Allowed

Ravi v. State by Kadur Police

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2024CRL.A/795/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal against conviction for abetment to suicide. Bench held that an assault four days prior to suicide by shooting did not constitute abetment lacking proximity and intent to drive deceased to suicide. Accused acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC; fine ordered refunded.

Ravi Vs State by Kadur Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 795 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAVI S/O SHANKARANAIKA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS DEVARA HOSAHALLI HATTI RAMAGIRI HOBLI HOLALKERE TALUK – 577 526.

¶9

PUTTA

¶10

S/O SWAMICHARI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS SEVANAGARA, DODDAHATTI KADUR TALUK – 577 548.

¶11

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

¶12

RATHNACHARI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O BHAGYACHARI SEVANAGARA, DODDAHATTI KADUR TALUK – 577 548.

¶13

CHANDRACHARI @ CHANDRU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O GOPICHARI SEVANAGARA, DODDAHATTI KADUR TALUK.

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶15

SWAMYCHARI

¶16

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O GOPICHARI SEVANAGARA, DODDAHATTI KADUR TALUK – 577 548.

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SMT. TEJASWINI V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHANKARAPPA S, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE BY KADUR POLICE REPRESENTED BY S.P.P HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

¶23

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:10.07.13 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.No.90/10 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 R/W 149 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 10.07.2013

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶29

passed in S.C.No.90/2010 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chikamaglur, convicting appellants -accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity) sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 02 years and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- each.

¶30

The factual matrix of the case is that 04 days prior to 12.11.2009 at 6.45p.m. in Doddahatti village, Kadur Taluk appellants –accused Nos.1 to 5 voluntarily caused hurt to deceased Raju in respect of quarrel between Raju and his wife Smt. Rathnabai with hands, legs, stone and on frustration deceased Raju consumed poison and committed suicide and all appellants –accused Nos.1 to 5 have abeted the deceased to commit suicide.

¶31

The Session Court framed charges against appellants –accused Nos.1 to 5 for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The prosecution has examined

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶33

12 witnesses as P.W.1 to 12 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 14. The statement of accused have been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused persons have examined two witnesses as D.W.1 and 2. After hearing arguments, learned Sessions Judge formulated points for consideration and passed impugned judgment convicting appellants –accused Nos.1 to 5 for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The said judgment of conviction and order on sentence has been challenged in this appeal.

¶34

4. Heard learned counsel for appellants –accused

¶35

Nos.1 to 5 and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State.

¶36

Learned counsel for appellants –accused Nos.1

¶37

to 5 would contend that the alleged assault by accused persons to the deceased is 04 days prior to the incident. The said alleged assault is in order to stop quarrel

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶39

between the deceased and his wife –P.W.6 –Rathnabai. Accused persons had no mens rea . There is no incitement , provocation or instigation by accused persons. The evidence of P.W.5, D.W.1 and 2 indicate that the deceased had loans and therefore, he might have committed the suicide. The wife of the deceased who has been examined as P.W.6 has stated that her husband had loans therefore, he committed suicide by consuming poison. The suicide is not only option for the deceased as the act of assault by accused persons can be met by filing complaint with the police. The alleged act of the assault does not amounts to abetment to commit suicide. On that point learned counsel placed reliances on following decisions

¶40

1) Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Chattisgarh¹

¶41

2) Nipun Aneja And Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh² 3) Mohit Singhal Vs State of Uttarakhand³

¶42

1 Reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618

¶43

2 Reported in Crl.A.No.654/2017

¶44

3 Reported in (2024) 1 SCC 417

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶46

4) M. Mohan Vs State Rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police⁴

¶47

5) Gangula Mhan Reddy Vs State of Andra Pradesh⁵

¶48

6) Sanju Vs State of Madya Pradesh⁶

¶49

7) Mangala Gowry Vs State of Karnataka⁷

¶50

Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶51

Pleader for the respondent –State would contend that the trial Court appreciating evidence on record has rightly convicted appellants –accused Nos.1 to 5. He has supported the reasons assigned by the trial Court. He further submits that evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 5 is sufficient to convict appellants –accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence leveled against them. The act of appellants - accused persons assaulting the deceased and causing injuries to his stomach which is resulted in passing of the

¶52

blood in his urine and frustrated by the same, the deceased has committed suicide. On these grounds, he

¶53

prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶54

4 Reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626

¶55

5 Reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750

¶56

6 Reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371

¶57

7 Reported in 2023 SCC OnLine KAR 64

¶58

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶59

On the grounds made out and considering the

¶60

arguments advanced, the following point arises for my consideration:

¶61

Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellants –accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C?

¶62

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

¶63

The deceased –Raju has committed suicide by consuming poison on 12.11.2009. The incident of quarrel between accused persons and appellants –accused Nos.1 to 5 has taken place 04 days prior to his death i.e. on 08.11.2009. It is alleged that on 08.11.2009, accused Nos.1 to 5 assaulted the deceased with hands and stones, caused injuries. As per Ex.P5 –statement of the deceased, he has approached the Police on 10.11.2009 and police have recorded statement of the wife of the deceased –Rathnabai as per Ex.P6. The deceased

¶64

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶65

committed suicide after 04 days of the said assault by accused persons. The question that arises is whether the assault by accused persons to the deceased amounts to abetment to commit suicide.

¶66

The law governing Section 306 of the IPC is well settled. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under

¶67

“306. Abetment of suicide. – If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶68

9. Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an

¶69

offence under Section 306 of IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under

¶70

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

¶71

First – Instigates any person to do that thing; or

¶72

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

¶73

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶74

place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

¶75

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

¶76

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohit Singhal Vs State of Uttarakhand(Supra) has observed thus

¶77

“10. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide .”

¶78

10 -

¶79

NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶80

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh

¶81

Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh(Supra ) has observed thus

¶82

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

¶83

21. In State of W. B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life

¶84

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶85

by committing suicde. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences 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 of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.”

¶86

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

¶87

Mohan Vs State(Supra) has observed thus

¶88

“44. 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, conviction cannot be sustained.

¶89

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

¶90

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶91

option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.”

¶92

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nipun

¶93

Aneja And Others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh(Supra )

¶94

has observed thus

¶95

“21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in

¶96

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶97

life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.”

¶98

The act of instigation must be of such intensity

¶99

that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be close proximity to the act of committing suicide. The assault by accused persons

¶100

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶101

is on 08.11.2009 and the deceased had committed suicide

¶102

on 12.11.2009. There is no intervening act between 08.11.2009 and 12.11.2009 by accused persons. The act of assault by accused persons to the deceased is in order to stop quarrel between the deceased and his wife – Rathnabai. The deceased had assaulted Rathnabai as she went out of the house to collect fire wood against his advise. Accused persons had no mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Their intention is to stop the deceased from assaulting his wife –Rathnabai. The evidence of P.W.5, D.W.1 and D.W.2 indicate that the deceased had availed loan for business and also for purchase of vehicle and he has not repaid the said loan. Even P.W.1 in her cross examination has admitted that they availed loan of Rs.50,000/- by mortgaging their land property.

¶103

How a human mind reacts has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ude Singh and

¶104

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶105

Other Vs State of Haryana⁸ wherein it is observed as

¶106

under:

¶107

"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 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"

¶108

The person may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons such as depression, financial

¶109

8 Reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301

¶110

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶111

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 Haryana⁹ .

¶112

The deceased –Raju was upset with fact that accused persons assaulted in respect of quarrel between him and his wife. It appears deceased is sensitive and upset with fact that accused persons assaulted him, that he had loans, therefore, he might have committed suicide. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case M.Mohan(Supra) has observed that “ human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same situation”

¶113

9 Reported in AIR 2014 SC 178

¶114

17 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶115

On the consideration of the evidence on record, there is no evidence to show that the appellants –accused Nos.1 to 5 had intention to drive out the deceased Raju to commit suicide. Looking from any angle the act of appellants -accused Nos.1 to 5 assaulting the deceased 04 days prior to the incident does not amounts to abetment. Therefore learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in holding that the act of the appellants –accused Nos.1 to 5 amounts to abetment to the deceased Raju to commit suicide. In the result the following:

¶116

ORDER

¶117

i) The appeal is allowed.

¶118

ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 10.07.2013 passed in S.C.No.90/2010 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Chikamaglur, convicting appellants – accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is set aside. Consequently, appellants -accused Nos.1

¶119

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:47384 CRL.A No. 795 of 2013

¶120

to 5 stands acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶121

iii) Fine if any, paid by the appellants -accused Nos.1 to 5 is ordered to be refunded to them.

¶122

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶123

DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Ravi v. State by Kadur Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi v. State by Kadur Police

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

Murali Vs State of Karnataka

Ekbal S/O Sathar Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

Harshith P S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Suryanarayana Rao, Vs State by Ramanagara Women Police Station

Mary Anitha W/O Rajesh Madan Vs State of Karnataka

Manjunatha @ Manja Vs State of Karnataka