- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 799 OF 2014 BETWEEN: BASAVARAJA S/O UDDAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/A HEBBALLI, KASABA HOBLI CHICKMAGALUR TALUK PIN-576 123 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N. RADHAKRISHNA FOR SRI. A.H. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL POLICE CHICKMAGALUR REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:12.9.14 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., CHIKMAGALUR IN S.C.NO.114/2010 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A AND 306 OF IPC. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C.No.114/2010 dated 12.09.2014 by the I Additional Sessions Judge at Chikmagalur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Sessions Judge" for short), whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, directed to undergo simple - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, accused Basavaraja is the husband of deceased Shobha and their marriage was solemnized 11 years prior to 2010. After marriage, both of them were in good terms for a period of 7 years in a joint family and after partition in the family, they were residing separately. In the meantime, the accused addicted to alcohol and started to ill-treat his wife under the influence of alcohol. The said aspect was informed by the deceased to her family members i.e., her brother P.W.1 and her mother P.W.3. Hence, they both visited the house of accused and advised him not to indulge in such acts and informed them to lead a happy marital life. Despite, the accused continued to harass the deceased both physically and mentally under the influence of alcohol. In this backdrop, on 14.05.2010, at about 8 p.m. the deceased called her mother and informed her about the ill treatment meted out to her by accused. Later, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 at about 11.30 p.m., deceased after locking herself in her bedroom committed suicide by dousing herself in kerosene and setting fire. The said aspect was informed by Ashoka Hebballi - P.W.6 to PWs.1 and 3 i.e., the brother and mother of the deceased respectively over phone. Thereafter, PWs.1, 3 and others rushed to the house of the deceased and found the burnt body of deceased in her house. Accordingly, PW.1 lodged the complaint before the respondent - police against accused on the following day i.e., 15.05.2010 at about 9 a.m. as per Ex.P.1. 3. On the strength of Ex.P1, the respondent - police registered the case in Crime No.223/2010 dated 15.05.2010 against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC as per Ex.P.16 - FIR. Subsequently, PW.9 conducted the investigation and laid chargesheet against accused for the aforementioned offences before the Committal Court. 4. Post committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 against the accused for the aforesaid offences and read over the same to the accused. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution, in total, examined 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to 18 and identified three material objects as MOs.1 to 3 before the Sessions Court. 6. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC and passed the order of sentence as aforesaid. 7. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged in this appeal by the appellant. 8. I have heard the learned counsel Sri A.N.Radhakrishna for Sri Sri A.H.Bhagawan, learned - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned HCGP for the respondent - State. 9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity and illegality. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective. He contended that there is inordinate delay of 1 day in lodging the complaint - Ex.P.1. Further, he contends, on perusal of the complaint averments, the allegation made against the accused was, he harassed the deceased under the influence of alcohol, whereas, in the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 deposed that in order to bring additional dowry and for the reason that the deceased begotten only female children, the accused ill-treated her, which had driven her to commit suicide in the matrimonial home. Hence, the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 is totally contradictory to the complaint lodged at the earliest point in time. He contended that PW.6 - material witness, who is the resident of the village of the accused and who had - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 informed about the incident to PWs.1 and 3 over phone, totally turned hostile to the prosecution case. 10. Further, the Investigating Officer failed to seize any mobile or to obtain the call detail records to substantiate that deceased had called PWs.1 or 3 on the date of incident and informed them about the alleged harassment meted out by the accused to her under the influence of alcohol. He further contended that the children of deceased and the accused, who were aged 10 and 8 years, were neither cited as chargesheet witness nor examined before the Court to prove the alleged harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused. He also contended that on perusal of the evidence of PW.8 - panch witness, who is the mother of the accused, it is clear that on the date of the incident, there was a quarrel between accused and deceased in connection with serving food and in a heat of rage, deceased by locking herself in her bedroom committed suicide by dousing herself in kerosene and setting fire. Though the accused made best - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 efforts to break open the door, by that time the deceased succumbed to the burn injuries. In such circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused and the learned Sessions Judge totally misread the evidence and convicted the accused. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment. 10. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State contended that the learned Sessions Judge after duly appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the accused by a well reasoned judgment, which does not call for any interference, at the hands of this Court. 11. He contended that evidence of PWs.1 and 3 clearly established the unbearable harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased, which driven her to commit suicide in the matrimonial home. Though the accused was very much present in the house at the time of incident, he failed to explain the reason for the commission of suicide by the deceased, who is none other - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 than his wife. The accused is duty bound to explain the reason behind the committal of suicide by the deceased since the same is in his special knowledge as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 12. He further contended that the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 corroborates to the testimony of PW.2 and PW.5 - inquest panchanama witness and also the evidence of PW.4 who is the relative of PWs.1 and 3. Further the evidence of PW.9 also corroborates to the testimony of PWs.1, 3 and 5. In such circumstances, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned HCGP and also on perusing the entire evidence on record including the impugned judgment, the following points arise for consideration: 1. Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity or illegality? - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 2. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the appellant /accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC? 14. In order to prove the suicidal death of deceased Shobha in the house of accused, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.7 - the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased and the post-mortem report issued by him as per Ex.P14, which depicts that the death was due to shock, as a result of external burns. Additionally, the prosecution relied on the inquest panchanama - Ex.P11. On perusal of the same, it reveals that PWs.2 and 8 the witness for the same deposed that the death of deceased was due to burn injuries as a result of suicide committed by her in the matrimonial home by dousing herself in kerosene and setting fire. Hence, on the conjoint reading of Exs.P11 and 14 with the evidence of PWs.2, 8 and 7, I am of the considered view that the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 death of deceased shobha is a suicidal one in the matrimonial home. Even otherwise, it is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the accused. 15. To connect the accused to the suicidal death of deceased, the prosecution significantly relied on the evidence of PW.1, who set the criminal law into motion by lodging the complaint - Ex.P1, evidence of PW.3 - mother of deceased and the evidence of PW.4, the relative of the deceased. 16. On careful examination of evidence of these witnesses, it reveals that P.W.1 - the complainant reiterated the contents of Ex.P1 in his evidence and deposed that accused used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally under the influence of alcohol and on 14.05.2010 at about 8 p.m., the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and the same was informed by her to PW.3 over phone and later at about 11.30 p.m., PW.6 called him and informed that Shobha committed suicide by dousing herself in kerosene and setting fire. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 Thereafter, he and his mother immediately rushed to the house of deceased and they found the burnt body of the deceased. However, on perusal of cross-examination of PW.1, it is seen that he has deposed that since deceased had begotten only female children, accused used to harass her by stating that she had not begotten a male child. Further, he deposed that on the date of the incident i.e., on 14.05.2010, deceased had called PW.3, his mother over phone and informed about the harassment meted out to her by accused. However, the Investigating Officer failed to collect the call detail record to that effect and also the mobile phone pertaining to deceased. PW.1 has also specifically stated that before two months prior to the date of incident, the deceased visited their house and informed about the harassment meted out to her by accused. 17. Though PW.3 - mother of the deceased reiterated the evidence of PW.1, in her cross-examination, she strangely stated that accused used to harass the deceased for additional dowry. However, admittedly, no - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 complaint has been lodged against such harassment on earlier occasions. In such circumstances, the alleged harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased was not properly explained by PWs.1 and 3 in their evidence. 18. On the other hand, PW.6, who allegedly informed PWs.1 and 3 about the death of deceased on the fateful day, has deposed in his evidence that deceased was mentally abnormal and therefore, she committed suicide. Moreover, he has clearly denied the suggestion made by the learned prosecutor that the accused used to harass deceased either for additional dowry or under the influence of alcohol. 19. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture, Devaraju - CW.8 and PW.6 - Ashoka - panch witness, who were present at the time of inquest panchanama - Ex.P.11, have categorically stated in their statement that on 14.05.2010 at about 11 p.m., the accused himself informed them that the deceased committed suicide by - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 locking herself inside the bedroom and by dousing herself in kerosene and setting fire and that he had made his best efforts to break open the door of the room and he had also informed them to intimate the same to the parents of the deceased. PW.6 has also stated that on 14.05.2010 he came to know that there was quarrel between the deceased and accused in respect of serving food and in the heat of rage, she committed suicide. In such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to place any such cogent evidence to prove that the accused was harassing the deceased both physically and mentally and that his willful conduct driven the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, charge against Section 498A of IPC is not proved against the accused. 20. As far as the suicide of deceased in the matrimonial home is concerned, as discussed supra, though the said aspect is not disputed by the accused, it could be gathered from the evidence of PW.8 that the deceased committed suicide on the fateful day for the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 simple reason that there was quarrel in serving the food to the accused. The statement of PWs.2, 6 and 8 recorded on the day of incident clearly reveals that the accused was not intoxicated at the time of incident. On the other hand, it reveals that the accused himself rushed to the house of PW.6 and informed about committal of suicide by the deceased and also about his efforts to save her. 21. The defence of the accused that the deceased was behaving abnormally and therefore, committed suicide appears to be probable and that there is no such evidence on record forthcoming to prove that the accused was harassing the deceased for additional dowry and for the reason she had begotten only female children. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police1 at paragraphs 36 and 38 held as under: 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 “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. 37. Now, so far as conviction under Section 498A IPC is concerned, except the statement of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-3 recorded after the incident, there is no other evidence to establish the allegation of any demand of dowry or ill treatment meted out to the deceased during her marriage. The fact that there were cordial relations between the families of Appellant No. 1 and the deceased is not disputed. The deceased committed suicide on 05.11.2014 and the complaint against the appellants were filed on 24.11.2014 i.e., 3 weeks after the death of the deceased. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 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 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.” 23. In the case on hand, there is no such evidence forthcoming that the accused played an active role by instigating or provoking the deceased to commit suicide and has done any such act which could be said to have facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased. 24. Thus, by perusal of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that in order to convict an - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 accused under Section 306 of IPC, the state of mind to commit the crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. There has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence by the accused. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide, seeing no option and that act must have been intend to push the deceased into such a position that she committed suicide. The person who is said to have committed the abetment must have played an active role by act of instigation or doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. 25. After careful assessing of the evidence on record, I find that there is no direct evidence to show that appellant/accused by his acts instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide and has done any act said to have facilitated the commission of suicide by the deceased. As such, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 306 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 of IPC and the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. 27. On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, interference in the impugned judgment is warranted. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the 'affirmative' and point No.2 in the ‘negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 12.09.2014 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge at Chikmagalur in S.C.No.114/2010 is hereby set aside. iii) Consequently, the appellant - accused is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30131 CRL.A No. 799 of 2014 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 refunded to him on due identification. vi) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the concerned Court along with the certified copy of this judgment forthwith. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40