- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 48 OF 2015 BETWEEN: SRIDHAR S/O VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED 34 YEARS R/T HEDAKANAHALLI VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK – 562 114. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI AMARESH N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SHIDLAGHATTA RURAL POLICE STATION SHIDLAGHATTA CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 102. 2. SHRI. MANJUNATHA S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED 30 YEARS R/AT BALUVANAHALLI VILLAGE JANGAMA KOTE HOBLI SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI MANJUNATH B R, ADVOCATE FOR R2 – ABSENT) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 THIS CRL.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.5.2013 IN S.C.No.35/2012, PASSED BY THE ADHOC SESSIONS JUDGE, FTC-II, CHINTAMANI - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 15.05.2013 passed in S.C. No. 35/2012 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court – II, Chinthamani, whereunder the respondent – accused has been acquitted for offence under Section 306 of IPC. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that P.W.1 – Sridhara has filed a complaint stating that the deceased – Varalakshmi is his sister and she was given in marriage to one Manjunatha, son of Kempanna about 12 years back and out of the wedlock they had a daughter by name Deeksha aged about 11 years. Husband of the deceased, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 namely, Manjunatha was arrested and was in judicial custody and the respondent - accused – Manjunatha son of Munivenkatappa promised the deceased to get bail for her husband and took money and gold ornaments and the deceased had intimated the same to the complainant. The deceased had also intimated the complainant that when she asked the respondent - accused to return the said golden ornaments and cash, he had quarreled with her and she had intimated the same to her brother – complainant. The complainant received a phone call at 08.00 pm on 29.05.2011 that the deceased – Varalakshmi had committed suicide by hanging in her house. The complainant went and enquired the father-in-law of the deceased, namely, Kempanna and he told the complainant that he enquired with the accused Manjunath regarding return of money and golden ornaments and he refused to return them and quarreled with him. It is stated in the complaint that the respondent - accused is responsible for the death of his sister Varalakshmi. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 3. On the basis of the said complaint filed by P.W.1 – brother of the deceased a case came to be registered against respondent - accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC. The Police after investigation filed charge sheet against the respondent - accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC. Said case came to be committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed charge against the respondent - accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge, has examined 9 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked 7 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and material object as M.O.1. Statements of P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.8 are marked on behalf of the accused person as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3. Statement of the respondent - accused 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 passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. Said judgment of acquittal has been challenged by the complainant – P.W.1 in this appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant – complainant and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 remained absent. 5. Learned counsel for appellant – complainant would contend that the death note – Ex.P.2 which has been seized from the house of the deceased is held to be not proved by the trial Court and inspite of that, the trial Court has placed reliance on its contents and observed in the impugned judgment that the deceased was a woman of easy virtue and therefore, she met a tragic end by hanging herself. He submits that said observation of the trial Court is based on a document which has not been proved. He submits that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 will establish that the respondent - accused has quarreled with the deceased and not returned the money and golden ornaments and therefore, she committed suicide. The respondent - accused by not returning the money and golden ornaments has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Without considering these aspects, learned - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 Sessions judge has erred in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. On these grounds, he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and prays for convicting the respondent - accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC. 6. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 – State has supported the contentions of learned counsel for appellant. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned HCGP, the following point arises for my consideration. Whether the trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent - accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC? 8. My answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons: The deceased committed suicide by hanging on 29.05.2011. Death of the deceased is suicidal death and the same is not in dispute. It is alleged that the deceased - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 had left a death note which has been seized from the spot and it is at Ex.P.2. The contents of Ex.P.2 are extracted in paragraph No. 17 of the impugned judgment. The trial Court, considering the evidence on record, has held that tracing of the alleged death note is a mystery and also observed that there is no proof that handwriting of the deceased tally with the contents of Ex.P.2. Inspite of giving said finding, observation by the trial Court based on the contents of Ex.P.2 – death note is that the deceased was a woman of easy virtue and she met a tragic end like hanging. Said observation of the trial Court is not based on any evidence on record. 9. There is oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.9 who have stated regarding the deceased giving money and golden ornaments to the respondent - accused for getting her husband released on bail and respondent - accused has not returned the said money and golden ornaments to the deceased. Said oral evidence also indicate that when the deceased demanded return of the said money and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 golden ornaments from the respondent - accused, he quarreled with her and therefore, she committed suicide. Whether non-return of money and golden ornaments by the respondent – accused to the deceased amounts to abetment to commit suicide is required to be considered. 10. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under: "107. Abetment of a thing.- A person is said abet the doing of a thing who First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or 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 Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." 11. As per the aforesaid definition there should be instigation to do that thing and then it amounts to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 abetment. A person is said to have instigate 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 encouragement. 12. 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: "..............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 cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion………." - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs Sate (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 has observed as under: "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.). 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 provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. 19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar, where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 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: (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 (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 rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 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 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 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 self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self." 14. The deceased Varalakshmi insisted the respondent - accused to repay the money and return the golden ornaments given by her to him and he refused to return the said money and golden ornaments and upset by that, the deceased committed suicide. Except the said quarrel of the respondent - accused with the deceased there is no other allegation of harassment of the deceased by the respondent - accused. Whether a person has abetted in commission of suicide of another or not, can - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 15. 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 and has held as under: "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" - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 16. The person may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons such as depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acture 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. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the M.Mohan Vs State reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 has observed as under: "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. 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 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide." 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision also 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”. 19. There is only a quarrel by the respondent - accused with the deceased when she asked for return of money and golden ornaments given by her to him. Suicide was not the only option for the deceased. The circumstances established by the prosecution do not lead to any possible inference regarding guilt of respondent - accused. 20. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, there is no evidence to show that the respondent - accused had intended to drive out the deceased to commit suicide. Looking from any angle the act of respondent - - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:1565 CRL.A No. 48 of 2015 accused in not returning the money and golden ornaments to the deceased and quarrel with her does not amount to abetment. Therefore, considering the said aspect learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent - accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC. There are no grounds for setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal. 21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14