Allowed

Sri a M Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2024CRL.A/786/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC for allegedly spreading gossip that the deceased was riding on a motorbike, driving her to suicide. The High Court held this did not constitute instigation or abetment, there being no intention to provoke suicide, and acquitted the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under S.306 r/w S.34 IPC set aside; appellants acquitted; fine paid ordered refunded.

Sri a M Krishnamurthy Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 786 OF 2012

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI A M KRISHNAMURTHY S/O MANJAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT HAREKOPPA GADIGESHWARA ADUVALLI VILLAGE N.R.PURA TQ., CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶9

SMT. VANAJA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: COOLIE R/AT GADIGESHWARA ADUVALLI VILLAGE, N.R.PURA TQ., CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶10

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

¶11

SRI. LOKESH H.T. S/O THIMMAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT HAKLU MANE, GADIGESHWARA ADUVALLI VILLAGE, N.R.PURA TQ., C HICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶12

SRI. PRADEEPA S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT HAKLU MANE, GADIGESHWARA ADUVALLI VILLAGE, N.R PURA TQ., CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶14

SRI. NARAYANA S/O NARASIMHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCC: COOLIE, R/AT HAREKOPPA KARAKESHWARA VILLAGE N.R.PURA TALUK CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI H P LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BALEHONNUR POLICE STATION CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶19

SMT. INDIRA W/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED MAJOR R/AT HAREKOPPA, KOPPA MELPAL CHIKKAMAGALURU KARNATAKA - 577 112.

¶20

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 8.11.2023)

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 SMT. RATTIHALLI GEETHA VEERANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHICKMAGALUR IN S.C.No.101/2011 DATED 02.07.2012 CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is filed by appellants – accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in S.C. No. 101/2011 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, dated 02.07.2012 whereunder the appellants – accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

¶29

Factual matrix of the case is that, the complainant – P.W.1 – Smt. Indira, her son Sri. Rajesh (P.W.2) and daughter – Ms. Kokila were staying in Harekoppa village in N.R. Koppa Taluk. The deceased – Ms. Kokila was studying in II PUC in Government PU College, N.R. Pura and was staying at Bastimath Hostel. Two months prior to the incident daughter of

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶31

complainant’s elder sister – Ms. Anu had committed suicide by hanging. As P.W.4 – Smt. Girijamma was alone, they requested the complainant to send the deceased – Ms. Kokila to stay with her in Gadigeshwara village. When the deceased – Ms. Kokila was staying with her aunt at Gadigeshwara, she used to go to college at N.R. Pura in bus. About 8 days prior to the incident, P.W.4 – Smt. Girijamma called P.W.1 – complainant over phone and informed that accused No. 1 - Krishnamurthy told her that deceased – Ms. Kokila was going on a motorcycle of somebody from Ganapathi Katta. When the deceased – Ms. Kokila came home the complainant asked her about the same. 3 days thereafter the complainant came to Gadigeshwara and went to the house of P.W.4 – Girijamma and there again the matter was discussed. Then the complainant called accused No.2 – Smt. Vanaja and asked whether the deceased – Ms. Kokila had gone on the motorcycle of somebody. She also told that she had seen the deceased – Ms. Kokila going on a motorbike when she was going in a car along with some Swamiji and

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶33

the deceased – Ms. Kokila asked accused No.2 and other accused that if at all they had seen her going on the motorbike of somebody why they did not save her by stopping the car. Then they told that they have heard that she had gone and requested her to excuse them. She also told that if she fails in examination she will commit suicide

¶34

by consuming poison. On 12.01.2011 at about 06.30 pm accused No. 3 came to the house of the complainant along with other accused and again told that the deceased – Ms. Kokila had gone on the motorbike of somebody. At that time the deceased – Ms. Kokila told that if accused Nos. 4 to 6 had seen her at Ganapathi Katta they should have prevented her. When the deceased – Ms. Kokila told that she is going to file a complaint the accused persons told that she may file complaint and what is going to be done on that complaint. Due to the said loose talks of the accused persons spreading gossip deceased – Ms. Kokila was disgusted and by their acts, the accused persons abetted and drove her to commit suicide. As such, on 14.01.2011 deceased – Ms. Kokila committed suicide by

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶36

hanging in her house at Harekoppa. Charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons for offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance, has committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed charge for offence punishable under Section 306 read with

¶37

Section 34 of IPC against the accused persons. The prosecution in order to establish its case has examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and M.O.1. Statement of accused persons came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court after hearing arguments on both sides has formulated points for consideration and convicted appellants – accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 and also accused No. 3 (who is not appellant herein) for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellants have challenged the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence in this appeal.

¶38

Heard arguments of learned counsel for appellants and learned HCGP for respondent – State.

¶39

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶40

Learned counsel for appellants would contend

¶41

that the alleged act of informing the mother of the deceased regarding the deceased going on a motorbike of somebody does not amount to abetment. It has not been proved that the death note – Ex.P.2 is in the handwriting of the deceased. Ex.P.8 - report of the handwriting expert has not been proved since its author is not examined. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 is not sufficient to hold that the appellants abetted the deceased to commit to suicide. Without considering all these aspects the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants. Learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance on the following citations.

¶42

A. Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2017 (1) SCC 433

¶43

B. Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (1) SCC 750

¶44

C. State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another, AIR 1994 SC 1418

¶45

D. K. Ramakrishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka, 2006 Crl.L.J. 4314

¶46

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶47

E. Betu and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 (2) Crimes 16

¶48

F. Babu Vs. The State of Karnataka, 2013 (3) KCCR 2337

¶49

G. Lokesh and another Vs. State of Karnataka, 2012 (5) KCCR 3921

¶50

H. Doddathayamma and another Vs. State of Karnataka, 2016 (5) KCCR 786

¶51

I. Swathi Pai Vs. The State of Karnataka, 2017 (1) KCCR 250

¶52

Per contra, learned HCGP has argued that evidence of P.W.1 and 4 is sufficient to establish that the accused persons made false propaganda regarding the deceased going on motorcycle of somebody and the deceased was upset by that and committed suicide. Learned Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of evidence on record, has rightly convicted the appellants. On these grounds he has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶54

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties

¶55

and on perusal of the material on record the following point arises for consideration:

¶56

“Whether the Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the appellants accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 for offence under Section 306 of IPC?”

¶57

My answer to the above question is in the affirmative for the following reasons:

¶58

P.W.1 – Indira is the mother of the deceased – Ms.

¶59

Kokila. The deceased – Ms. Kokila was studying in II PUC in a college at N.R. Pura. The deceased – Ms. Kokila was residing in Harekoppa along with her mother P.W.1 – Indira. P.W.4 - Girijamma is the aunt of the deceased – Ms. Kokila. Daughter of P.W.4, namely Ms. Anu had committed suicide and P.W.4 was alone and she requested P.W.1 to send her daughter - deceased – Ms. Kokila to her house at Gadigeshwara. The deceased – Ms. Kokila was staying with P.W.4 at Gadigeshwara and used to go to her college at N.R. Pura. The accusation against the appellants and accused No. 3 is that they informed P.W.1 and P.W.4

¶60

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶61

that the deceased – Ms. Kokila was going on a motorbike

¶62

of somebody and they spread false propaganda in the village. The death of deceased – Ms. Kokila by suicide is not in dispute. Whether the act of the appellants in informing about the deceased – Ms. Kokila going on motorcycle of somebody to P.W.1 and P.W.4 and spreading the said news in the village amounts to abetment?

¶63

Abetment is defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:

¶64

"107. Abetment of a thing.- A person is said abet the doing of a thing who

¶65

First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or

¶66

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

¶67

Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."

¶68

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶69

As per the aforesaid definition there should be instigation to do that thing and then it amounts to abetment. A person is said to have instigated another to an act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to act by means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or

¶70

encouragement.

¶71

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs Sate of M.P reported in 2002 (5) SCC 371 has held as under:

¶72

"..............Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased "to go and die", that itself does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment

¶73

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶74

cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion………."

¶75

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh

¶76

Kumar Chopra Vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 (16) SCC 605 has observed as under:

¶77

"17. Thus to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction" (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).

¶78

18. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to

¶79

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶80

provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.

¶81

19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar, where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, and "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that:

¶82

(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and

¶83

(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens

¶84

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶85

rea is the necessary concomitant

¶86

of instigation.

¶87

20. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on is inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for selfprotection or an escapism from intolerable self."

¶88

Appellants – accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 have informed P.W.1 and P.W. 4 regarding the deceased going on a motorcycle with somebody. The deceased – Ms. Kokila on coming to know about the same was upset and

¶89

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶90

she had denied the said aspect. The appellants by the said act of intimating about the deceased going on the motorcycle of somebody to P.W.1, P.W.4, deceased – Ms. Kokila and others in the village did not intended to drive the deceased to commit suicide.

¶91

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:

¶92

"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 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

¶93

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶94

action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, selfconfidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstance."

¶95

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 .

¶96

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

¶97

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

¶98

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

¶99

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶100

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."

¶101

Ex.P.2 is the death note said to have been

¶102

written by the deceased. Ex.P.7 is the answer paper secured by the Investigating Officer from the college in which the deceased was studying. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.2 were

¶103

sent to the handwriting expert for comparison. The handwriting expert has given report which is at Ex.P.8.

¶104

The handwriting expert has opined that the specimen handwriting of the deceased contained in Ex.P.7 and the handwriting contained in Ex.P.2 are of the same person. Ex.P.2 is the death note said to have been left by the deceased – Ms. Kokila. In the said Ex.P.2 in the first page names of accused Nos.1 to 6 have been mentioned stating that they are responsible for her death. In the said Ex.P.2

¶105

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶106

it is written that accused Nos.1 to 6 have made accusation against the deceased and therefore, people in the village were looking at her with suspicion. From a perusal of the letter addressed to Madam’ which is enclosed to Ex.P.2 – death note the only accusation is against accused No. 3 – Anil. Said accused No. 3 – Anil is not an appellant in the present appeal. In the said letter addressed to some Madam’ the deceased has made allegation against accused No. 3 – Anil that he is harassing her. There is no mention of the names of appellants herein i.e. accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 in the said letter. Considering the averments of the said letter addressed to some `Madam’ there are serious allegations against accused No. 3 – Anil that he was harassing the deceased – Ms. Kokila in one or the other way and he was not allowing the deceased to lead life and was making false allegations against her.

¶107

The accusation against appellants is that they informed P.W.1 and P.W.4 – mother and aunt of - deceased – Ms. Kokila that the deceased was going on the motorcycle with somebody. Said alleged act of appellants

¶108

19 - NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶109

does not amount to abetment. Since there is no provocation or insinuation or encouragement there was no intention on the part of the appellants herein to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan supra, has observed that "Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to person.

¶110

Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and selfrespect. Different people behave differently in the same situation". On reading of the entire evidence on record, it appears, that deceased was sensitive.

¶111

On consideration of the evidence on record there is no evidence to show that the appellants had intention to drive the deceased – Ms. Kokila to commit suicide. Looking from any angle the act of the appellants informing P.W.4 about the deceased – Ms. Kokila going on a motorcycle of somebody does not amount to abetment. Therefore, learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in holding that the act of the appellants amounts to abetment to the deceased – Ms. Kokila to commit suicide.

¶112

In the result, the following;

¶113

20 -

¶114

NC: 2024:KHC:42773 CRL.A No. 786 of 2012

¶115

O R D E R

¶116

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶117

ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in S.C. No. 101/2011 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, dated 02.07.2012 for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC is set aside. So far as appellants are concerned.

¶118

iii. Consequently the appellants – accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 6 are acquitted for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶119

iv. Fine, if any, paid by the appellants is ordered to be refunded to them.

¶120

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶121

LRS

¶122

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri a M Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a M Krishnamurthy v. 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

Dilip @ Chikkaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sathyanarayana @ Sathya Vs State of Karnataka by

Dr K S Mukunda Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Saddam S/O Musa Yadahalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt T Suma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S R Poornima Vs Dr S Raviprakash