[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr Mohammed Saleem vs The State By Mico Layout on 11 February, 2026
-1-
CRL.A No.738 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.738 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
MR MOHAMMED SALEEM
S/O ABDUL BASIN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT TAJ MANJIL HAJI ASLAM
8TH MAIN, BISMILLA NAGAR,
B.C. ROAD, BANGALORE-560032
(UNDERGOING IMPRISONMENT)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHAIKH SAOUD, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE BY MICO LAYOUT
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP)
CRL.A. FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED
09.04.2013 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-9, BANGALORE IN
S.C.NO.1583/2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A AND 306 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 02.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-2-
CRL.A No.738 of 2013
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 09th April,
2013 passed in SC No.1583 for 2011 by the Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court-IX, Bengaluru City (for short "the trial Court").
2. Parties are referred to as per their rank before the
trial Court.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the
Police Inspector, MICO Layout Police Station, Bengaluru
submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence
under Sections 498A and 306 Indian Penal Code. It is alleged
by the prosecution that, deceased-Jabeena Khan is the
daughter of CW.11-Smt.Majhar Khan and CW.7-Fyroz Khan;
CW.8-Farook Khan, CW.9- Imthiyaz Khan are the elder
brothers of the deceased and CW.10-Afroz Khan is the younger
brother of the deceased and the complainant-Mohammed
Naveed is the son of the deceased; and the accused is the
husband of the deceased. After marriage, accused and
deceased were residing in the rental house of one Haji Aslam in
8th cross Bismillah Nagar, MICO Layout, Bengaluru. The
accused was an Autorikshaw driver by profession. He was
addicted to bad vices, was doubting fidelity of deceased, he
was picking up quarrel with the deceased in inebriated state
and he did not heed to the advice of relatives and elders.
CW.12-Noushad, CW.13-Nahimunnisa and the neighbours had
also seen the ill-treatment given by the accused to the
deceased. It was alleged that accused was forcing the deceased
to bring money from her parents house and the brothers of the
deceased had also given an Autorickshaw to him for their
livelihood. About 2 to 3 years prior to the incident, the accused
had beaten the deceased and she was treated in a private
hospital and in that regard he was advised by elders to lead a
peaceful life, but in vain. That being so, on 12.09.2011 at
about 02.30 p.m., while the complainant-Mohammed Naveed
had returned home from school due to ill-health, the accused
came in an inebriated state and picked up quarrel with the
deceased and assaulted her and the deceased being fed up with
ill-treatment given by the accused, sent the Complainant under
the guise of purchase of coconut oil, comb etc. and committed
suicide by hanging herself to the ceiling fan with the help of
mantle by closing the doors of the house. The Complainant
who returned home at about 03.30 p.m. saw the deceased
through the window, telephoned to relatives, called the
neighbours and then opened the door of the house. Then, he
took the deceased to Shekhar Hospital with the help of relatives
and neighbours. In the meanwhile, accused ran away from the
house and deceased was shifted to Jayadev Hospital. There
she was declared dead. Thus, the accused has committed the
offence under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.
4. The accused was arrested by the police on
14.09.2007 and he was released on bail on 07.07.2012. After
filing the charge sheet, case was registered in CC No.334/2011.
The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was
registered in SC No.1583/2011.
5. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed
the charges against the accused for the commission of alleged
offence. Same were read over and explained to the accused.
Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution
has examined 10 witnesses as PW1 to PW10; 14 documents
were marked as Exhibits P1 to P14; 4 material objects were
marked as MOs.1 to 4. On closure of prosecution side
evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded.
The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution
witnesses. The accused did not choose to lead any defence
evidence on his behalf.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial
Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Sections
498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code and passed a sentence for
a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- for the offence
under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code and further to undergo
imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of ₹2,000/- for the
offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Being
aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that, the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence passed
by the trial Court is contrary to law and probabilities of the
case. The independent witnesses-CW12 and CW13, staying in
the upper floors of the same building where the accused and
deceased were staying, who would speak about the day-to-day
events between the accused and deceased, were not examined
by the prosecution. So the version of interested witnesses
remain uncorroborated. The trial Court was wrong in not
considering this important factor. Hence, the conviction is liable
to be set aside.
9. He submitted that, PW.6-Naushad is cited as spot
mahazar witness in the charge sheet. But the prosecution
illegally made improvement and elicited through him in the
examination-in-chief itself that he is staying in the upstairs of
the same building where the accused and deceased were
staying and projected them as eyewitness, which is wrong. The
trial Court did not even notice these important circumstances
and wrongly convicted the appellant.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted
that the prosecution has failed to prove the most important
document viz. Exhibit P1. The conviction based on such an
document is liable to be set aside. Exhibit P1 is not in the
handwriting of PW1-Complainant. He has deposed before the
Court that he narrated the incident to the Police in Hindi and
the Police has translated it to Kannada and written the same.
Admittedly, Ex.P1 is not reduced into the writing by PW.9-Police
Inspector. The prosecution has not examined the Police Officer
who actually wrote Exhibit P1 i.e., the scribe of the said
document. Hence, Exhibit P1 remains legally unproved. The
trial court did not even notice this important legal issue and has
wrongly convicted the appellant. Hence, the conviction is liable
to be set aside.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted
that, PWs3, 7 and 8 are brothers of deceased and PW1 is the
son of the deceased now staying with them. PW6 is the close
friend of the above witnesses. So all of them are interested
witnesses. Their version remained uncorroborated with any
independent witnesses. In spite of that, the trial Court has
wrongly convicted the appellant.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted
that, the prosecution has relied upon totally 18 witnesses as
shown in the charge-sheet, but the prosecution has chosen to
examine and rely only on interested witnesses, which is wrong.
Admittedly, the appellant was married to the deceased 18
years back and having 4 children. During the course of entire
marital life of 18 years, admittedly, no case was filed either by
the deceased or by any of her brothers or other relatives
against the appellant. After the suicide of the deceased, all of a
sudden, the prosecution has come up with a story of alleged
circumstances of harassment which has resulted in compelling
her to commit suicide, which is wrong. PW6 has clearly and
specifically stated in his cross-examination that accused used to
quarrel when he was intoxicated, otherwise he used to behave
normally and none of the essential ingredients to constitute
offence under Section 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code are
made out. However, the trial Court has convicted the accused
for the alleged offences which is not sustainable under law. To
substantiate his argument he relied on the decision in the case
of KASHIBAI & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2023
LIVELAW (SC) 149.
13. As against this, Sri B Lakshman, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, would
submit that the trial court has properly appreciated the material
on record and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with
the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence
and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
14. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of material placed before this court, the following points
would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting
the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 306 IPC?
2. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting
the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 498A IPC?
3. Whether the appellant is entitled for modification
of sentence passed by the trial court for offence
under Section 498A IPC?
4. What order?
Regarding Points 1 and 2:
15. I have examined the materials placed before this
court. The investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet
against accused for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 306 and 498A of Indian pin code. The trial court has
convicted the accused for the aforestated offences. Before
appreciating the evidence on record, it is necessary to mention
as to the essential ingredients to constitute the offence
punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, which is as
under:
"The Prosecution has to prove.-
(i) the deceased committed suicide;
(ii) the accused instigated or abetted for committing
suicide (committing suicide by itself is a crime);
(iii) direct involvement by the accused in such
abetment or instigation is necessary."
- 10 -
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KASHI
BAI AND OTHERS (supra), by referring to the decision of M
MOHAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE reported in (2011)3 SCC 626, at
paragraphs 5 to 9, has observed as follows:
"5. At this juncture, it would be beneficial to reproduce the
relevant provision contained in Section 306IPC pertaining to
abetment of suicide:
"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine."
6. What is "abetment of a thing" has been described in Section
107 which reads as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing.--A person abets 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.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or
by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to
disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause
or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of
that thing.
7. From the bare reading of the said provisions, it clearly
transpires that in order to convict a person for the offences
under Section 306IPC, the basic constituents of the offence,
namely, where the death was suicidal and whether there was
an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated in
Section 107IPC have to be established.
8. In M. Mohan v. State of T.N. [M. Mohan v. State of T.N.,
(2011) 3 SCC 626 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] , this Court has
elaborately dealt with the provisions contained in Section 306
read with Section 107IPC, and after discussing various earlier
- 11 -
decisions has observed as under : (SCC pp. 637-38, paras 41-
45)
"41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar [Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC
(Cri) 1088] has examined different shades of the meaning of
"instigation". Para 20 reads as under : (SCC p. 629)
'20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must
be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence.
Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case
where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a
continued course of conduct created such circumstances that
the deceased was left with no other option except to commit
suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A
word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending
the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.'
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is
no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an
inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission
of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may
necessarily be drawn.
42. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [State of W.B. v. Orilal
Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has
cautioned that (SCC p. 90, para 17) the Court should be
extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of
each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the
purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim
had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide.
If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in
domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim
belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a
given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court
should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused
charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found
guilty.
43. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of
Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009)
16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal
with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the
dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading".
The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke,
- 12 -
incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each
person's suicidality pattern is different from the others. Each
person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula
in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the
basis of its own facts and circumstances.
44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
Without a positive act on the part of 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 306IPC 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."
9. In view of the above, it is quite clear that in order to bring
the case within the purview of "abetment" under Section
107IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the
accused. For the purpose proving the charge under Section
306IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the
positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to
drive a person to commit suicide."
17. In the case on hand PW1-Mohammed Naveed,
brothers of the deceased PW3-Fairoz, PW7-Afroz Khan, PW8-
Shah Rukh Khan and neighbours PW6-Naushad, PW2-Afzal,
have all stated that the marriage of the deceased with the
accused was performed about 18 years back and they have got
four children and they were residing in Bismillah Nagar. The
accused in an inebriated state used to abuse and assault the
deceased and used to force her to bring money from parents
house and would subject her to cruelty and also did not heed to
the advice of elders. He was also doubting her character and
- 13 -
hence the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself to
the ceiling fan with her mantle. They have further stated that
the brothers of the deceased were taking care of her family and
accused was not maintaining his family. They had also
purchased an autorickshaw for the accused. The complainant
has stated that on 12th September 2011, he was in the house,
and the accused came at about 2.00 pm in an inebriated
condition and started to abuse his mother for money and
doubted her character and abused her in indecent words.
Thereafter, deceased had sent him to kirana shop in the guise
of bringing Coconut oil and comb and committed suicide by
2:30 pm. The complainant saw the deceased through the
window returning from the shop and knocked the door and
called the neighbours. Accused opened the door and ran away
from the spot and thereafter, PW3-Fairoz Khan came and took
her to Shekhar Hospital in an autorickshaw and later shifted to
Jayadev Hospital. The complainant has stated about filing the
complaint as per Exhibit P1 and drawing of the spot
panchanama and identifying the material objects.
18. PW3-Firoz Khan has stated that he has received the
phone call at 3:45 pm and came to the house of his sister and
saw that the neighbours had laid his sister on the floor after
- 14 -
removing the mantle from the ceiling fan and he took his sister
to Shekhar Hospital and later to Jayadev Hospital, where
Doctors declared she was dead and there was ligature mark on
the neck of his sister. He had also filed another complaint
earlier stating that accused assaulted his sister.
19. PW6-Naushad has also stated that the accused was
forcing her to bring money from her parents house and used to
assault her. He has further stated that he had also pacified the
quarrel 2 to 3 times and saw that the deceased committed
suicide by hanging herself to the ceiling fan. He has also stated
as to drawing of panchanama as per Exhibit P2 and he has
identified the material object MO3 and also photos at Exhibits
P3 to P5.
20. PW7-Afroz Khan and PW8-Farooq Khan, brother of
the deceased have stated that they have given dowry of
₹20,000/- at the time of marriage, and after marriage, the
accused was treating their sister and subjected her to cruelty
for bringing money and they were helping the family of the
deceased by paying rent, school fees and purchasing groceries
and they had also purchased an autorickshaw for him. Further,
they have advised the accused to lead better life, which went in
- 15 -
vain. Further, they have deposed as to the suicide committed
by the deceased.
21. PW4-Dr. Suresh has deposed as to conducting of
postmortem and issuance of postmortem report.
22. PW5-Cheluva Murthy, Police Constable, has stated
as to tracing out of the accused and producing him before the
investigating officer and the report submitted as per Exhibit
P10.
23. PW10-Puttamadaiah, Head Constable and PW9-
Mohan Kumar, Investigating Officer have deposed as to their
respective investigation.
24. On careful examination of the entire materials on
record, I do not find any material to constitute the offence
punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. However,
the trial court has convicted the accused for offence punishable
under Section 306 of Indian penal code, which is not
sustainable, under law. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the
negative.
25. With regard to offence punishable under Section
498A of Indian penal code is concerned, the complainant who is
- 16 -
the son of the accused has clearly deposed as to the ill-
treatment given by the accused to the deceased and the same
was substantiated by other witnesses also. The accused has
not placed any materials to discard the evidence of prosecution
witnesses pertaining to commission of offence under Section
498A of Indian Penal Code. The trial court has appreciated the
evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. I do not
find any legal or factual error in interfering with the conviction
of the accused for offence punishable under Section 498 of
Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, I answer Point No.2 in the
affirmative.
Regarding point 3:
26. The trial Court has convicted the accused for the
offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code
and passed sentence to undergo imprisonment for a period of
two years and to pay a fine of ₹2,000/- for the offence under
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has
convicted the accused for the offence under Section 498A of
Indian Penal Code and passed sentence to undergo
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of
₹2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian
Penal Code. The commission of offence under Section 498A is
- 17 -
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
3 years and shall also be liable to fine. In the case on hand,
accused was arrested on 14th September, 2011 and was
released on bail on 7th February, 2012. Accordingly, he was in
judicial custody for a period of 4 months 23 days. The trial
court has passed judgment on 9th April, 2013, and on that day
accused was taken to custody. This court vide order dated 13th
December, 2013, suspended the sentence and released the
accused on bail. Accordingly, accused was in judicial custody
for a period of 8 months 4 days. On 8th October 2025, the
learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that he does not
know as to whether the appellant is alive or not, and he does
not have any contact details of the appellant. Hence, at
request of learned counsel for the appellant, this court has
issued notice to the appellant through concerned Police. The
court notice was not served to accused and the same was also
not returned. Again, this court, on 4th November 2025, issued
court notice to the appellant through Commissioner of Police.
Despite the same, police have not served notice to the accused.
Thereafter, on 25 November 2025, Police submitted a report
stating that the appellant has vacated the premises long back.
On 19th November, 2025 a Mahazar was conducted. Thereafter,
this court issued non-bailable warrant to the accused through
- 18 -
concerned police. The same was executed on 26th December,
2025. Thereafter, this court passed an order on 6th January,
2026 to release the accused on bail. Since the accused has not
furnished security and deposited the fine amount till this date,
the accused is in judicial custody. Considering the relationship
between the accused and the deceased, the age of the accused
and the period of detention already undergone by the accused
in custody for a period of 9 months and 20 days. It is just and
proper to release the accused. Accordingly, Point No.3 is
answered, partly in the affirmative.
27. For the reasons and discussions aforestated, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is partly allowed;
ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence
dated 9th April 2013, passed in SC No.1583 of
2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-
IX, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, is set
aside.
iii) Accused is acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 306 Indian Penal Code;
- 19 -
iii) The judgment of conviction dated 9th April 2013,
passed in SC No.1583 of 2011 by the Presiding
Officer, Fast Track Court-IX, Bengaluru City for
the offence punishable under Section 498A of
Indian Penal Code, is confirmed;
iv) The sentence imposed by the trial court for the
offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian
Penal Code is modified as under:
a. The accused shall undergo imprisonment for a
period of nine months and twenty days , instead
of two years and to pay a fine of ₹2,000/-. It is
submitted by the learned Counsel for the
appellant that the fine amount is already
deposited by the accused;
v) The period of sentence already undergone by the
accused shall be given set off under Section 428
of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Registry to send the intimation along with a copy of this
order to the Jail Authority to release the accused forthwith, if
he is not required in any other case.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
lnn/rs
