- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100072 OF 2017 (C) BETWEEN: LEG HANUMANTHA, S/O. B. ANJINAPPA AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. BEHIND MASQUE, GOUTHAM NAGAR, D.C.NAGAR, BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANAND R.KOLLI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD, THROUGH POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, RURAL POLICE STATION BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CRPC SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION, BY THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BALLARI IN SESSION CASE NO.72 OF 2015 DATED 21.01.2017 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 306 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) The convict in S.C. No.72/2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 21.01.2017 by which he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He has also challenged the order of sentence dated 23.01.2017 by which he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, and ten years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 09.03.2015 the deceased was brought to the Vijayanagara Institute of Medical Sciences, Ballari (VIMS), with burn wounds. The investigating officer who received information requested the Chief Medical Officer of VIMS, Ballari to certify whether the deceased was fit enough to give her dying declaration. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 Chief Medical Officer referred the request to the treating doctor and accordingly, the treating doctor certified that the deceased is haemodynamically stable and fit to give her statement. The deceased recorded her dying declaration before the attending doctor between 3:15 a.m. to 4:15 a.m. Based on the above, the same was treated as information of a cognizable offence and a case in Crime No.67/2015 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC. It was mentioned in the dying declaration that the deceased was in love with a person when she was in Andhra Pradesh and had two children named Nagadivya and Harikiran. She stated that the man she loved abandoned her and thereafter, she came to Ballari and was residing there. She stated that she came in contact with the accused and he married her ten years prior to the incident. She claimed that the accused had already married a lady named Shivavva and had two children. She claimed that the accused took good care of her for a few years. However, he married a lady named Mumtaz about three years ago and from then on, he was not taking care of the deceased. She claimed that the accused used to assault her and was demanding money. She claimed that she took loan from strangers and had paid - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 Rs.40,000/-. Nonetheless, he showed no interest towards her, but was harassing her. She claimed that on 08.03.2015, the accused called her and demanded for more money. When the deceased told him that she was not in a position to repay the loans already raised and that nobody would give her any loan, he abused her that he would have married another woman if she died. She stated that the accused shamed her that she was of no use to him. She stated that she told the accused that she had doused herself with kerosene and asked him to come and see her burning. The accused came to the house of the deceased at 11.30 and, after seeing her, chided that she had only poured kerosene and had not set herself on fire. When she threatened of immolating herself, he told her that he would be happy and peaceful, if she killed herself. She stated that when she lit the match stick, she caught fire and ran out of the house. She claimed that her children and the accused doused the fire and neighbours shifted her to VIMS Hospital, in an autorickshaw. She claimed that the accused had mentally and physically harassed her and had abetted her in committing the suicide. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 3. The deceased succumbed to the burn injuries on 11.03.2015. Post-mortem was conducted and the opinion as to the cause of death was septicemia as a result of 95% burns. The investigation was taken up and spot panchanama was drawn. The inquest was conducted on the dead body and statement of the inquest witness was recorded. The accused also had suffered burn injuries and was treated. He was arrested on 02.05.2015. The statement of the eye witnesses namely daughter of the deceased was recorded and statement of neighbours was recorded and a charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. 4. A copy of the charge sheet was furnished to the accused. He was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.26. They also marked material objects M.Os.1 to 3. The statement of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code was recorded and he denied the incriminating evidence against him. 6. Based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had proved the commission of the offences by the accused punishable under sections 498A and 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and hence convicted the accused for the said offences and sentenced him as stated above. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and sentence, the accused is before this Court in this appeal. 7. i) The learned counsel for the accused contended that the deceased had suffered 95% burns and therefore, it was impossible for her to record her dying declaration and also sign the same. He referred to the admission record of VIMS Hospital (Ex.P13) which showed that the whole body was burnt. In that circumstance, he contends that the said declaration could not have been signed by the deceased. He therefore, contends that it was not a dying declaration but it was concocted and fabricated by the police. He contends that even if the dying declaration is taken into account, an offence under - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 Section 306 of IPC was not made out as there was no evidence of the accused abetting the suicide of the deceased. He contends that the accused had also suffered burns on his hands and chest when he tried to save the deceased. He contends that if the accused had any intention to abet the suicide of the deceased, he would not have attempted to save the deceased. He contends that the deceased was not the wife of the accused but was a concubine and therefore, an offence under Section 498A of IPC was not attracted. He further contends that P.W.1, who is the son of the deceased, did not support the case of the prosecution. Likewise, P.W.2, a resident of the locality, also did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 also did not support the prosecution. P.W.4, the daughter of the deceased, also did not support the prosecution. P.W.5, the second wife of the accused, did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.6, who was neighbour of the deceased, did not support prosecution. P.W.7, who was the first wife of the accused, did not support the prosecution. He contends that P.W.8 is the doctor who received the requisition from the police station to conduct postmortem. His evidence was of no consequence. P.W.9 was the Tahasildar who gave a requisition to the doctor - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 to know whether the deceased was capable of giving a statement and that the doctor made an endorsement that the patient is fit to give a statement. In so far as the dying declaration that was recorded, he submitted that P.W.9 stated that the deceased was fit to give a statement. He contends that if the deceased had suffered 95% burns, it was impossible that she could have affixed her signature on the dying declaration. P.W.10 was the treating doctor on whose evidence the entire case revolved around. He therefore, submits that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. ii) He contends that though there was evidence that the deceased had suffered burns, there was no acceptable evidence to connect the accused with the crime. He contends that the evidence of P.W.10 the treating doctor, in terms of medical science was unacceptable. He contends that as per the evidence of P.W.10, the deceased had suffered 2nd to 3rd degree burns and therefore, she was not in a position to make a solemn declaration. He therefore submitted that the testimony of P.W.9 and P.W.10 was not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 of IPC. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 iii) He referred to the evidence of P.W.11, the Investigating Officer, who admitted that the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by a writer in the police station who was cited as a witness in the chargesheet. He contends that the writer was not examined before the Court which was fatal to the case of prosecution. He admitted that he was not present at the time of recording the dying declaration of the deceased. iv) Therefore, the sum and substance of the case of the learned counsel for the accused appellant is that the deceased was not in a position to record her statement and the only circumstance is the dying the declaration based on which the Trial Court convicted the accused. He submits that this was weak evidence and the Trial Court could not have convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.1 though did not support the case of the prosecution, he admitted that his mother set herself ablaze. Likewise, P.W.4, the daughter of the deceased, also admitted that her mother died by setting herself ablaze. He - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 contends that P.W.9 had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased between 3:15 a.m. to 4:15 a.m. and he identified his signature as Ex.P.9(a). He also identified the left thumb mark of the deceased as Ex.P.9(d). He submitted that P.W.10, the attending doctor, deposed that on 09.03.2015, the deceased was admitted at the hospital with history of burn injuries and that he had sent intimation to the concerned police. He deposed that the Police came to the hospital at 3:15 a.m and on the basis of his certification that the deceased was fit to give her statement, the police recorded her statement between 3:15 a.m. to 4:15 a.m. He identified his signature as Ex.P.12(a). He also deposed that P.W.9 visited the hospital and, based on his endorsement that the deceased was fit to give her statement, he had recorded the statement of the deceased between 3:15 a.m. to 4:15 a.m. and after two days, the deceased died due to burn injuries. He submitted that the dying declaration of the deceased was proved by the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 10. He contends that if the dying declaration is perused, the deceased and the accused were in a relationship and were residing together in the same house. He contends that the deceased had stated in her declaration that the accused harassed her - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 demanding money and when she refused, he admonished her to end her life as she was of no use to him. She also stated in her dying declaration that, when she threatened of immolating herself, the accused came to the house and saw that the deceased had only poured kerosene all over her body and had not ignited herself and therefore provoked her to light herself. This discloses that the accused instigated/provoked her to set herself on fire and therefore the deceased immolated herself. He therefore, contends that the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. 10. The accused was charged for the offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 306 of IPC. It is pertinent to mention that for an offence under Section 306 of IPC to be attracted, a person should abet the commission of suicide. Section 107 of IPC defines abetment which reads as follows: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets 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. Therefore, the moot question is, whether the dying declaration of the deceased pointed that she was provoked or instigated by the accused to commit suicide. As to what amounts to instigation is explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)1 held as follows: "16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench in Ramesh Kumar case [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088], R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of “instigation”, though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes “instigation” must necessarily and specifically be 1 (2009) 16 SCC 605 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an “instigation” may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. 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.)." The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.Mohan Vs. State2 held 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 2 AIR 2011 SC 1238 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide”. 11. The deceased in her dying declaration stated that the accused had married PW.5 during the subsistence of marriage with the deceased, thereby pushing her to the brink of desperation. PW.5 in her evidence admitted that she was the "second wife" of the accused. She deposed that she knew that the deceased was the wife of the accused. In the dying declaration, the deceased mentioned that the accused had already married a person named Shivamma before he married the deceased. This, therefore gives an impression that the accused is a don juan, picking and dumping women at will. 12. In the above background, if we peruse the summary sheet (Ex.P.13) of VIMS, Ballari, it shows that the deceased was brought to the Hospital with 90% to 95% burns over the entire body. The deceased was taken to the hospital on 09.03.2015. P.W.11, the Investigating Officer, deposed that, when he was on patrol duty, he received wireless information that the deceased was admitted at VIMS Hospital for burn injuries. He immediately went to the hospital and submitted a - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 requisition to the doctor to know the state of mind of the deceased. P.W.10 examined the deceased and certified that she was fit to give her statement. The same was marked as Ex.P.11. The statement of deceased was recorded between 3:15 a.m. to 4:15 a.m. in the presence of P.W.9. The deceased died two days thereafter. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased had recorded her dying declaration when she was conscious. The dying declaration was recorded in the presence of P.W.11. Though P.W.11 was cross-examined, no contra evidence was extracted from him to disbelieve the fact that he was present at the time of recording the statement. Therefore, it is amply clear that the deceased had recorded her statement when she was conscious and the same had probative value. 13. Now, coming to the contents of the dying declaration, it appears that the deceased and the accused were husband and wife and were residing in the same house. It also appears that the deceased and the accused were forlorn as the accused had contracted another relationship with another woman. It appears that the accused had abandoned the deceased and was not taking care of her. The accused was - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 harassing the deceased for money and when she refused, he shamed her that she was of no use to him and told the deceased to die. Therefore, angered over this, the deceased threatened of immolating herself and asked the accused to come over to the house to see her ablaze. The accused, thereafter came to the house and saw that the deceased had only poured kerosene on herself. At that stage, the accused chided her that she had only poured kerosene on her and had not immolated herself and instigated her to immolate herself saying that it would be good for him if she died. Hearing this, the deceased immolated herself by lighting a match stick. The fact that the accused was present at the house is corroborated by the wound certificate at Ex.P.26 which disclosed that the accused had suffered burns on his hands, chest etc., The accused did not explain how he suffered injuries as mentioned in Ex.P.26. Therefore, it is clear that the accused by provoking the deceased had abetted her in committing suicide. The accused, who was present at the house, had all the opportunity to prevent the deceased from immolating herself. However, he took no steps to prevent the offence being committed. Thus, it is evident that the accused was not in good terms with the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8646 CRL.A No. 100072 of 2017 deceased and provoked the deceased to commit suicide and hence, he was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 14. In so far as the offence under Section 498A of IPC is concerned, the dying declaration of the deceased amply indicated that the accused was harassing the deceased for money and when she refused to pay him, he admonished her that she was of no use to him, and provoked her to kill herself. This, indeed, was an act of physical and mental harassment of the deceased which is punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The Trial Court has meticulously gone into the evidence adduced by P.Ws.9, 10 and 11 and also the dying declaration of the deceased at Ex.P.12 and the injuries suffered by the accused as per Ex.P.26, and has rightly convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. Hence, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE KMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2