- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1173 OF 2017 (A) BETWEEN: DASACHARI S/O KRISHNACHARI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O CHALLANAYAKANHALLI KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VINAY SHREYAS K.V, ADVOCATE [AUTHORIZED BY HCLSC]) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KERAGODU POLICE MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA 571401 2. H.C. JAYARAMU S/O CHIKKASIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. H.S. RAVEENDRA S/O SUBBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 4. BOREGOWDA @ BORA @ YOGESHA S/O H.C. BORAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 5. KRISHNA S/O MANGAMMANA MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 6. PRASHANATH S/O SHANKAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT HALLEGERE VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK-571 432 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. A.V. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6; APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST R2 VIDE ORDER DTD.18.11.2021) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.372 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 12.1.2017 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN S.C.NO.80/2012 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 109,114,504,323,324,306 R/W 34 OF IPC AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 6. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT Appellant-complainant has challenged the judgment of acquittal of all the accused persons dated 12th January 2017 passed in S.C.No.80/2012 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya. 2. The brief facts leading upto this appeal are as under: That accused nos.1 to 7 were charge sheeted by Sub-Inspector of Police, Keragodu Police Station, Mandya District for the offences punishable under Section 109, 504, 323, 324, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. One Dasachari i.e., complainant submitted a complaint to the Police stating that, he has been conducting carpentry work at his shop in Hallegere along with his brother Venkateshachari. It is alleged that, accused no.6 failed to give his full payment towards the polish work done by the complainant and his brother i.e., aforesaid Venkateshachari and C.K.Madhu (deceased). When complainant and his brothers demanded to pay the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 amount, and called upon accused no.6 to pay the amount by calling upon phone who was at Bengaluru, he communicated the said fact to accused nos.2 to 5, who were at that time at Halligere. It is alleged that, on 24.07.2011, accused nos. 2 to 5 in furtherance of their common intention, at 7.00 p.m. went to the shop of the complainant and abused him and his brothers in filthy language and assaulted them with hands and repiece patti. They specifically abused the complainant and his brothers by stating that "send your mother, we enjoy with her and then give the amount". It is also told by the accused persons to the complainant and his brothers that, "it is better to commit theft instead of demanding the amount unnecessarily, go and commit suicide". Thereafter, on 26.07.2011 the complainant's brother C.K.Madhu consumed poison and died at 3.00 p.m. at District General Hospital, Mandya. It is alleged in the complaint that, because of the abusive words used by the accused stated supra, deceased consumed poison and died. With these - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 allegations, a complaint came to be filed and the criminal law was set in motion. 3. The Investigating Officer, on completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The learned trial Court, framed charges against the accused, read over and explained to them in Kannada in the language known to them, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses (PWs. 1 to 14) and got marked 17 documents (Exs.P1 to P17), as well as MO.Nos. 1 to 4 and closed prosecution evidence. On behalf of defence, Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. Thereafter, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. so as to enable them to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. They denied their complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any defence evidence. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 5. The learned trial Court, on hearing the arguments and assessment of the evidence, found all the accused not guilty of committing the aforesaid offences by observing that, no ingredients of offence under Section 306 are proved by the prosecution with legal evidence and there is no connecting link established by the prosecution connecting these accused persons as authors of the crime. Thus, the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused persons of the charges leveled against them. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has not preferred any appeal. Whereas, the complainant being aggrieved by the said judgment has preferred this appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant- complainant in addition to mentioning the facts of the case and the grounds urged in the appeal memo submits that, Exs.D1 and D2 so marked in this case are nothing to do with the evidence of the witnesses. He would submit that, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 suffice to prove the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 ingredients of offences made out against the accused. His submission is that, the trial Court by misappreciating the evidence of the complainant and his brothers have wrongly concluded that the prosecution has not proved its case. By taking this Court to various oral and documentary evidence, it is prayed to allow this appeal and convict the accused persons. 8. Sri. Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP supported the submission of the appellant and submits that, though separate independent appeal is not preferred, in view of the grounds urged in the appeal memo, as well as the evidence placed on record, he would submit that, the trial Court has committed error in passing the impugned judgment. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused - respondents supported the findings of the learned trial Court and submits that though PWs.1 and 2 are examined, their evidence is full of contradictions, omissions, discrepancies and full of improvement. The so called - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 eyewitnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. There is no proper explanation offered by the complainant with regard to his motive to commit the crime. By relying upon the observations and findings of the learned trial Court, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the respondents to dismiss the appeal. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both the side. Meticulously perused the records. 11. In view of the submissions of the parties to the appeal, the only point that is to be decided in this appeal is, "Whether there was any sufficient evidence placed on record by the prosecution to pass an order of conviction and sentence against the accused?" 12. So far as death of C.K.Madhu by consuming poison on 27.07.2011, is not in dispute. PW.1 and other witnesses have spoken to that effect and relies upon the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 inquest panchanama as well as PM reports marked in this case. The said documents are marked at Exs.P10 and 14 respectively. Contents of Ex.P10 - the PM report specifically speaks that, death was due to respiratory failure on account of consumption of paraquat discholoride (Herbicide). To this effect, PW.1 and his brother PW.2 have respectively stated about consumption of Herbicide by the deceased. Even PW.9 has stated about getting information about consumption of herbicide by the deceased. From this oral and documentary evidences, it is proved by the prosecution that, by consuming herbicide, C.K.Madhu died by committing suicide. Thus, the death of deceased was suicidal. 13. It is the allegation of the complainant that, because of using of abusive and filthy language by accused nos. 2 to 5, deceased died by consuming herbicide. Thus, there was an abetment to commit suicide by these accused persons. As the offence under Section 306 of IPC is attributed, it is the duty of the prosecution to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 prove that, "if any person commits suicide, i.e., whoever abets the commission of such suicide, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of term which may extent to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. As defined under Section 107 of IPC, the word 'abets' employed in Section 306 is to be read in the context of the provisions of Section 306 of IPC. Therefore, a person is said to abet a thing: (i) Instigates any person to do that thing (ii) Doing the thing by himself or thoughts other by conspiracy by doing a thing. (iii) Intentionally aids the act of omission or illegal omission in doing of that thing. 14. PW. 1 being the complainant, deposed in his evidence in line with the complaint allegations about the work done and his brothers entrusted by accused no.6 to polish the furniture. According to his evidence, he agreed to do the said work for Rs.4,500/- but, accused no.6 just paid Rs.2,000/- and advance of Rs.500/- and he was still - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 to pay for Rs.2,000/- which he agreed to repay the same after 2 to 3 days after taking away his furniture. 15. When the complainant went to the house of the accused no.6, it was locked and told that, he had taken all the furniture to Bangalore. When complainant contacted accused no.6, to pay the balance amount, he abused him in filthy language and whatever the amount he had paid was more than sufficient. He called the accused no.6 on 24.07.2007 on the same day; the other accused persons named in the complaint at about 7.00 p.m. came to his shop. At that time, himself, and his brother Madhu were present. All the aforesaid abused them in filthy language, as to why he is asking money and assaulted the complainant with wooden 'repiece patti' on the person of the complainant and treaded them. Even it is told, that let the complainant bring his mother and he would enjoy her, so also told that she will be made to stand in the middle of the road and they would enjoy her. Thereafter, went away as the neighbors like Soma, Basavaraju and Ramesh sent - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 them by consoling. Because of this using of abusive words, deceased Madhu became disappointed and was frustrated. Therefore, he consumed herbicide on 25.07.2011 and died subsequently, in the hospital. Thus, it is alleged that, because of abetment to commit suicide, his brother had committed suicide. For the first time, he stated that, deceased took an amount of Rs.50/- to purchase the said Herbicide. PW.1 had shown the scene of offence to the police. 16. This PW.1 was cross-examined by defence at length. He deposed that for the work done by him, there is no practice of issuing any receipt. He deposed that, his deceased Brother Madhu was working at Bengaluru. He came to the village one week prior to his death. A suggestion was made to him that, as the deceased had availed loan from various persons, as the creditors started forcing him to pay the money, he committed suicide. 17. He denied suggestion with regard to ill will. He denied the suggestion that, towards the property - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 purchased by them, accused persons had to put their signature and as accused persons did not agree to put their signature, a false complaint was filed against them. He stated that, Keragodu village is about 4 to 5 kms away from his house. He stated that, till filing of complaint by him, the police did not visit the house. According to him, in the computer, the said complaint was typed and there were corrections. But, he does not know who has made the corrections. When his brother Madhu was alive according to him, himself and Venkatachari were present, but, no immediate complaint was filed. In para-20 of his cross-examination, he categorically deposed that, all the accused persons have not at all quarreled with his deceased brother at the shop situated at Hallegere. These MO nos. 1 to 3 are the repiece patti of his shop. 18. If the evidence of PW.1 is perused, there is no consistent evidence that, there was really abetment committed by these accused persons to commit suicide. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 19. PW.2 the brother of complainant corroborates the evidence of PW.1 in material particulars. But, in the cross-examination says that, his brother was in Koppa Hospital and was able to speak. He had not stated to the police about his brother staying at Koppa Hopsital. He came to know that, one boy had consumed the poison and he was admitted in Koppa Hospital. He admits that, his brother Madhu was working in Bengaluru. This PW.2 admits that, as the creditors of the deceased had come to the house and made galata, therefore, his brother Madhu was mentally disturbed. But, again tried to improved and deposed that, it is not so. One fact is clear from the evidence of this witness that, deceased was working in Bengaluru, and he came to the village one week prior to the incident. There was some galata by the creditors in front of the house of accused for raising loan by the deceased. Though deceased was able to speak at Koppa hospital, but, no complaint was lodged against these accused persons by PW.1 or PW.2. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 20. Thus, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is quite opposite to each other. It is the case of the prosecution that, when the said incident of using of abusive words took place, so also assault on them, the neighboring shop owners or the general public like C.J.Soma, C.L.Basavaraju, Ramesh C.L., Girisha were very much present and they had witnessed the incident. Rescued the complainant and his brothers and made the accused to go away from the said place. But, eye-witnesses so examined as PWs.3 and 6 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Though the learned Public Prosecutor, declared them as hostile witnesses and cross-examined, nothing worth was elicited from the mouth of these witnesses. Therefore, evidence of PWs. 3 to 6 would not help the case of the prosecution. 21. PW.7 Shivalingegowda, the resident of Challanayakanahalli deposed that, deceased Madhu called him and stated that, he is not going to survive and requested not to search him. By saying so, he - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 disconnected his phone. So far other contents of his statement, he had been declared as hostile witness. Nothing worth was elicited from his mouth. 22. PW.8 C.S.Chetan Gowda was the person who went to Koppa Hospital on getting information of consumption of poison by deceased. By that time, deceased was taken to Mandya hospital. He came to know that he died. To that extent the evidence of this witness is to be believed. 23. PW.9 Madhu C.K. was the person who searched for deceased and came to know that, at Koppa Hospital, deceased was admitted. When he went to the said hospital, doctor said that, it was difficult to survive and thereafter, he was taken to Mandya Hospital, where he died. He never says that, because of abetment by accused persons, deceased committed suicide. 24. PW.10 Lingaraju, had come before the trial Court and deposed that, it was complainant who called - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 him to search his brother and accordingly they searched and found that deceased was at Koppa Hospital and subsequently he died at Mandya District Hospital. To this extent only, his evidence is to be believed. 25. PW.11 Venkatesh, was the person who had deposed about preparation of panchanama at Ex.P9 and he was present when the panchanama was prepared. He deposed complete ignorance about the alleged crime by the accused persons. According to his evidence, he got confirmed that deceased had consumed poison and therefore, he was taken to the hospital and he made arrangements for the same. To this extent, evidence of this witness is to be believed. 26. PW.12 the police Sub-Inspector, at the relevant time, based on the complaint of the complainant, registered the crime in Crime No.123/2011 and set the criminal law in motion. He was the IO, who had filed the charge sheet against the accused. Unless the other evidence is brought on record to connect the accused as - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 authors of crime, the evidence of PW.12 becomes formal in nature. Therefore, evidence of PW.12 can be believed to the extent of filing of charge sheet. 27. PW.13 Kumar Gendegowda deposed complete ignorance about his presence when panchanama was prepared. He was declared as hostile witness by the prosecution. Nothing worth is elicited in the cross- examination. Therefore, evidence of PW.13 would not help the case of the prosecution. 28. PW.14 C.S.Siddaraju was present when scene of offence panchanama was prepared by the police and in his presence panchanama was prepared as per Ex.P2. To the extent of his presence when the panchanama was prepared, his evidence is to be believed. 29. The very ingredients of the offence of committing abetment to suicide are missing in this case in the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2. Though suicide is proved, but, instigation to commit the offence, engaging in - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 conspiracy to commit the offence and aiding the commission of an offence as discussed above is not proved. The 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 accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Thus in this case, evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is quite contrary to the ingredients of the offences. No eyewitnesses had supported the case of prosecution. Based upon the self-serving testimony of PWs. 1 and 2, it cannot be stated that, their evidence is acceptable. 30. In view of all this evidence, coupled with the contradictory evidence of the witnesses i.e., PWs. 1 and 2, there is no proof regarding the commission of the crime by these accused persons as authors of the crime. The learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and has rightly concluded that, prosecution has failed to prove its case with legal evidence. I do not find any factual or legal error - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, it is held that, there is no sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused were rightly acquitted by the trial Court and the said acquittal has to be confirmed by this Court. Accordingly, the aforesaid point is answered against the complainant and in favour of respondent-accused. 31. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (ii) Impugned judgment dated 12.01.2017 passed in S.C.No.80/2012 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya is herby confirmed. (iii) Bail bonds of the accused persons, if any, stand discharged. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:15960 CRL.A No. 1173 of 2017 (iv) Send back the trial Court records to the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2