- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100355 OF 2019 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD DISTRICT, THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) AND: 1. NAJIYA W/O. MAHAMDTOUSIF @ NYAJO KALADAGI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KELGARI, GOUDAR ONI, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD. 2. MAHAMMAD IQBAL S/O. HAJARATALI MULLA, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT SERVANT (VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT), R/O. KERUR, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOTE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADV. FOR R2; R1-NOTICE SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 27.03.2019 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN S.C. NO.150/2016 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 27.03.2019 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN S.C.NO.150/2016 AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.07.17 11:10:48 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.03.2019 passed in SC.150/2016 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad [hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Sessions Judge’ for short] whereby, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief as under; The complainant-PW.9 is the father of deceased Mohammed Tousif @ Nyajo. On 17.04.2014, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poisonous insecticide in the garden at HDMC Corporation, Dharwad. Immediately, he was shifted to General Hospital, Dharwad, the Doctor - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 referred to the KIMS Hospital for higher treatment, however he was taken to SDM Hospital, Dharwad. On the way to the said Hospital, the deceased succumbed. Later, the Unnatural Death Report was filed by PW.14-the brother of the deceased as per Ex.P.14 on 18.04.2014 i.e., on the next day of incident. Accordingly, the same was registered in UDR No.21/2014 by PW.10-the ASI of respondent-Police as per Ex.P.16. Subsequently, an Inquest Panchanama was conducted by PW.3 on the body of deceased as per Ex.P.3 on the same day. After lapse of five days i.e., on 22.04.2014, the father of deceased-PW.9 lodged a complaint before the Police as per Ex.P.11 alleging that accused No.1 being the wife of deceased had an extramarital relationship with accused No.2; the deceased objected the same, hence the accused used to assault him and instigated him to commit suicide by saying that ‘he may live or die, it would not make any difference to them’. As such, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poisonous insecticide on 17.04.2014. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 On the strength of Ex.P.11, PW.17-the Police Inspector of appellant-Police registered the FIR against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.101/2014 as per Ex.P.18. Subsequently, PW.17 conducted the investigation by drawing a spot mahazar, after recording the statement of all the witnesses and on obtaining relevant documents from the concerned authorities, he laid charge-sheet against accused for the aforementioned offence before the committal Court. 3. After committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and read over the same to the accused. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses as PW.1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 to PW.22 and marked 25 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.25 so also identified 4 material objects as MO.1 to MO.4. Though the accused not examined any witnesses on their behalf, marked two documents as Ex.D.1 and D.2. 5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused for the charges leveled against him as stated supra. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the State. 6. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader Smt. Girija S. Hiremath for the appellant- complainant and the learned counsel Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde for the respondents-accused. 7. The primary contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader is that the learned Sessions Judge erred while acquitting the accused without appreciating the evidence and the documents on record in a right perspective. She contended that the evidence of PW.9-the father of deceased, PWs.11 and 12- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 Panchayatdars clearly established the charges leveled against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. All these witnesses categorically stated that accused No.1 had an extramarital affair with accused No.2 and they both use to threaten the deceased with dire consequences and instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Left with no other option, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poisonous insecticide on 17.04.2014. The evidence of PWs.11 and 12 clearly establishes that they both conducted Panchayat to pacify the dispute between the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 2 and advised accused Nos.1 and 2 not to indulge in such activity. Additionally, she contended that the prosecution also relied upon the death note of deceased as per Ex.P.12, which was handed over to PW.9 by the Nurse of the Hospital while treating the deceased. On perusal of Ex.P.12 it reveals that, accused Nos.1 and 2 are solely responsible for the suicide committed by deceased. This aspect of the matter is not properly appreciated by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 learned Sessions Judge. Hence, she submits that the interference is called for in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, she prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and to convict the accused for the charges leveled against them. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-accused submits that the judgment under this appeal does not suffer from any perversity or legality since the learned Sessions Judge after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record, passed a well reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that the deceased committed suicide on 17.04.2014 and on the next day i.e., 18.04.2014, Unnatural Death Report was recorded by the jurisdictional Police based on the complaint lodged by PW.14-brother of deceased. On perusal of Ex.P.15, the brother of deceased clearly stated that the accused was financially distressed; as such he might have committed suicide. The father of deceased also - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 not expressed any doubt against the accused. However, after lapse of five days i.e., on 22.04.2014, the father of the deceased lodged a complaint-Ex.P.11 that the accused persons are solely responsible for the suicidal death of deceased. Further, the evidence of PWs.11 and 12-the Panchayatdars cannot be relied for the reason, though they were very much present at the time of Inquest Panchanama drawn on the body of deceased, they not whispered anything about the mediation or the harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased. However, their statement was recorded after lapse of six days i.e., on 23.04.2014. He further contended that the evidence of PW.14-brother of deceased also goes contrary to the evidence of PW.9-the father of deceased and the Panchayatdars. Additionally, the learned counsel submits that there is no cogent evidence placed by the prosecution to substantiate that the accused instigated or intentionally aided by acting in a particular manner or committing an illegal omission which would otherwise implicate - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 commission of the offence of abatement to drive the deceased to commit suicide. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment and interference does not call for. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the evidence and documents available on record, the only point that would arise for my consideration is; “Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w. Section 34 of IPC?” 10. I have given my anxious consideration on the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also the documents made available before the Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 11. It could be gathered from records, the death of deceased-Mahammed Tousif @ Nyajo is a suicidal one and the same is not disputed by the family members of the deceased. Even otherwise, to prove the same, the prosecution examined the Doctor-PW.7 who conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased as per Ex.P.6. The Doctor-PW.7 gave his final opinion as per Ex.P.7 that the death is due to ‘Organophosphorus insecticide poisoning’. Further, PW.17 also conducted Inquest Panchanama on the body of deceased as per Ex.P.3. PWs.3 and 10 are the witness for Ex.P3. PW.17 and panch witnesses-PWs.3 and 10 have stated that the deceased had committed suicide by consuming poisonous insecticide. Hence, the prosecution has proved the death of deceased is suicidal one. 12. To connect the accused-respondents to the suicidal death of deceased, the prosecution predominantly relied on the evidence of PW.9 and 13-the parents of deceased, PW.14 and PW.19-the brothers of deceased and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 evidence of PW.11 and 12 the circumstantial witnesses who said to have conducted the mediation between the accused and deceased. Though the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs.16 and 20-the residence of Kerur i.e., the place where the accused and deceased were resided, they turned hostile to the prosecution case. On perusal of evidence of PW.9-the father of deceased, he lodged the complaint before the appellant-Police by suspecting the involvement of accused in the suicidal death of deceased. Further, the deceased informed him about the extramarital affair of the accused No.1 with accused No.2 and also about the harassment meted out by them to him. Further, the evidence of PWs.11 and 12, who mediated the alleged dispute between the deceased and accused also stated similarly as that of PW.9. On the date of death of the deceased i.e., 17.04.2014, he failed to disclose the same to the Police. The brother of deceased while reporting the unnatural death of deceased has clearly stated that, due to unknown reasons, his brother had committed suicide. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 There is an inordinate delay of five days in lodging the complaint by PW.9. According to him, the said delay was caused, as he obtained the death note of deceased after 4 to 5 days. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the prosecution has failed to examine the Nurse who handed over the death note written by the deceased from his pocket during his treatment. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the death note was not handed over for a period of five days either to PW.9- the father of the deceased or to PWs.14 and 19- the brothers of deceased, immediately after the death of the deceased. Nevertheless, the death note was not sent for handwriting expert with the admitted handwriting of the deceased. In such circumstances, much credence cannot be attached to the alleged death note at Ex.P.12. 13. Coming to the evidence of PWs.11 and 12-the mediators who have allegedly conducted the Panchayat between the accused and deceased, though, the appellant- Police have recorded the statement of these witnesses - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 after lapse of five days i.e., on 22.04.2014, on perusal of their evidence, they both admitted that they were very much present at the time of Inquest Panchanama and PW.9-the father of deceased discussed with them. Despite, they both did not whisper anything about the Panchayat conveyed by them on the previous date of incident. In such circumstances, there arises a doubt about the credibility of these two witnesses. Further, on a perusal of the evidence of PW.19-the brother of deceased, he categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased was financially distressed at the time of incident. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of material witnesses and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and another Vs. The Inspector of Police reported in 2022 live law (SC) 834 held that ‘to - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 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’. 15. Applying the law enumerated in the above judgment to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Moreover, this appeal is filed by the State against the acquittal order, it is a settled position of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court that if a plausible view is taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused, the Appellate Court shall not interfere in such judgment of acquittal. As discussed, supra, the trial Court has taken a plausible view in the instant case. In such circumstances, interference does not warrant in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I answer the point - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8590 CRL.A No. 100355 of 2019 raised above in the ‘affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Appeal No.100355/2019 is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PJ CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9