- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2756 CRL.A No. 1391 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1391 OF 2015 (A) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY HENNUR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU-560 043. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH.N, HCGP) AND: 1. SMT KAVITHA @ POORNIMA W/O LATE RAJENDRA SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE, R/AT AKKALAKOT, MAHARASHTRA - 413 216. 2. PRAVEEN SRIKANTH KATARIA S/O.SRIKANTH KATARIA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.156, DASAGIRI GALLI, SAMARTHA CHOWKA, AKKALAKOT TALUK, SOLHAPUR DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA 413 216. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKHAR.C, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 SERVED) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PLEASED TO a) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 20.08.2015 IN S.C.NO.548/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE LIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 306 R/W 34 OF IPC. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2756 CRL.A No. 1391 of 2015 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in SC No.548/2013 dated 20.08.2015 by the LIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (for short "the trial Court"). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Hennur Police Station submitted the charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 4. It is alleged that deceased Rajendra Bushetty was the husband of Accused No.1. Deceased was working as a Conductor in BMTC, Depot No.23 and staying in the house of one Mukundappa at Hennur. Accused No.2 was visiting the house of accused No.1 frequently in the absence of deceased, Rajendra Bushetty. Deceased was suspecting that accused No.1 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2756 CRL.A No. 1391 of 2015 was having illicit intimacy with accused No.2. Once the deceased found that in his absence, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were staying in his house. Deceased and his friends PW1-Ningappa, PW2-Balappa, PW3-Suresh had advised accused No.1 suitably. At that juncture, quarrel took place between the deceased and his wife-Accused No.1 and she has expressed that she will not lead her marital life with the deceased and that she would live with accused No.2. Deceased felt that he was being insulted because of his wife's conduct. The deceased went to his native place on 09.04.2012 and returned to Bengaluru on 13.04.2012. He had informed PW1-Ningappa, that he would attend his duty in the second shift. After some time, the elder sister of the deceased had informed PW1 that deceased is not receiving phone. PW1 in turn has informed his friends. PW2-Malappa and CW6-Balaji went in search of deceased. Accordingly, they went to the house of the deceased and noticed that he has committed suicide by hanging in his bedroom by leaving a Death Note-Exhibit P2 which was found in his pocket. PW1 has given the information to the jurisdictional police as per Exhibit P1 and the same was received by PW10- Police Inspector. On the basis of the above, he has registered a case in Crime - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2756 CRL.A No. 1391 of 2015 No.95/2012 and sent the FIR to the Court as per Exhibit P13. Thereafter, he has visited the place of incident and conducted the inquest panchanama as per Exhibit P4 in the presence of mahazar witnesses and recorded the statements of PW2- Malappa and CW6-Balaji. He has also seized the death note- Exhibit P2 and has sent the dead body to Dr. Ambedkar Medical College for post mortem. He has also recorded further statement of the complaint and statements of other witnesses. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 5. After filing the charge-sheet, case was registered in CC No.24965/2012. Thereafter, case was committed to the Court of Sessions and came to be registered in SC No.548/2013. Accused were enlarged on bail. 6. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed charges for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the same were read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2756 CRL.A No. 1391 of 2015 charges, Accused Nos.1 and 2 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, ten witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 10 and seventeen documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P17 and one seized plastic rope marked as MO.1. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. The accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, they have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. 8. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal. 9. Learned High Court Government Pleader Smt. Anitha Girish N, would submit that impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents herein is improper, illegal, invalid and contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. The reasons assigned by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2756 CRL.A No. 1391 of 2015 learned Presiding Officer while passing the impugned judgment are erroneous and improper. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. The suicide note-Exhibit P2 by itself, fully establishes the offence of abetment resulting in the suicide of the deceased. The suicide note-Exhibit P2 has been proved by the evidence of PW7, who is an handwriting expert. This aspect has been completely ignored by the trial Court. The trial Court has not appreciated the fact that accused No.2 used to visit the house of accused No.1 in the absence of the deceased and they were caught red-handed by the deceased. Even after advice of PW1 to PW5, relationship did not stop. Accused No.1 clearly stated that she would go with accused No.2 and not live with the deceased anymore. PW2 has clearly stated that, accused No.1 told the deceased to go and die, which clearly establishes abetment by instigation and also by conduct. On all these grounds, it was sought to allow this appeal. 10. Despite service of notice, the respondents have not appeared before this Court. Hence, arguments on behalf of the respondents, taken as nil. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2756 CRL.A No. 1391 of 2015 11. Having heard the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-State and on perusal of materials, the following points would arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2 for the commission of offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ? 2. What order? Regarding Point No.1: 12. Before appreciation of evidence and record, it is necessary to mention here as to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND reported in (2025)5 SCC 433; BABU SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2024)8 SCC 149; CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2007)4 SCC 415; and H.D. SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2023)9 SCC 581. In the case of H D SUNDARA (supra), the Apex Court has summarized the principles governing exercise of appellate jurisdiction while - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2756 CRL.A No. 1391 of 2015 dealing with an appeal against judgment of acquittal under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure as under: “8. …8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 13. In the case of BABU SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS (supra) it is observed that it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2756 CRL.A No. 1391 of 2015 in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles. The same are: 1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 14. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 13.04.2012 between 10.00 a.m to 03.30 p.m in Mukunda Building, Narayanappa Road, near Anjaneya Temple, Hennur, Bangalore within the limits of Hennur Police Station, Rajendra Bushetty committed suicide by hanging with a rope. The accused have abeted the deceased to commit suicide by hanging. Thus the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 15. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses as PWs1 to 10 and marked 17 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2756 CRL.A No. 1391 of 2015 documents as Exhibits P1 to P17 and one material object as MO1. 16. PW1-Ningappa Parasannanavar, PW2-Sri Balappa Savadi, PW3-Sri Suresh, PW4-Iraiah Hiremath, PW5-Sri Ashok Bushetty have deposed in their evidence that deceased was staying in a rented house along with his wife-accused No.1. Accused No.2 used to visit to the house of deceased frequently in the absence of deceased. On 06.04.2012, they observed that accused Nos.1 and 2 were staying together in the house, in the absence of deceased. At that time, quarrel took place between the deceased and accused No.1. Accused No.1 informed that she will not lead marital life with the deceased and she would go along with the accused No.2. Due to the conduct of accused No.1, her husband was frustrated. Accused No.1 has told the deceased to go and die. The deceased had informed them that he will commit suicide. On 13.04.2012 the deceased committed suicide by keeping Death Note-Exhibit P2. 17. It is necessary to mention here as to the contents of Exhibit P2 which reads as under: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2756 CRL.A No. 1391 of 2015 "¦æÃwAiÀÄ CtÚ£ÀªÀjUÉ ¤ªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä£ÁzÀ gÁeÉÃAzÀæ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ £ÀªÀĸÁÌgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ. ¤ªÀÄä°è w½¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ £À£Àß ¸Á«UÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÆ PÁgÀtgÀ®è. £À£Àß ¸Á«UÉ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw PÀ«vÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À UɼÉAiÀÄ ¥Àæ«Ãt£ÀÄß ªÀåQÛ PÁgÀt F «µÀAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä°è ºÉüÀ®Ä PÁgÀtªÉãÉAzÀgÉ £À£Àß ¥Á°UÉ ¤ÃªÉà zÉêÀgÀÄ CAvÀ ºÉýzÉÝãÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄgÀ£ÀÄß ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîªÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ MAzÀÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß UɼÉAiÀÄ£ÁzÀ FgÀAiÀÄå »jêÀÄoÀ J£ÀÄߪÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. CzÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ½î ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UɼÉAiÀÄ£ÁzÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ PÀA§½UËqÀæ PÉÊAiÀÄ°è 50,000 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁQzÉÝãÉ. EzÀÄ £À£Àß PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁvÁVzÉ. J®èjUÀÆ £À£Àß £ÀªÀĸÁÌgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ. EAw vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ R. S. Bushetti" 18. In the death note, it is stated that his wife Kavita and his friend Praveena are the cause for his death. Except this, the death note does not speak about the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC. Even if it is presumed that accused No.1 and 2 were having an illicit relationship, that itself is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has not placed any materials to constitute the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 107 of Indian Penal Code. 19. On re-appreciation and reconsideration of the entire evidence on record, it makes clear that the trial Court has - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2756 CRL.A No. 1391 of 2015 appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and has acquitted the accused. 20. I do not find any legal or factual error in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative. Regarding point No.2: 21. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Appeal is dismissed. ii) Registry is directed to send the copy of the judgment along with Trial Court records to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1