Allowed

Nataraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2024CRL.A/381/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction for abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC, the High Court quashed the conviction. The court held that mere illicit relationship or quarrels did not amount to abetment, citing a lack of clear mens rea and active instigation required by law, thus acquitting the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of conviction and order on sentence was set aside and the appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 306 IPC; fine amount paid ordered to be refunded.

Nataraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 381 OF 2012

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NATARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE BASAPPA R/O BASAVESHWARA EXTENSION CHELURU VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI S G RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GUBBI POLICE STATION BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS AT BANGALORE – 01.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 17/19.3.2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL S.J. TUMKUR IN S.C.No.131/11-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 AND 506 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶17

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellant – accused praying to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in S.C.No.131/2011 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, whereunder, the appellant – accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months. The appellant – accused has been acquitted of the offence under Section 506 of IPC.

¶23

The factual matrix of this case is that; PW1 – Sri.Karegowda – brother of the deceased has filed the written complaint – Ex.P1 stating that his younger sister Smt.Siddamma died in a suspicious circumstance and a case came to be registered in U.D.R.No.33/2010 under Section 174(c) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶25

hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’) . The police went to the spot and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P6. Thereafter, on 14.09.2010, PW1 – Sri.Karegowda lodged a complaint as per Ex.P2, accusing that the appellant – accused and one Smt.Rajamma are the reason for suicide of his sister Smt.Siddamma and it is registered in Crime No.130/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the appellant – accused for the offences under Sections 306 and 506 of IPC. The Investigating Officer has not filed the charge sheet against the said Smt.Rajamma. The said case came to be committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed the charge against the appellant – accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 506 of IPC.

¶26

(i) In order to prove the charge, the prosecution

¶27

has examined twelve witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P8. The statement of

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶29

the appellant – accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments on both sides, has formulated the points for consideration and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment convicting the appellant – accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and acquitted him of the offence under Section 506 of IPC. The said judgment of conviction and order on sentence is challenged in this appeal.

¶30

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant – accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant – accused would contend that;

¶32

(i) marriage of the appellant – accused and the deceased Smt.Siddamma had taken place fifteen years prior to the date of death of the deceased. The deceased during her lifetime, had not alleged any harassment or

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶34

ill-treatment by her husband and she had not filed any complaint in that regard. There are material contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, 8 and 9. None of the witnesses who are the residents of Cheluru village, wherein the deceased was residing, were examined. The deceased and the appellant – accused had two daughters

¶35

by names Kum.Lavanya, aged twelve years and Kum.Shwetha, aged nine years and they were residing with the appellant – accused and the deceased and they have not been examined. The witnesses who are examined ie., PWs.1 to 5 are not the residents of Cheluru village and they are the relatives of PW1. The evidence of PWs.4 and 9 itself would indicate that the deceased was not making any complaint against her husband before her elder brother PW1 – Sri.Karegowda. The complaint filed by PW1 as per Ex.P1 was on 24.08.2010 and in that there is no allegation of any harassment or ill-treatment by the appellant – accused on the deceased. Thereafter, another complaint came to be filed as per Ex.P2 on 14.09.2010 making false allegation against the appellant – accused

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶37

and it is an after thought. PW1, who was a law student as on the date of filing the complaint and his explanation for filing the complaint belatedly cannot be accepted. There is no charge against the appellant – accused for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. A mere illicit relationship of the husband with another lady does not amount to abetment to commit suicide. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Crl.A.No.54/2013 decided on 04.11.2024 .

¶38

(ii) PW8 has deposed that husband and wife were in good terms and there is no harassment by the appellant – accused to his wife – deceased Smt.Siddamma. There are lot of improvements in the evidence of PW1. The alleged harassment is hearsay . The evidence on record would not establish that there was abetment by the appellant – accused to the deceased to commit suicide. Merely, the appellant – accused coming drunk to the house and quarrelling with his wife does not amount to abetment. The alleged ill-treatment is not to such an

¶39

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶40

extent that it drove the deceased to commit suicide. The deceased was happily residing with her husband in his house, more so, PW1 was getting constructed a house for her in the land of the appellant – accused. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case

¶41

of Smt.Mangala Gowri Vs. State of Karnataka in

¶42

Crl.A.No.276/2023. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant – accused.

¶43

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State would contend that the Trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence on record has rightly convicted the appellant – accused. He has supported the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court. He has further argued that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and 9 is sufficient to convict the appellant – accused for the offences alleged against him. On these grounds, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶44

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶45

On the grounds made out and considering the argument advanced, the following point arises for my consideration;

¶46

“Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant – accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC?”

¶47

My answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons;

¶48

The appellant – accused was husband of the deceased Smt.Siddamma and their marriage had taken place fifteen years prior to her death. The deceased Smt.Siddamma was residing in the house of her husband. The deceased and the appellant – accused had two daughters, one by name Kum.Lavanya, aged twelve years and another by name Kum.Shwetha, aged nine years. Both the daughters were residing with the appellant – accused and the deceased.

¶49

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶50

On coming to know that the deceased

¶51

Smt.Siddamma had committed suicide, PW1 – her brother came to her village and filed complaint – Ex.P1 which came to be registered under U.D.R.No.33/2010. In the said complaint, there is no allegation of any harassment or ill-treatment by the appellant – accused to the deceased. What is stated in Ex.P1 is that the husband and wife were quarrelling since last six months with regard to small issues and in that regard, they called both of them and advised them. Another aspect what is alleged in Ex.P1 is that the appellant – accused had an illicit relationship with one Smt.Rajamma, which might be the cause for suicide of the deceased. There is no allegation of the appellant – accused consuming alcohol, harassing and assaulting her in Ex.P1. Ex.P2 - another complaint came to be filed on 14.09.2010 after twenty days of filing of earlier complaint as per Ex.P1. In Ex.P2 several allegations are made against the appellant – accused regarding he consuming alcohol, harassing and ill-treating his wife Smt.Siddamma and having illicit relationship with Smt.Rajamma. There

¶52

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶53

was a complaint against Smt.Rajamma also in Ex.P2 and she has been arraigned as accused No.2 in the F.I.R. At the time of filing the charge sheet, her name was left out and the charge sheet has been filed only against this appellant – accused. The appellant – accused and the deceased Smt.Siddamma were residing in Cheluru village. PW1 was residing in Gadiankanahalli. PWs.2 and 3 are also the residents of the said village. PWs.4, 5 and 9 are not the residents of Cheluru village. None of the residents of Cheluru village have been examined in order to establish the alleged harassment and ill-treatment by the appellant – accused to his wife deceased - Smt.Siddamma, more so, the two daughters of the appellant – accused and the deceased, whose names and ages are also stated in Ex.P2 – complaint, are also not examined. Those two daughters of the appellant – accused and the deceased are the witnesses with regard to the alleged harassment and ill-treatment and the appellant – accused consuming alcohol and ill-treating his wife – the deceased Smt.Siddamma. No independent witnesses were examined

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶55

11 -

¶56

by the prosecution in order to establish the alleged harassment and ill-treatment by the appellant – accused to the deceased – Smt.Siddamma.

¶57

The evidence of PW1 would indicate that he has been constructing a house for his sister deceased – Smt.Siddamma in the land which was allotted to the share of the appellant – accused. In that regard, he had constructed foundation and stored building materials. PW8 has deposed that after the marriage, husband and wife were cordial and they begot two daughters. Even PW2 - relative of PW1 and the deceased, in his chief examination has deposed that till the death, the appellant – accused and his wife were cordial. PW2 in the cross examination has also admitted that whenever the deceased used to come to her village, she was not making any complaint against her husband. Therefore, the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that the appellant – accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

¶58

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶59

There is an allegation that this appellant – accused

¶60

had an illicit relationship with one Smt.Rajamma. It appears that as the deceased was upset with the said illicit relationship of her husband with the said Smt.Rajamma, she might have committed suicide. This Court in the case of Prema and another Vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.54/2013 decided on 04.11.2024 has held that the act of the accused persons having illicit relationship does not amount to abetment to commit suicide.

¶61

How a human mind reacts has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ude Singh and Other Vs State of Haryana reported in 2019 (17) SCC 301 wherein it is observed as under:

¶62

"16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of

¶63

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶64

harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstance."

¶65

A person may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons such as depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment. The same has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangat Ram Vs State of Haryana reported in AIR 2014 SC 178 .

¶66

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the M. Mohan

¶67

Vs State reported in 2011 (3) SCC 626 has observed as under:

¶68

"44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of

¶69

14 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶71

the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

¶72

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 306 IPC 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."

¶73

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision also observed that "Human sensitivity of each individual differs

¶74

from person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same situation".

¶75

It appears that the deceased was sensitive and on coming to know that the appellant – accused had an illicit relationship with another lady, upset with the same, she might have committed suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation / abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, the

¶76

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:45546 CRL.A No. 381 of 2012

¶77

appellant – accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The evidence on record would not establish that the appellant – accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the appellant – accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. In view of the above, the following;

¶78

ORDER

¶79

The appeal is allowed . The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 17.03.2012 and 19.03.2012

¶80

passed in S.C.No.131/2011 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tumakuru is set-aside and the appellant - accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

¶81

Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant - accused is ordered to be refunded to him.

¶82

Sd/-

¶83

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶84

GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Nataraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nataraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rashmi D R Vs Sri K S Manjunatha @ Santro Ravi

Shankaregowda @ Shankara @ Thuppa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Hari Prasad @ Hari Vs the State of Karnataka

Vasu S C Vs State of Karnataka by

Savin S/O Siddappa Daddi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagarajappa @ Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka