Criminal appeal against conviction for cruelty and abetment to suicide set aside. High Court found prosecution evidence insufficient to prove cruelty or instigation beyond reasonable doubt, acquitting the appellants.
Appellants acquitted of charges under Section 498A, 306 and 34 IPC.
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 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 445 OF 2014 (C)
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF KANTHUR MURNAD VILLAGE MADIKERI TALUK-571 201 KODAGU DISTRICT
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MADHUKESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.4.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., KODAGU, MADIKERI IN S.C.NO.8/2002 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A AND 306 R/W 34 OF IPC.THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I.
FOR 7 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF RS.1,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO R.I. FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of their conviction and order of sentence passed in Sessions Case No.8/2002 dated 16.4.2014 have preferred this appeal.
their rank before the trial Court.
Proceedings before the trial Court:
charge sheeted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Madikeri Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) and Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC on the ground, that deceased Saraswathi was the wife of accused no.1 and daughter-in-law of accused no.2. The deceased along with accused nos. 1 and 2 were residing at Murnad Village which is about 15 kms. away from Illamonangeri
NC: 2024:KHC:25039 CRL.A No. 445 of 2014
Village i.e. native place of deceased Saraswathi (her parents house). In the marital life with accused no.1, deceased delivered a male child. Thereafter, relationship between deceased and accused were strained. They started quarrelling with each other. It is alleged that, accused no.1 used to suspect her fidelity and character and used to harass her both physically and mentally. It is stated that, in this regard, Panchayaths were conducted and there was a compromise. It is alleged that, even then, the accused did not mend their ways and started harassing the deceased mentally and physically.
that, having not tolerated the harassment done by the accused persons, on 4.8.1998, deceased Saraswathi consumed poison in the early morning hours. She was initially taken to District Hospital, Madikeri. Thereafter, she was taken to Wenlock Hospital, Mangaluru. When she was
in District Hospital, Madikeri she gave her statement as per Ex.P9 and based upon that, the crime was registered
in Crime No.168/98 of Madikeri Rural Police Station and the criminal law was set in motion. When she was shifted to Wenlock hospital, Manguluru and under treatment she died on 6.8.1998. On the same day itself, the PM on the dead body was conducted by PW.9 Dr.Nalini Pai of Wenlock Hospital. It was the opinion of the FSL that because of consuming poison, she died. The investigation officer, after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
NC: 2024:KHC:25039 CRL.A No. 445 of 2014
evidence and on hearing the arguments, on evaluation of the evidence placed on record, found both the accused guilty of committing the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as under:
(i). Accused No.1/ Janardhana is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000-00 [Rupees one thousand only] for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 1.P.C., and in default of payment of fine he is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(ii) Accused No.2 being a lady, is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000-00 [Rupees one thousand only] for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine she is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(iii) Both the accused are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000-00 [Rupees one thousand only] each for the offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine they are ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
before this Court challenging their conviction and sentence.
Proceedings before this Court:
Police when she was in the hospital. The doctor has not certified about her physical, mental and medical capacity to give statement. Based upon that, a false complaint is registered. In fact, according to him, this Ex.P9 is not a genuine document. There was no harassment or ill treatment by both the accused as per the evidence placed by the prosecution. He submits that, as per the case of the prosecution, on the previous night of admitting the deceased to the Hospital, there was a quarrel. But, she has consumed poison on the following day in the early hours. In the intermediate period, what all was transpired is not explained by the prosecution. Nothing has happened as alleged by the prosecution. What made the victim to commit suicide is not stated in Ex.P9. To prove the offences of the aforesaid nature, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the initial mens rea which is very much essential. The whole genesis of the case of the prosecution as alleged by the prosecution is not duly proved in accordance with law. The witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution in material
particulars. According to his submission, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in finding the accused guilty. In support of his submission, he relied upon the various evidence spoken to by the witnesses as well as the findings of the trial Court and submits that, there is no proper evaluation and assessment of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution. Therefore, he prays to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.
physical harassment to the married woman i.e. Saraswati his sister by the accused. Ex.P9 (Statement of accused) is a genuine document and no fault can be found with the genuineness of the said document in the absence of acceptable cross-examination directed to PW.8, the Police
Officer who has recorded the statement as per Ex.P9. In support of his submission, he too relies upon the evidence placed on record by the prosecution and findings of the trial Court, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
1 . Whether the prosecution proves the suicidal death of deceased Saraswathi by consuming poison?
2. Whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court suffers from infirmity, illegality, without appreciation of evidence in a proper manner and hence, require interference by this Court?
ANALYSIS:
NC: 2024:KHC:25039 CRL.A No. 445 of 2014
accused no.1 abused her in filthy language and told that she is having her paramours. Because of the persistent harassment by accused nos. 1 and 2 continuously, at 5.30 a.m. on 4.8.1998, she consumed pesticide used for coffee plantation. She was shifted to District Hospital, Madikeri and there she gave a statement about consumption of poison by her. She was shifted to Wenlock Hospital and there she died.
was conducted as per Ex.P1 by the IO in the presence of Panchas noting about the consumption of poison by her. After conducting the inquest panchanama, the dead body was sent for post mortem. The doctor on duty conducted the post mortem and prepared the report as per Ex.P11. To prove the said fact, prosecution relies upon evidence of PW.1 the inquest pancha but, he has been turned hostile. So also, PW.4 Babu Channappa Poojary the father of the deceased, PW.5 Meenakshi, sister of the deceased, PW.6 Kamala mother of the deceased, PW.7 Murthy Prasad a
NC: 2024:KHC:25039 CRL.A No. 445 of 2014
neighbour of father of the deceased. PW.8 H.C.Sannayya who recorded statement of deceased as per Ex.P8, PW.9 Dr.Nalini Pai who conducted the post mortem, and the IOs evidence. On reading the evidence of all these witnesses coupled with inquest report as well as post mortem report, it shows that deceased Saraswathi died because of consuming poison named as Organophospherous as noted in the PM report.
FSL report sent to the Laboratory corroborates the said fact. The defence also do not deny about the death of deceased by consuming the said poison. Therefore, on cumulative reading of the aforesaid discussed evidence, it is proved by the prosecution, that deceased Saraswathi died because of consuming the poison. Therefore, point no.1 raised supra is answered in the affirmative.
Meenakshi, PW.6 Kamala are the close relatives of the deceased as stated above. As per the statement Ex.P8, about one week prior to the incident, deceased went to her parent's house. but, PW4 statement shows, she visited
his house 4 months prior to death. This evidence of all these witnesses being the close relatives of deceased show that, there was no harassment or ill treatment by the accused persons on the deceased. It has come in the evidence of PW.4 that, deceased Saraswathi never revealed about the same to him. He just speaks about consuming of pesticide. PW.5 states that accused used to look after her sister cordially. So also, PW.6 speaks in similar terms. The learned Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile witnesses but, nothing worth is elicited so as to disbelieve their version spoken in their examination in chief.
NC: 2024:KHC:25039 CRL.A No. 445 of 2014
in chief that, accused was looking after Saraswathi cordially.
NC: 2024:KHC:25039 CRL.A No. 445 of 2014
treating doctor about her competency to give a statement. In categorical terms, he states that, he did not obtain a certificate from the doctor regarding the mental condition of the patient to give statement. He also states that he has not recorded the statement in the presence of the doctor. Even he has not mentioned the time of recording the statement. He has not obtained the signature of the doctor on Ex.P9. Even he cannot say that why Saraswathi did not sign the Ex.P9. He denied other suggestions.
about accused no.2 telling that, whatever the work she does in the house, accused no.2 was not satisfied. He states that deceased never complained against accused no.1. Deceased visited his house about two months prior to her death. He speaks with regard to the death of deceased by consuming poison. He too has been declared hostile but, nothing worth is elicited from his mouth. The IO in this case is not examined by the prosecution.
IPC are attributed against the accused persons, it is bounden duty of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the said offences.
NC: 2024:KHC:25039 CRL.A No. 445 of 2014
NC: 2024:KHC:25039 CRL.A No. 445 of 2014
Though suicidal death is established by prosecution but, there is no evidence to prove that really there was a harassment, ill treatment by these accused persons on the deceased. Even there is no abetment to commit suicide as alleged by the prosecution because, as rightly submitted
by the counsel for the appellant-accused, suicide is a process wherein a person gets dejected over his/her life and decides to bit adieu to the planet. A person who commits suicide becomes victim of circumstances, leading to only alternative of taking the extreme step. It is the
mental attitude that a person decides to die. It is an instigation to commit suicide when the mental state is inducted by others, in which event, they would be committing instigation to commit suicide.
Gangadhar and another vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2018) 5 KLJ 173 has held that "reasons for instigation to commit suicide, cannot be judged exclusively from the point of the person who commits suicide or the
NC: 2024:KHC:25039 CRL.A No. 445 of 2014
person against whom instigation is alleged, the accused in present case. For a person who instigates, may be, unmindful of his act and impossible impact on the person and chances of the later taking extreme step. An independent assessment only would establish whether that act of accused really instigated victim to commit suicide."
used by the accused or the act of the accused towards the victim to commit suicide. It was a usual quarrel between the husband and wife. In such offences, mens rea active or direct act leading deceased to commit suicide are essential for invoking the provisions of Section 306 of IPC. As discussed above, 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, the law is that, conviction cannot sustained.
NC: 2024:KHC:25039 CRL.A No. 445 of 2014
under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which lead 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 or she committed suicide.
come to a finding that, the appellants meted the deceased Saraswathi with cruelty. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court is unsustainable in the eye of law. Thus, the judgment of the trial Court as rightly submitted by the counsel for the appellant can be termed as perverse and it suffers from illegality and infirmity, consequentially, leading to flagrant miscarriage of justice warranting an interference by this Court. Accordingly, Point No.2 raised supra is answered in favour of the appellant-accused and against the prosecution.
Resultantly, I pass the following:
ORDER
order of sentence dated 16.04.2014
passed by the Prl.Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri against the appellant-accused, is set aside.
are acquitted of the charges under Section 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Sd/JUDGE
Sk/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved the ingredients of cruelty under Section 498A IPC?
Whether the acts of the accused constituted abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gangadhar and another vs. State of KarnatakaRelied on¶108
(2018) 5 KLJ 173
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. B.S. Janardhana
Smt. B.S. Umavathi
The State of Karnataka
Ramachandra D. Huddar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
