Mr Murali Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 2015 PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2026 PASSED IN CRIME NO. 11/2026 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:15397 CRL.A No. 334 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANGALURU, AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.11/2026 REGISTERED AT BAJPE POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 352, 351(3), 69, 108 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 AND UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v), AND 3(2)(va) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015., WITH A DIRECTION TO RELEASE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is by the accused in Crime No.11/2026 being aggrieved by the Order dated 23.01.2026 passed on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sessions Court') by which his application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail in the said Crime No.11/2026, for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(3), 69 and 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act came to be rejected.

¶25

A complaint dated 05.01.2026 came to be filed by respondent No.2 contending that she belonged to Adidravida caste, which comes under Scheduled Caste, she had only one daughter, who was working in Alankar Jewellery Shop, Moodbidre since one year. Her daughter came in contact with the accused-appellant herein through Instagram application and both were in love. The

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:15397 CRL.A No. 334 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

accused-appellant was working in a chicken shop and he belonged to Poojari community. That on 05.01.2026, complainant left the house for work at 12.30 p.m. and she received call from Bajpe Police informing her that her daughter had jumped into the river and committed suicide. Immediately she went to the Police Station, where one Kavana, the friend of the deceased was present. Upon enquiry, said Kavana had told the complainant that her daughter had jumped into Gurupura river from the bridge despite her attempt to prevent her. It is further alleged that the complainant has seen the death note of her daughter-victim, in which she has stated that accused-appellant herein on the promise of marrying her had taken her to different places and had committed sexual intercourse. Thereafter, he had refused to marry her as she belonged to Scheduled caste. Unbearable of the agony, her daughter had committed suicide. That aforesaid Kavana also had informed that her daughter and herself had gone to Gurupura temple. Thereafter, they went to Gurupura Bridge to meet the accused-appellant. It was at that time, her daughter jumped into the river and committed suicide.

¶30

Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.11/2026 is registered by the respondent-Police for the aforesaid offences. The case is still under investigation. Charge sheet is yet to be filed. Accused-appellant was arrested on 06.01.2026 and has been remanded to judicial custody. Since then he is under confinement.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:15397 CRL.A No. 334 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

An application for regular bail was moved, which has been rejected by the Sessions Court. Accepting the submission of the prosecution of there being apprehension of accused-appellant, if released on bail would tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶35

Learned Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant taking this Court through the records submits that the entire case is based on a death note, which was allegedly left behind by the victim, in which she had alleged that accused-appellant committing sexual intercourse with the victim on the promise of marrying her and refusing to marry thereafter on the premise of she belonging to Scheduled Caste community. He further submits that the said allegation, even if it has to be accepted, the same do not constitute grounds for registering the case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.

¶36

He further submits that unless a case is made out that the offence of abusing the victim was in the public view and that the said sexual assault was made only because of the victim belonging to Schedule Caste community, he submits that the complaint do not make out any such case. On the other hand, it is a case of victim and the accused-appellant being in love and accused-appellant declining to marry her resulting in she committing the suicide. He submits that the case is also not made out even for the offences

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:15397 CRL.A No. 334 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023amounting to abatement of committing suicide. He further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2332 and referring to paragraph No.18 of the said judgment, he submits that in order to constitute an offence under Section 107 of the IPC, the case has to be made out of the accused-appellant abating commission of suicide by the victim. He submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere refusal to marry, even if it is true itself, would not amount to instigation as explained under Section 107 of IPC. He submits in that view of the matter, even if the case of the prosecution is taken on the face value of accused-appellant refusing to marry, the same cannot be construed as an instigation for the victim to commit suicide.

¶41

Learned HCGP, on the other hand submits that the draft charge sheet is ready and it is to be filed before the jurisdictional Court. He submits if the accused-appellant is released on bail, there is likelihood of him influencing the witnesses namely the mother of the victim and also the friend of the victim who was present at the time of victim committing suicide. Therefore, he submits it is not a case for allowing of the appeal.

¶42

Heard and perused the records.

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:15397 CRL.A No. 334 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

The whole case of the prosecution is based on the purported death note stated to have been left behind by the victim, which was found and read over to the complainant.

¶47

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yadvinder Singh (Supra), adverting to the case of a suicide on the allegation of refusal to marry, at paragraph Nos.16 to 18 has held as under:

¶48

'' 16. This Court in the case of “Nipun Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh”, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091 has succinctly explained the Principles of law governing abetment. We quote the relevant observations as under:—

¶49

“13. The law governing Section 306 of the IPC is well settled. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:—

¶50

“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.”

¶51

14. Thus, the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under:—

¶52

“107. Abetment of a thing.— A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

¶53

First. — Instigates any person to do that thing; or

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15397 CRL.A No. 334 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Explanation 1.— A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

¶59

Explanation 2.— Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

¶60

17. This Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144, after considering the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC, has observed as under:—

¶61

“14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same.

¶62

15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088, has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under:

¶63

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”.

¶64

16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465, it was observed as under:—

¶65

“25. 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. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC

¶66

8 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:15397 CRL.A No. 334 of 2026

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”

¶70

(emphasis supplied)

¶71

17. Thus, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC 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. The act of instigation as alleged must be with the intention to push the deceased into such a situation that she is left with no other option but to commit suicide.

¶72

18. In the case on hand, even if we believe that the appellant due to opposition and pressure from his family declined to get married with the deceased, it could not be said that he led to a situation by which the deceased was left with no other option but to commit the suicide. The appellant could not be said to have intended the consequences of his act namely suicide. It is very sad to note that a young girl took the extreme step of ending her life. It is possible that she might have felt hurt. One sensitive moment took away the life of a young girl. However, as judges we should not allow our minds get boggled with such thoughts. We are obliged to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence on record. In other words whether the allegations levelled constitute any offence. Mere refusal to marry even if true by itself would not amount to instigation as explained under Section 107 of the IPC. ''

¶73

The allegation in the complaint read in the light of the aforesaid position of law, would make it clear that even if the accused-appellant had refused to marry the victim, the same cannot be construed as an abatement to commit suicide. As regards the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarkand reported in AIR 2020 SC 5584 has held that, all insults or

¶74

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:15397 CRL.A No. 334 of 2026

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is made on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the same is made in any place within the public view.

¶77

As regards, the offences under Section 3(2)(v), Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabat Kumar Mishra @ Prabat Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2024) 3 SCC 665, at paragraph 16, has held as under:

¶78

'' 16. This Court in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 3 SCC 557 considered this issue and held as under :

¶79

“9. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence under the Penal Code, 1860 punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the appellant committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the deceased is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. To attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Penal Code, 1860 is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter, we think, both the trial court and the High Court missed the essence of this aspect. In these circumstances, the conviction under the aforesaid provision by the trial court as well as by the High Court ought to be set aside.”

¶80

10 -

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:15397 CRL.A No. 334 of 2026

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

If the contents of the complaint perused in the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the accused-appellant and the victim were in love. In fact, unnumbered paragraph, at page No.2 of the complaint indicate that the victim had gone near the Gurupura temple and Gurupura bridge along with her friend Kavana to meet the accused-appellant with a gift. It further indicate that only the presence of said Kavana at the time of the incident who purportedly tried to stop the victim from jumping off the bridge. There is no indication of accused-appellant being present at the spot. These facts only indicate that it was a case of alleged refusal of marriage by the accused-appellant, which, as noted above, alone cannot constitute an offence of commission of Section 3(2)(v). In any event, it is submitted that the charge sheet is ready and would be filed in due course. Prima-facie materials made available on record indicate that the accused-appellant is entitled for bail.

¶84

Accordingly, following:

¶85

ORDER

¶86

(i) Appeal is allowed;

¶87

(ii) The order dated 23.01.2026 passed in Crime No.11/2026 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru is set aside. Consequently, application filed under Section

¶88

11 -

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC:15397 CRL.A No. 334 of 2026

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

483 of BNS, 2023 is allowed, accused-appellant is directed to be

¶92

released on bail subject to following conditions;

¶93

a. The accused-appellant shall execute self bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, in the event of his arrest in Crime No.11/2026 of Bajpe Police Station;

¶94

b. The accused-appellant shall assist the Investigating Officer, for the investigation;

¶95

c. The accused-appellant shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

¶96

d. The accused-appellant shall not indulge in similar offence;

¶97

e. The accused-appellant shall attend the concerned police station once in Fifteen days between 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and mark his attendance till filing of charge sheet.

¶98

Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned

¶99

Court for taking necessary action.

¶100

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶101

RL/-

¶102

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Mr Murali v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Murali v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Chandrappa

Kiran @ Sunil Vs the State by Kyathasandra Police Station

Smt Shivamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Yashwanth Babu Vs the Station House Officer

Mr Madhu Gowda M Vs Mar Harris

Nawaz Khan @ Nawaz Khan Vs the State of Karnataka