten the deceased with dire
consequences and instigated the deceased to commit
suicide. Left with no other option, the deceased committed
suicide by consuming poisonous insecticide on 17.04.2014.
The evidence of PWs.11 and 12 clearly establishes that
they both conducted Panchayat to pacify the dispute
between the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 2 and
advised accused Nos.1 and 2 not to indulge in such
activity. Additionally, she contended that the prosecution
also relied upon the death note of deceased as per
Ex.P.12, which was handed over to PW.9 by the Nurse of
the Hospital while treating the deceased. On perusal of
Ex.P.12 it reveals that, accused Nos.1 and 2 are solely
responsible for the suicide committed by deceased. This
aspect of the matter is not properly appreciated by the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
HC-KAR
learned Sessions Judge. Hence, she submits that the
interference is called for in the impugned judgment.
Accordingly, she prays to allow the appeal by setting aside
the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and to
convict the accused for the charges leveled against them.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents-accused submits that the judgment under
this appeal does not suffer from any perversity or legality
since the learned Sessions Judge after meticulously
examining the entire evidence on record, passed a well
reasoned judgment which does not call for any
interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that
the deceased committed suicide on 17.04.2014 and on the
next day i.e., 18.04.2014, Unnatural Death Report was
recorded by the jurisdictional Police based on the
complaint lodged by PW.14-brother of deceased. On
perusal of Ex.P.15, the brother of deceased clearly stated
that the accused was financially distressed; as such he
might have committed suicide. The father of deceased also
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
HC-KAR
not expressed any doubt against the accused. However,
after lapse of five days i.e., on 22.04.2014, the father of
the deceased lodged a complaint-Ex.P.11 that the accused
persons are solely responsible for the suicidal death of
deceased. Further, the evidence of PWs.11 and 12-the
Panchayatdars cannot be relied for the reason, though
they were very much present at the time of Inquest
Panchanama drawn on the body of deceased, they not
whispered anything about the mediation or the
harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased.
However, their statement was recorded after lapse of six
days i.e., on 23.04.2014. He further contended that the
evidence of PW.14-brother of deceased also goes contrary
to the evidence of PW.9-the father of deceased and the
Panchayatdars. Additionally, the learned counsel submits
that there is no cogent evidence placed by the prosecution
to substantiate that the accused instigated or intentionally
aided by acting in a particular manner or committing an
illegal omission which would otherwise implicate
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
HC-KAR
commission of the offence of abatement to drive the
deceased to commit suicide. In such circumstances, the
learned Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the evidence
on record and passed the impugned judgment and
interference does not call for. Accordingly, he prays to
dismiss the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and on perusal of the evidence and
documents available on record, the only point that would
arise for my consideration is;
"Whether the learned Sessions Judge
was justified in acquitting the accused for
the offence punishable under Section 306
r/w. Section 34 of IPC?"
10. I have given my anxious consideration on the
arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the
respective parties, so also the documents made available
before the Court.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
HC-KAR
11. It could be gathered from records, the death of
deceased-Mahammed Tousif @ Nyajo is a suicidal one and
the same is not disputed by the family members of the
deceased. Even otherwise, to prove the same, the
prosecution examined the Doctor-PW.7 who conducted the
postmortem on the body of deceased as per Ex.P.6. The
Doctor-PW.7 gave his final opinion as per Ex.P.7 that the
death is due to 'Organophosphorus insecticide poisoning'.
Further, PW.17 also conducted Inquest Panchanama on
the body of deceased as per Ex.P.3. PWs.3 and 10 are the
witness for Ex.P3. PW.17 and panch witnesses-PWs.3 and
10 have stated that the deceased had committed suicide
by consuming poisonous insecticide. Hence, the
prosecution has proved the death of deceased is suicidal
one.
12. To connect the accused-respondents to the
suicidal death of deceased, the prosecution predominantly
relied on the evidence of PW.9 and 13-the parents of
deceased, PW.14 and PW.19-the brothers of deceased and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
HC-KAR
evidence of PW.11 and 12 the circumstantial witnesses
who said to have conducted the mediation between the
accused and deceased. Though the prosecution relied on
the evidence of PWs.16 and 20-the residence of Kerur i.e.,
the place where the accused and deceased were resided,
they turned hostile to the prosecution case. On perusal of
evidence of PW.9-the father of deceased, he lodged the
complaint before the appellant-Police by suspecting the
involvement of accused in the suicidal death of deceased.
Further, the deceased informed him about the extramarital
affair of the accused No.1 with accused No.2 and also
about the harassment meted out by them to him. Further,
the evidence of PWs.11 and 12, who mediated the alleged
dispute between the deceased and accused also stated
similarly as that of PW.9. On the date of death of the
deceased i.e., 17.04.2014, he failed to disclose the same
to the Police. The brother of deceased while reporting the
unnatural death of deceased has clearly stated that, due
to unknown reasons, his brother had committed suicide.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
HC-KAR
There is an inordinate delay of five days in lodging the
complaint by PW.9. According to him, the said delay was
caused, as he obtained the death note of deceased after 4
to 5 days. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for
the respondents, the prosecution has failed to examine the
Nurse who handed over the death note written by the
deceased from his pocket during his treatment. There is
no explanation forthcoming as to why the death note was
not handed over for a period of five days either to PW.9-
the father of the deceased or to PWs.14 and 19- the
brothers of deceased, immediately after the death of the
deceased. Nevertheless, the death note was not sent for
handwriting expert with the admitted handwriting of the
deceased. In such circumstances, much credence cannot
be attached to the alleged death note at Ex.P.12.
13. Coming to the evidence of PWs.11 and 12-the
mediators who have allegedly conducted the Panchayat
between the accused and deceased, though, the appellant-
Police have recorded the statement of these witnesses
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
HC-KAR
after lapse of five days i.e., on 22.04.2014, on perusal of
their evidence, they both admitted that they were very
much present at the time of Inquest Panchanama and
PW.9-the father of deceased discussed with them. Despite,
they both did not whisper anything about the Panchayat
conveyed by them on the previous date of incident. In
such circumstances, there arises a doubt about the
credibility of these two witnesses. Further, on a perusal of
the evidence of PW.19-the brother of deceased, he
categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the
deceased was financially distressed at the time of incident.
In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that
the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of
material witnesses and came to the conclusion that the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused for
the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano
Anto Bruno and another Vs. The Inspector of
Police reported in 2022 live law (SC) 834 held that 'to
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
HC-KAR
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'.
15. Applying the law enumerated in the above
judgment to the facts and circumstances of the case, in
my considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove
the guilt of the accused. Moreover, this appeal is filed by
the State against the acquittal order, it is a settled position
of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court that if a
plausible view is taken by the Trial Court while acquitting
the accused, the Appellate Court shall not interfere in such
judgment of acquittal. As discussed, supra, the trial Court
has taken a plausible view in the instant case. In such
circumstances, interference does not warrant in the
impugned judgment. Accordingly, I answer the point
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590
HC-KAR
raised above in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The Criminal Appeal No.100355/2019 is hereby
dismissed being devoid of merits.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PJ
CT:PA
