High Court allowed Criminal Appeal against conviction under Section 306 IPC. Held that prosecution failed to prove abetment to suicide; appeal allowed and accused acquitted.
Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted, bail cancelled and liberty granted; fine refunded bond.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 532 OF 2014 (C)
BETWEEN:
PRAVEENA S/O S. GOVINDA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/O 141/2012 DEVARA CHIKKANHALLI I.I.M.B., CAMPUS BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 076
(PRESENTLY LODGED AT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGARAHARA BANGALORE)
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI M. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560 034 BANGALORE DISTRICT
…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 OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 27.6.2014 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-IV, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.95/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 OF IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
The Appellant/accused has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Session Case No.95/2012 dated 27.06.2014 by the City Fast Track Court-IV, Bengaluru City.
Case of the Complainant before the trial Court:
the address so stated in the complaint, gave her statement when she was admitted to Victoria Hospital on 21.01.2009, stating that she was working as a receptionist
in the office of one Talwar situated at 8th Main Road, Basaveshwarnagar, for the last one week prior to filing of the complaint. It is stated that, for the last 3 months, a person by name Praveena, who is the accused in this case, is acquainted with her. He used to come near her office and force her to marry him. She expressed that she is not having any interest in marrying him. Thereafter, the accused used to come near her office and used to do galata.
was not going to marry him. At that time, the victim girl took out the kerosene and poured the same on her person
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
and told the accused that she was going to die. By saying so, she lit fire. The said accused, Praveena and the neighbours put off the fire. The accused shifted the injured to the hospital for treatment. Accordingly, she was taking treatment in the hospital.
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 with
respective signatures thereon and also got marked MOs. No.1 to 3 in support of prosecution. On behalf of defence,
Ex.D1 and D2 were marked.
"Accused-Praveen is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC."
challenging the judgment of his conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.
Proceedings before this Court:
i) Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
with all vehemence, submits that, on reading the contents of Ex.P3, the so-called complaint (statement of victim), the ingredients of the offence of abetment to commit suicide are missing. He submits that, even in this case, the MLC register is not produced. He submits that, on 23.01.2009, the deceased died at about 5.30 p.m. Initially, the crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the IPC. He submits that, as there are no ingredients of abetment to commit suicide,
the said offence alleged against the accused does not amount to abetment to commit suicide.
to abetment to commit suicide against the accused. There are so many lacunas in the case of the prosecution. No independent witnesses like neighbours or relatives are examined by the prosecution so as to prove that the accused really abetted the victim to commit the suicide. The evidence of the prosecution suffers from material particulars. Learned counsel submits that no offence is made against the accused. He prays to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and acquit the accused.
ii) Submissions on behalf of the Respondent-
State:
on record by the prosecution does establish the offence committed by the accused. The accused wanted to marry the victim, but she refused. There was a persistent force
by the accused to get married to the victim girl. As the victim has refused to marry the accused, because of the
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
force made by the accused on the complainant, she committed suicide. In that view, he submits that the ingredients as required under Section 309 of the IPC are fulfilled by the prosecution. The learned HCGP also put forth the various evidence placed on the record by the prosecution. He prays to dismiss the appeal.
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased succumbed to the injuries because of the burn injuries sustained by her and is it a suicidal death or otherwise?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, it was accused who abetted the victim to commit suicide in the manner alleged by the prosecution?
Point No.1 and 2 are discussed together:
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
the house of the victim Shyamala and shouted the name of the victim. When she opened the door, he entered the house and forced her to marry him. She took the tablets for the purpose of consuming them to commit suicide, but the accused snatched the said tablets. She told the accused that she was not going to marry him. When the accused snatched the tablets, victim Shyamala took the kerosene and poured the same on her person and lit the fire for herself. At that time, the accused and neighbours came and put out the fire. It was the accused who shifted
the injured to the Victoria Hospital, and there she took the treatment. When she was under treatment, on 21.01.2009 itself, Narasimhaiah, the then ASI of Kamakshipalya Police Station, came and, after getting permission from the doctor, recorded the statement as per Ex.P.3. Thereafter, in the hospital itself, because of the burn injuries, she died.
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
it shows that what were the injuries sustained by the deceased on her person after lighting fire on her person.
The doctor in the said hospital conducted the post-mortem
as per Ex.P.2. The doctor has noticed the injuries on the
person of the deceased. They read as under:
" I. External Appearance
The dead body is that of a female measuring 167 cms in length, moderately built, rigor mortis present over all parts of the body. Livormortis could not be appreciated due to burn injury sustained. Intravenous cannula present over the inner aspect of left ankle. Blue ink mark present over the inner aspect of both the great toes.
External Injuries:
Second and third degree burn injury present over whole of face, neck, front and back of chest, front and back of both upper limbs, front and back of both thighs and legs. In patches over the front of abdomen. Both the ankles and foot, genitalia, back and both the genitalia region are spared. Cuticles is peeled off at places, exposing the red areas. Scalp hair is singed.
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
occurred due to the result of burn injuries she sustained. The Doctor was examined as PW.2. This PW.2 Dr. P.K. Devadas, who has conducted the post-mortem on the victim girl, has stated in his evidence that he noticed 2nd and 3rd degree burn injuries to the extent of 75% to 77% on the dead body. The burn injuries were antemortem in nature. After conducting the postmortem, he has issued a postmortem report as per Ex.P.2. It is his opinion that if the burn injuries are to the extent of 75% to 77%, there is a possibility of death because of burn injuries.
is stated in the cross-examination that the types of shock to the victim because of burn injuries depend upon the gravity of burn injuries. The shock sustained by the deceased was the combination of neurogenic and hypovolumic. At the early stage, the victim of burn injuries may be in a position to speak. At the stage of death, the victim may not be in a position to speak with clarity.
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
she gave a statement before the police. Thereafter, after
two days, she died. On reading the contents of the evidence of the doctor as well as the post-mortem report and inquest report, it does demonstrate that the deceased succumbed to the injuries because of the burn injuries due to lighting fire for herself by pouring kerosene. Coupled with that, other witnesses examined spoke about the burn injuries sustained by the deceased. If all these factual features are put together with documents and the contents of the complaint, it shows that she herself lit the fire and sustained burn injuries. Because of those burn injuries, she succumbed to death. Hence, the prosecution is able to prove the suicidal death of the deceased.
the accused who abetted and induced the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, because of that, a criminal case was registered against him. Therefore, he is liable for
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
conviction. As per the case of the prosecution, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused.
committed suicide and died, it does not mean that it was the accused who abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is a bounden duty of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
judgments in support of his submission. They are:
(i) Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh - (2001) 9 SCC 618.
(ii) Bombay High Court in Ramdas Ajinath Bhandwalkar V. State of Maharashtra and Anr - 2012 Crl.L.J 2497.
in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.39981 of 2022 dated 30th
January 2024 , in the case of Prabhu V. The State rep
by the Inspector of Police and Anr., covering all other earlier judgments with regard to offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, it is observed as under:
"xxx The essential ingredients which are to be meted out in order to bring a case under Section 306 IPC were also discussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal in the following paragraphs:
“12. Thus, this 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
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
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.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”
On a careful reading of the factual matrix of the instant case and the law regarding Section 306 IPC, there seems to be no proximate link between the marital discord between the deceased and the appellant and her subsequent death by burning herself. The appellant has not committed any positive or direct act to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased.”
are quiet different and therefore, not applicable to the present facts of the case.
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
the police from the scene of the offense. No crossexamination is directed to this witness by the defence.
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
and conducted the spot panchanama and also recorded the statements of various witnesses. He identified his signatures on Ex.P1. Though lengthy cross-examination is directed to him, nothing worth is elicited from his mouth so as to disbelieve his version given in the examination-inchief. Ex.P1 is the scene of the offence panchanama prepared by the police on 22.01.2009. The said panchanama was prepared between 8.00 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. On reading the evidence of PW.1 as well as the panchanama and I.O., it is proved by the prosecution that the Investigation Officer PW.13 visited the scene of the offence and conducted the panchanama. To that extent, evidence of PW.13 is to be accepted.
accused used to force her and harass the deceased to marry him. Evidently, these two witnesses are not the eyewitnesses to the said incident. They have spoken before the Court that the accused used to force the deceased to marry him. But they never deposed that; the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. So far as the relationship between these two witnesses and the deceased is concerned, there is no dispute. They are not the eyewitnesses to any of the incidents. They are the hearsay witnesses. Their evidence would not help the case of the prosecution in any manner.
was present and had seen the dead body in the mortuary at Victoria Hospital. He was very much present when the inquest panchanama was conducted as per Ex.P5. To the extent of his presence when the inquest panchanama was prepared by the police, his evidence is to be believed and accordingly it is believed.
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
Kamakshipalya Police Station, recorded the statement of the victim on 21.01.2009 at 5.00 p.m. at Victoria Hospital. Thereafter, he went to the police station and based upon Ex.P.3, registered a crime initially for the offence under Section 309 of the IPC. He also went to the scene of the offence and prepared the panchanama as per Ex.P1. He has been cross-examined at length, but he was unable to say the name of the person who has permitted him to record the statement of the injured. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was unable to give her statement. Even he has not recorded the statement of the doctor who gave permission to record the statement of the injured.
law was set in motion, never prove the abetment by the accused to commit suicide by the deceased. To the extent of recording the statement of the victim, visiting the scene
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
of offence and preparing panchanama, the evidence of PW.7 is to be accepted.
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
deceased to marry him, she is a hearsay witness as per her evidence. She speaks with regard to sustaining the burn injuries by the deceased and subsequently, she died. To that extent, evidence of PW.10 is to be believed. She has expressed ignorance with regard to the conversation between the deceased and the accused.
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
investigation. As per his evidence, he has recorded the statements of the witnesses and after collecting all the documents like the FSL report, postmortem report, etc., and conducted investigation. PW.13 has been crossexamined at length by the defence.
there is no evidence. Even on scrupulous reading of contents of Ex.P3, it never proves that there was an abetment to commit suicide. For better appreciation, it is just and proper to incorporate the words used by the deceased in her statement.
"£ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è, £ÉÆÃqÀÄ ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚ ¸ÀÄjzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚ ¸ÀÄjzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÉAQ ºÀaÑPÉÆAqÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆUÁrzÉ."
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
Resultantly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed .
(ii) Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the P.O., F.T.C-IV, Bengaluru in S.C.No.95/2012 dated 27.06.2015, is hereby set aside.
(iii) Consequentially, the accused is acquitted of the charges leveled under Section 309 of IPC.
(iv) His Bail bonds stand cancelled. The accused is set at liberty.
(v) If the fine amount is deposited by the accused, it shall be refunded to the accused forthwith digitally, after collecting necessary documents.
(vi) Send back the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment forthwith.
Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE
PSJ,
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused abetted the victim to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Whether the evidence establishes a proximate link and direct act of instigation by the accused leading to the victim's suicide.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramesh Kumar V. State of ChhattisgarhReferred¶108
Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh
Ramdas Ajinath Bhandwalkar V. State of Maharashtra and AnrReferred¶108
Bombay High Court in Ramdas Ajinath Bhandwalkar V. State of Maharashtra and Anr
Prabhu V. The State represented by the Inspector of Police and Anr.Referred¶112
Prabhu V. The State rep
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West BengalReferred¶116
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal
2 provisions across 2 enactments
PRAVEENA S/O S. GOVINDA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
