- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1075 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: KRISHNAMURTHY @ BABU S/O THIMMARAYA SETTY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OWNER OF PAWN BEEDA STALL MARUTHI EXTENSION MALUR, PIN NO-576 169. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALUR POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS AVENUE ROAD BANGALORE-560 002. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:25/26.10.13 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST., AND S.J., KOLAR IN S.C.NO.151/12 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A AND 306 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is sought by the convicted accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.10.2013 passed in S.C.No.151/2012 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Kolar (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Sessions Judge'), wherein the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he is further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- in default of payment of the fine, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 The accused is a resident of Malur Town and the deceased in this case, Gangalakshmamma, was the resident of Guddamaranahalli Village, Magadi Taluk. In the year 2001 the deceased lived in a rented room while pursuing her D.Ed. course at Nethaji Teacher's Training Centre, Malur. The deceased passed before the accused’s store everyday on her way to the training centre, they became acquainted and eventually this acquaintance ended in a love entanglement. Thereafter, they got married in April, 2011. 3. It is further the case of the prosecution that the deceased lived in a rented house owned by PW.7 and that the accused was her frequent visitor. Against this backdrop, on the intervening night of 12 and 13 of June, 2012 the deceased Gangalakshmamma, committed suicide by hanging, this was divulged by the accused to her parents i.e., PW.1 and PW.2. Thereafter, PW.1 and PW.2 along with their son PW.3 rushed to the house of the deceased-Gangalakshmamma and they found their daughter being suspended by a rope tied to the roof. Subsequently, the father of the deceased, lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police against the accused as per Ex.P1 on 13.06.2012 and on the strength of Ex.P1, PW.11-PSI of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 respondent-Police registered an FIR against the accused in Crime.No.127/2012 dated 13.06.2012 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 304B of IPC. Subsequently, PW.12, investigated the case by drawing spot mahazar. Thereafter, PW.5 conducted the inquest punchanama on the deceased as per Ex.P9. Later, PW.12 recorded the statement of all the material witnesses and obtained the necessary documents from the concerned Authorities and PW.13, laid the chargesheet against the accused before the committal Court for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B, 380 of IPC and Section 4 of DP Act. 4. After the committal of the case before the learned Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused for the aforementioned offences. However, during the course of trial, the learned Sessions Judge framed additional charges for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him, the prosecution in total examined 3 witnesses, i.e. PW.1 to PW.13, marked 23 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P23 and identified 16 material - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 objects as MO.1 to MO.16. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of the material witnesses to the accused as stipulated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same. The defence of the accused is total denial and of false implication. Albeit the accused did not choose to examine any witness on his behalf but got marked 2 documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. 6. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 of IPC and sentenced him as stated supra. The said judgment is challenged under this appeal by the appellant/accused. 7. I have heard Sri. Veeranna G. Tigadi, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Rai K., the learned HCGP for the respondent-state. 8. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity and illegality as the learned Sessions Judge has erred in appreciating the evidence on record in right - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 perspective. He contended that the material witnesses, i.e., PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.6, suffers from severe infirmities and on perusal of their evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the essentials of Section 498A or Section 306 of IPC. Further he contended that PW.1 and PW.2, the parents of the deceased, in their cross-examination, categorically admitted that there was neither harassment nor rows between the accused and the deceased prior to the date of her suicide. Further, as per the statement of PW.2, while drawing the inquest panchanama, categorically establishes that the deceased Gangalakshmamma was suffering from acute depression owing to the underdevelopment of the foetus. This might have driven the deceased to commit suicide. Further according to him, as admitted by the prosecution, the marriage of the deceased and the accused stood null and void as the accused was already married. In such circumstances, the offence under Section 498A does not attract. Even the prosecution has failed to prove Section 306 of IPC, the Sessions Judge has wrongly convicted the accused and the same is called for interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 9. To buttresses his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgments in the case of SHIVCHARAN LAL VERMA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2007) 15 SCC 369 and in the case of MARIANO ANTO BRUNO & ANOTHER. v. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE reported in 2022 Live Law SC 834. 10. Refuting the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned HCGP contended that the judgment challenged under this appeal neither suffers from perversity nor illegality as the learned Sessions Judge has meticulously examined the entire evidence on record and passed a well-reasoned judgment, which does not call for any interference. According to learned HCGP, the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC by placing cogent evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.6. All these witnesses have categorically deposed before the Court that the accused ill-treated the deceased following their wedding by demanding an amount of Rs.2 lakh to purchase a Tata Sumo vehicle, also he harassed her demanding gold ornaments. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 further clarified that - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 20 days prior to the date of incident, the victim informed the harassment meted out by the accused by demanding money to PW.1 and PW.2. In such circumstances, the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Section 306 of IPC were established by the prosecution. 11. He further contended that the accused, to gratify his monetary avarice, instigated her to commit suicide. The said aspect was once again proved by the evidence of PW.7 where the deceased was residing at the time of the incident. He further contended that on considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused and accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusing the entire evidence and records placed before me, the points that arise for my consideration are: (i) "Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity or illegality?" (ii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC?" - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 13. To prove the charges levelled against the accused, though the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.6. Among these witnesses, PW.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and PW.3 is the brother of the deceased, and PW.6 is an independent witness. 14. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, they have deposed that the accused married the deceased in April 2011 and thereafter the deceased resided in a rented house owned by PW.7 and that the accused frequently visited her, on such visits he demanded a sum of Rs.2 lakh from the deceased to purchase Tata Sumo Vehicle. Further, it is also forthcoming from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that the accused demanded the deceased to get the gold ornaments to attend the wedding of the deceased’s brother, the same was arranged by PW.2 who handed it over to the deceased. However, after the wedding, when PW.2 requested to return the said gold ornaments, there was a row between the accused and the deceased. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 15. On careful perusal of the cross-examination of these two witnesses, both these witnesses failed to mention the approximate date and time of the demand made by the accused regarding the gold ornaments or for Rs.2 lakh to purchase the Tata Sumo vehicle. 16. Further in the cross-examination of PW.2, she has categorically admitted that following the wedding, her son i.e. the brother of the deceased, the accused and Gangalakshmamma resided cordially. Further, it is also forthcoming that the gold ornaments were to be returned after the baby shower of the deceased. This admission of PW.2, also corroborates with the testimony of PW.1 i.e. the father of the deceased. Nevertheless, as rightly contended by the appellant, in the inquest panchanama i.e., Ex.P9, PW.2 has made the specific averment that the deceased was pregnant at the time of her demise and that she was depressed for her fetus being underdeveloped. This establishes that the accused neither harassed the deceased nor demanded Rs. 2 lakhs. On perusal of the evidence of PW.3 albeit he supported the case of the prosecution and reiterated the version of PWs.1 and 2 and reiterated the contents of the complaint lodged by PW.1, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 however, he failed to state the appropriate time and date when the money and ornaments were demanded. No doubt PW.7, the owner of the house where the deceased was residing at the time of incident admitted to the said aspect. Nevertheless, in his evidence he has stated that both the accused and deceased resided cordially. The other averments of his statements were denied by him and as such, the prosecution treated him as partly hostile to the prosecution case. In such circumstances, there is no such cogent or reliable evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the aspect that the accused either harassed the deceased or abated her to commit suicide. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHIVCHARAN LAL VERMA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2007) 15 SCC 369, summarized the law in respect of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC when the deceased is not a legal wife. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment held that the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is attracted exclusively when the prosecution prove that the deceased was a legally wedded wife of the accused. Applying the above guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 facts and circumstances of this case, admittedly it is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused was a married man and a father of two children, being well aware of this, the deceased fell in love with the accused and married him. However, this aspect was not admitted by PWs.1 to 3, the family members of the deceased. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge has erred while convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. 18. In order to prove the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, it is required to be borne in mind that in the case of alleged abatement of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement instigating to commit the crime. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action, proximate to the time of the occurrence on part of the accused which led or compelled a person to commit suicide, the conviction under Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable. In the case on hand, as discussed supra, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, the parents and brother of the deceased, nowhere such evidence is forthcoming on record that the accused abated or committed such positive act soon before - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 her death by abating her to commit suicide. As far as the harassment meted out by the accused regarding the gold ornaments which were given by PW.2 to the deceased prior to the marriage of the deceased’s brother, according to PW.2 after the said marriage they both were happily living together. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MARIANO ANTO BRUNO & ANOTHER. v. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE reported in 2022 Live Law SC 834, held in paragraphs No.36 and 38 as under: "36. 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. 38. This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an accused under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable." 19. Thus, on perusal of dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court it is clear that in order to convict the accused under Section 306 of IPC, the state of mind to commit the crime must be apparent while determining culpability. There has to be clear mens rea to commit offence by the accused. As discussed supra, it also requires an active or direct act driving the deceased to commit suicide. After warily assessing the evidence on record, I find that there is no direct evidence to establish that the appellant by his act either instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide and that he has not acted in any way that might have driven the deceased to commit suicide. As such, in my considered opinion, the prosecution failed to prove the charges even for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Against this backdrop, I find it necessary to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Court and accordingly, I answer Points No.1 and 2 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:5356 CRL.A No. 1075 of 2013 ORDER i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed; ii. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Kolar in S.C.No.151/2012 is set-aside; iii. Consequent upon setting aside the judgment of conviction stated supra, the appellant/accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC for which he was charged. iv. The bail bond executed by the appellant/accused shall stand cancelled. v. If the appellant/accused has deposited any fine amount, the same shall be ordered to be refunded to him on due identification. Accordingly ordered. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY,HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17