An appellant challenged an acquittal in a case alleging abetment of suicide (IPC 306/149). The High Court held that there was no clinching evidence to prove the accused instigated the deceased or committed a conspiracy. The appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.295 OF 2011 (A)
BETWEEN:
SRI THIMMAPPA, S/O SRI NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT CHINIVARANAHALLI,
TUMKUR TALUK. ...APPELLANT
(BY MISS SHRIDEVI BHOSALE, ADVOCATE FOR AMAR CORREA ASSTS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK.
W/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT CHINIVARANAHALLI, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK.
(BY SRI PATEL D KAREGOWDA AND R JAGANNATH – ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R6, SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R7)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT: 30.10.10 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST., AND S.J., TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.79/10 – ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 R/W 149 OF IPC.,
3
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.10.2010 passed in S.C.No.9/2010 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 149 IPC.
Village. She was working as a Cook without there being any objection or complaint from any person. On 14.11.2008, the accused persons, who are the members of SDM Committee had locked the School without there being any directions from the higher authorities and entered into conspiracy with an intention to remove the deceased-victim from the job of Cook. When the deceased-victim asked the President, Vice-President, other
4
Members of School Development Management Committee (SDM Committee) and Head Mistress-Nagarathanamma, they have abused her in filthy language and also stated that the food to be prepared by her, will have bad impact on the children. Despite knowing that the victim was innocent, the accused persons have instigated her to commit suicide or to end her life by consuming poison. On account of the said instigation, the wife of the complainant viz., deceased-victim, committed suicide by consuming pesticide on 18.11.2008 at 01:00 p.m. at her residence. She was taken to Tumkur District Hospital for medical treatment, but she did not survive. The accused persons, by instigating her to commit suicide, have committed the alleged offence.
5
defence side one witness is examined as D.W.1 and the material objects are marked as MOs. 1 and 2.
The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and
the accused have denied the incriminating circumstances. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court has acquitted all accused of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 149 IPC. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant, who is the husband of the deceased-victim, has preferred the appeal.
the prosecution has placed the evidence of the husband of the victim and P.W.3, who is the co-worker of the deceased-victim, to show that on 14.11.2008 and 18.11.2008 the accused persons, being the members of SDM Committee and Head Mistress of the School, had abused and instigated the victim to commit suicide by
6
consuming poison. The medical records confirm that on account of consumption of pesticides, the deceased-victim has ended her life. The evidence of the complainant, prosecution witnesses and defence witness, clearly goes to show that on account of the harassment caused by the accused persons and threat given by them, the deceased-victim was compelled to commit suicide, but the trial Court failed to consider the entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record. On the basis of the evidence given by P.W.1-Thimmappa, complainant, and other witnesses, it is a fit case to record judgment of conviction and sentence.
7
omissions, what is stated in the examination-in-chief by the said witness is not found in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which creates a doubtful circumstance to disbelieve the prosecution version.
P.W.8 is the official witness and his evidence is contrary to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3. According to P.W.8, the School was opened on 14.11.2008 as it was Children’s day, but according to the complainant the School was closed by the accused persons without there being any order from the higher authorities, as such, the victim had gone to School to question about the closure of the School. The statement of P.W.12-Investigating Officer do not inspire confidence. There is no clinching material evidence so as to attract the offence under Section 149 IPC.
According to the evidence of D.W.1, the meeting was held on 18.11.2008 and on the said day the meeting was presided over by D.W.1 and it was attended by the accused persons, who are the members of SDM Committee. As per the evidence, no decision was taken either to continue or to discontinue the service of victim from the post of Cook in the School. The accused persons, being members of the SDM Committee, are only authorized to
8
recommend for appointment of the victim or any suitable person for the post of Cook, but they are not appointing authorities. The sole evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by other witnesses, there is no clinching evidence to prove the purpose or knowledge or intention on the part of the accused so as to instigate the accused to end her life by consuming pesticide.
In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the respondent-accused has relied on the following decisions:
“Whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused?”
9
10
“6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word ‘instigate’ literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentionally aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. ‘Abetted’ in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence”.
11
Further, relying on a decision reported in the case of Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami vs. State of Gujarat, wherein it is observed that the Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence 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 the 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 there 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.
12
“8. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.”
“A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires 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 for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.”
13
14
wife, but still she was working as a cook. On 14.11.2008, the accused had locked the School in order to prevent the complainant’s wife from cooking in the School. On enquiry, the said accused have abused the deceased victim and have also instigated to end her life by consuming poison. On 18.11.2008 morning at about 10 a.m., a meeting was called, but it was postponed as the President and Secretary of the Grama Panchayat did not attend the said meeting. Again at 12.30 a.m., a meeting was convened. At that time, the victim had gone there and asked about her termination from service. But the accused persons once again abused her. Therefore, the victim consumed poison.
15
services of his wife namely the victim had come to an end and he has also admitted that it was a contract service and it will be only for a limited period. This witness does not know whether the accused persons are the appointing authority or not. He has stated in his evidence that he do not know whether the appointing authority is the Tahasildar. He has denied the suggestion that Exhibit-P3 – death note was concocted by him in order to threaten the SDM Committee for appointing his wife or continuing her services.
16
Panchayat President. On the said day, they had gone to school, thereafter the victim went to the house and consumed poison. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she has not given statement before the police informing that the accused themselves conducted the meeting in the absence of Grama Panchayat President and on 18.11.2008 morning at about 10 a.m., there was a meeting and later it was convened at about 12.00 noon and on the said date, she had gone to the meeting along with the victim. Thus, it is evident that there are clear material omissions. What has been stated by this witness in the examination-in-chief is not found in the statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thus, the evidence of PW3 does not inspire the confidence to believe the prosecution version about the incident of abuse and instigation is said to have been done during the meeting.
17
has consumed poison to commit suicide. But he admits that nothing was seized at the spot and further he has stated that PW1 produced Exhibit-P3 – a letter said to have been written by the victim. In the cross-examination, PW5 admits that he is a relative of PW1 and further states that Exhibit-P3 – death note was seized at the time of inquest mahazar.
18
on Childrens Day and on the said day, there will be special function in the school. PW9 is the spot mahazar witness, the place of suicide is not in dispute.
19
termination of services of the cooks if their performance is not satisfactory.
20
SDM Committee President Govindappa and Vice President, have challenged that if she is not removed from the cook post, why they should continue as members. That on 14.11.2008, they have locked the school with an intention to insult her. They are trying to terminate her services even though she has not committed any mistake. For that reason, she is committing suicide. The contents of suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was under mental stress because of termination of her contract service on 10.11.2008 and she was making efforts for continuation of contract service as cook in the school. Due to frustration caused on account losing job, the deceased must have gone into depression, which is the cause for suicide.
21
Their duty is only to recommend suitable person for the post of cook. Ultimately, either the Tahasildar or the concerned higher authority alone are vested with powers for appointment.
22
unqualified clarity and conviction, any role of the accused persons. The material on record do not even suggest that any act of cruelty or harassment or inducement or instigation so as to persistently provoke or compel the deceased to resort to self-extinction being left with no other alternative. Even there is no evidence to prove the ingredients of Section 149 IPC or to prove that there was conspiracy by the accused persons either to instigate or induce the victim to commit suicide.
ORDER
The criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
BSR/SJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused for abetment of suicide?
Whether the evidence established that the accused instigated the victim to commit suicide?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶62
2008(5) SRJ 489
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West BengalReferred¶58
2010 (1) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 896
Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P.Referred¶58
Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami vs. State of GujaratReferred¶61
Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P.Referred¶65
AIR 2002 SC 1998 · Who else cites this
Anil Kumar vs. State of PunjabReferred¶49
2000(9) SCC 455 · Who else cites this
SRI THIMMAPPA
GOVINDAPPA
SMT NAGARATHNAMMA
SRI KUNTAIAH
SRI SIDDALINGAPPA
SRI SIDDARAJU
ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
