Smt. Geeta W/O Adavayya Pujar Vs the State of Karnataka

SMT. VIDYASHRI W/O IRAYYA PUJAR D/O SHIVAYYA HARUGOPPA, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KARADIGUDDI, NOW AT: HONNIHAL, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 103.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9273 CRL.RP No. 100433 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SMT. JAYASHREE W/O SHIVAYYA HARUGOPPA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HONNIHAL, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 103.

¶21

SRI. SHIVAYYA S/O IRAYYA @ IRABASAYYA HARUGOPPA, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: HONNIHAL, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 103.

¶22

SRI. SHASHANK S/O SHIVAYYA HARUGOPPA, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: HONNIHAL, TQ: BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 103.

¶23

… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1; SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., 1973 (UNDER SECTION 438 R/W 442 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN S.C. NO.103/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, BE CALLED AND EXAMINED, AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2024 AND CORRECTED ON 09.10.2024 PASSED IN S.C. NO.103/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 R/W 34 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY CHARGES MAY BE FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 AND DETAILED TRIAL BE CONDUCTED AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 4 RESPONDENTS.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9273 CRL.RP No. 100433 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶31

The de facto complainant is before this Court, in this Criminal Revision Petition, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, with the prayer to set aside the order dated 25^th September 2024, passed in S.C. No.103/2024 by the Court of VI-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in discharging respondent Nos.2 to 5. She submits that there is a prima facie material available against respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the alleged offences. The accused persons having abused the deceased, had instigated him to go and die and this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge, who has erred in allowing the discharge application of the accused. Accordingly, she prays to allow the petition.

¶34

Per contra, learned HCGP and the learned counsel

¶35

appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 have argued in support of the impugned order.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9273 CRL.RP No. 100433 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The de facto complainant who is the petitioner in the present case, is the mother of the deceased – Irayya. The marriage of Irayya with accused No.1 was solemnized in the year 2020. Accused Nos.2 to 4 are the parents and brother of accused No.1. It appears that accused No.1 had left her matrimonial home and had taken shelter in her parents’ house for the reason that she was being illtreated in the matrimonial home. She also had initiated proceedings against her husband claiming maintenance and during the pendency of the said petition, on 28.11.2023, Irayya had gone near the house of his in-laws and had asked them to send his wife along with him. The accused persons allegedly had refused to send his wife with him and also had stated that even if he dies by burning himself, they will not send accused No.1 with him. Thereafter Irayya allegedly poured petrol on himself and lit fire and though he was admitted in the hospital, on the next day he died in the hospital. It is under these circumstances, FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 to 4, who are respondent Nos.2 to 5 in the present case.

¶40

After investigation, charge sheet was filed against them for the aforesaid offences. Before the trial Court, accused

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9273 CRL.RP No. 100433 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Nos.1 to 4 had filed an application seeking discharge which has been allowed vide order impugned.

¶45

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PRASKASH AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER¹ , has observed that merely for the reason that accused had asked the deceased to go and die, that itself is not sufficient to constitute the necessary ingredients for the purpose of invoking the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. In paragraph No.12 of the said judgment, it is observed as follows:

¶46

“12. … Even in 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 cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea.” …

¶47

1 2024 INSC 1020

¶48

6 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9273 CRL.RP No. 100433 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MARIANO

¶52

ANTO BRUNO AND ANOTHER Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE² ,

¶53

in paragraph No.42 has observed as follows:

¶54

"42. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and Appellant No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. In the present case, both the elements are absent.

¶55

9. In the case of RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF

¶56

CHATTISGARH³ , in paragraph Nos.20 and 21, the Hon’ble

¶57

Supreme Court has observed as follows:

¶58

"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.

¶59

2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387

¶60

3 (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2001 INSC 515

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9273 CRL.RP No. 100433 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

21. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal10, 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 by committing suicide. 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."

¶65

(Emphasis supplied)

¶66

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of KANCHAN

¶67

SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER⁴ ,

¶68

in paragraph No.9 has observed as follows:

¶69

9. "Abetment" involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, no one can be convicted for offence under Section 306IPC. Το proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306IPC it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

¶70

4 2021 SCC OnLine SC 737

¶71

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9273 CRL.RP No. 100433 of 2024

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

In the light of the aforesaid judgments, if the allegations found against the accused persons are appreciated, it is apparent that the charge sheet materials are not sufficient enough so as to invoke the alleged offences against the accused. In the present case, the allegation against the accused is that when the deceased came to their house and asked them to send his wife along with him, they had refused to send her with him and also informed him that even if he dies by burning himself, they will not be bothered. Such allegations are not sufficient enough so as to invoke the alleged offences against the accused. Therefore, I am of the view that the trial Court was fully justified in allowing the discharge application filed by accused Nos.1 to 4.

¶74

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that this petition lacks merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶75

Sd/(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶76

Vnp / CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42

Smt. Geeta W/O Adavayya Pujar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Geeta W/O Adavayya Pujar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shivaraj Halagera Vs State of Karnataka

Suresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Dhanraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Toufik Alias Balekhan Shoukat Khyadi Alias Khyadagol Vs the State of Karnataka

Prabhugouda S/O Appasaheb Birader Vs the State of Karnataka

Sukhdev S/O Bhiya Ram Vs the State of Karnataka