- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3393 CRL.A No. 200140 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200140 OF 2021 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)) BETWEEN 1. AMEENRADDI S/O MALLAREDDI BIRADAR AGE 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 2. SHANTU @ SHANTGOUDA S/O MALLAREDDI BIRADAR AGE 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 3. SMT.MALLAMMA W/O AMEENRADDI BIRADAR AGE 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/O. BELOOR BYALAL VILLAGE, NOW AT GOTAKHANDKI VILLAGE, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586212. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SHO., TALIKOTI PS REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 20.07.2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAPURA IN S.C. No.25/2019 AND ACQUITING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 116, 323, 306, 354 READ WITH 34 IPC. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3393 CRL.A No. 200140 of 2021 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 18.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The appellants herein have preferred this appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 20.07.2021 in Sessions Case No.25/2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, convicting the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 116, 323, 306, 354 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). Factual matrix of the case: 2. The victim is the complainant and she was living with her family members at Gotkhandaki Village. Whenever her engagement is made, accused No.2 would be the cause for cancellation of the said engagement. Accused No.2 on one or other pretext, used to spread false news and information and used to get the engagement cancelled. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3393 CRL.A No. 200140 of 2021 As per the averments of the complaint, two such engagements got cancelled. When the complainant enquired accused No.2 in that regard, she was told that he would not allow her to marry anybody except him. 3. On 08.08.2018 in the evening, when the complainant and others were in front of the house of their grandmother, accused Nos.1 and 3 came to the house and started abusing the mother of the complainant and also started assaulting her by saying that false allegations are being made against the accused No.2 in the locality. 4. After the incident, accused No.1 threatened the complainant and her mother that he would not spare anybody if such allegations are repeated again. Even, accused No.3 also joined the said incident and started abusing and assaulting the aunt of the complainant. On the same day evening, at about 08.00 p.m., accused No.2 threatened the victim that he would not spare her and also threatened her that she should not marry anybody except accused No.2. The victim being frightened of the said issues, consumed poison. Though - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3393 CRL.A No. 200140 of 2021 she was shifted to the hospital for treatment, she died on 10.08.2018 at about 04.40 p.m., in the hospital. 5. A complaint came to be registered against the accused. The respondent - Police have registered FIR in Crime No.152/2018 and after conducting the investigation, submitted charge sheet. 6. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and got marked 14 documents as Exhibits P1 to P14 and also marked 2 material objects as M.O.1 and M.O.2. On the contrary, Exhibits D1 and D2 were marked on the defence side. 7. Heard Sri R. S. Lagali, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the evidence, facts and also law. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 9. It is further submitted that, Ex.P10 is a suspicious document. According to P.W.11, a written complaint was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3393 CRL.A No. 200140 of 2021 submitted to him when he visited the Government Hospital at Vijayapura. However, he further stated that the maternal uncle of the complainant had written the complaint. The person who scribed the complaint has not been cited either as a witness or examined before the Trial Court. In the absence of examination of either the author or maker of the statement of the complaint, it cannot be construed as the said document has been duly proved. 10. It is further submitted that P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 are the relatives of the complainant. P.Ws.6 to 8 have not identified the signature on the complaint – Ex.P10, which is said to be the signature of the deceased Rashmi. 11. It is further submitted that, mere saying or uttering the words ‘go and die’ cannot be construed as abetment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments held that, to prove the abetment of suicide, prosecution has to prove the facts that incitement, instigation, provocation and also the proximity between the death and the said instigation etc. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3393 CRL.A No. 200140 of 2021 12. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has not considered the evidence on record properly, which resulted in passing the impugned judgment, and the same is required to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prays to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently justified the judgment of conviction and submitted that, the complainant had given her statement before the jurisdictional police, who was examined as P.W.11. The uncle of the deceased had written the said complaint given to P.W.11. 14. It is further submitted that the said complaint is considered a dying declaration. The said dying declaration has been corroborated by the witnesses, namely, PWs.3 to 8. Even though they are the related witnesses of the deceased, the fact remains that, their evidence would indicate that in spite of cross- examination having been conducted, nothing has been elicited to discard their evidence. As such, the learned - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3393 CRL.A No. 200140 of 2021 High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the appeal. 15. Having heard the learned counsel of the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction, it is relevant to refer the evidence and also the findings of the Trial Court. 16. P.W.1 – Basanagouda is the witness to Exs.P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5. He supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.2 – Shivamma is the panch witness to Exs.P3 and P4. P.W.3 - Bhagirathi is the mother of the complainant. She supported the case of the prosecution in respect of harassment, threatening and outraging her modesty in the quarrel. P.W.4 – Mahadevi is the aunt of the deceased. She has stated regarding the harassment of accused Nos.1 and 2. P.W.5 – Sharanamma is the grandmother of complainant / deceased. She also stated about the harassment of the accused. P.W.6 – Hanamantharaya is the grandfather of the deceased, also supported the case of prosecution. P.W.7 – Gurusangappa gouda is the grandfather of the deceased and husband of P.W.5, supported the case of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3393 CRL.A No. 200140 of 2021 prosecution. P.W.8 – Gurunathagouda is the relative of the complainant / deceased. He has deposed about the harassment of accused No.2. P.W.9 – Dr. Adappagouda conducted the autopsy and issued a PM report as per Ex.P7, FSL Report as per Ex.P8 and also Final Report as per Ex.P9. P.W.10 – Mahesha is the Police Constable, who collected the clothes of the deceased. P.W.11 – Gurupada is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. 17. After having considered the brief history of these witnesses, it is relevant to refer the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 and also Ex.P10 - complaint. Ex.P10 is the complaint stated to have been informed by the deceased to her maternal uncle. He is stated to have written the said complaint and handed over the same to P.W.11. The scribe of the complaint has not been examined. When the maker of the statement and the scribe of the complaint are not examined, the contents of the said complaint cannot be said to be proved in accordance with law. However, the Trial Court committed an error in appreciating the said document. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3393 CRL.A No. 200140 of 2021 18. The evidence of PWs.3 to 8 who are the relatives, are consistent in their evidence that, accused No.2 was insisting the deceased to marry him. Whenever there were engagements performed to the deceased with other persons, accused No.2 used to contact them and he was spreading the false information about her. As such, there were two engagements have been cancelled. However, the prosecution has not produced any material or evidence to substantiate that accused No.2 had got cancelled the engagement ceremonies of the deceased with other persons. 19. Accused Nos.1 and 3, though stated to have gone to the place of P.W.5 and quarreled with the deceased, her mother and also family members, none of the independent witnesses have been examined to substantiate the said incident. In the absence of independent witnesses, the evidence of related witnesses cannot be believed for the reason that, the averments of the complaint would itself be construed as concocted and false. Therefore, the Trial Court committed a grave error in recording the conviction in respect of the offences. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3393 CRL.A No. 200140 of 2021 20. It is a settled principle of law that in a sudden quarrel held between the parties, in such event, if any person uttered a word that ‘go and die’ and thereafter, if such person who received the scolding commits suicide, the ingredients which are required to be proved to attract Section 306 of IPC cannot be attracted. My view has been fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAHENDRA AWASE v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1, paragraph No.23, which reads as under: “23. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC (Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) to be attracted. They however seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate 1 (2025) 4 SCC 801 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3393 CRL.A No. 200140 of 2021 feelings of the distraught family of the deceased.” 21. On careful reading of the above said dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that the offences alleged to have taken place in front of the house of P.W.5 is concocted and there is no substance in the evidence of the so-called eyewitnesses. Hence, the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction are liable to be set aside. 22. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3 is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 20.07.2021 passed against appellants / accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C. No.25/2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, is set aside. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3393 CRL.A No. 200140 of 2021 (iii) The appellants / accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offences under Sections 116, 323, 306 and 354 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, shall stand cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2