Karnataka High Court Acquits Two in Suicide Abetment Case, Cites Lack of Cogent Evidence and Contradictory Dying Declarations

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has set aside the conviction of a woman and her step-son-in-law in a 2008 suicide case, ruling that "bald allegations" of harassment and threatening phone calls, unsupported by cogent evidence, do not meet the legal threshold for abetment of suicide under Section 306 or cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In a significant judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar , the court acquitted Smt. Jayalaxmi (accused No.2) and M.S. Vasanth @ Vasu (accused No.3), overturning a 2013 decision by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri.

---

Background of the Case

The case dates back to 2008, following the tragic death of Deepa, who committed suicide just three months after her marriage to M.S. Vasanth. The prosecution alleged that Deepa was driven to take her own life due to persistent harassment.

The allegations were twofold:

1. Against Accused No. 1 (Punith, since deceased) and Accused No. 2 (Jayalaxmi): They allegedly made threatening phone calls to Deepa, vowing to destroy her marital life.

2. Against Accused No. 3 (Vasanth, the husband): He allegedly ill-treated Deepa for her family's failure to provide a promised gold chain.

Following an investigation, the trial court convicted Punith and Jayalaxmi for abetment of suicide (S.306 IPC) and Vasanth for cruelty (S.498A IPC). The convicts subsequently appealed this decision in the High Court.

---

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellants' counsel, Sri. Ravindra B. Deshpande, argued that the prosecution's case was built on a foundation of sand. He highlighted:

* Lack of Concrete Evidence: There was no reliable proof of ill-treatment or abetment.

* Contradictory Witnesses: Key witnesses, including the deceased's father (PW.1), turned hostile and denied any harassment.

* Unreliable Dying Declaration: The prosecution heavily relied on a statement (Ex.P8) recorded from Deepa in the hospital. The defence questioned its validity, pointing out that a person with 85% burn injuries would be incapable of giving a coherent statement.

* Failure to Investigate: The police never produced telephone call records to substantiate the claims of threatening calls.

The State, represented by Sri. Channappa Erappa, HCGP, maintained that the trial court's conviction was justified. They argued that the persistent harassment by all accused led directly to the suicide and that the dying declaration was validly recorded in the presence of a doctor.

---

Court's Scrutiny and Rationale for Acquittal

Justice Huddar undertook a meticulous evaluation of the evidence, ultimately finding it insufficient to uphold the conviction. The court's reasoning hinged on several key points:

The Standard for Abetment and Cruelty

The judgment reiterated the high legal standard required to prove offences under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. The court cited precedents establishing that:

"Mere making an allegation of abetment to suicide and harassment to a married woman is not sufficient. There must be cogent and acceptable evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the said offences... there has to be evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide."

Failure of Prosecution Evidence

The court systematically dismantled the prosecution's case by analyzing witness testimonies:

* The deceased's own father (PW.1) not only turned hostile but admitted in cross-examination that his daughter and her husband were cordial.

* Other key witnesses, including the deceased's uncle (PW.2) and the husband's brother (PW.4) , also failed to support the prosecution's narrative of harassment.

* Crucially, the court noted the Investigating Officer's failure to collect phone records, stating it was "fatal to the case of the prosecution."

The Issue of Dying Declarations

The court found significant inconsistencies surrounding the alleged dying declarations (Ex.P8 and Ex.D1). The evidence of the doctor (PW.12) was deemed inconsistent regarding the victim's capacity to give a statement, given she had suffered 85% burns. The court observed:

"The evidence of PWs.10 and 12 are quite contrary. Therefore, the very contents of Ex.P8 cannot be considered as dying declaration as rightly submitted by the counsel for the appellants."

The presence of two conflicting dying declarations, without consistent evidence to support either, further weakened the prosecution's case.

---

Final Verdict

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal. Justice Huddar stated:

"Thus, on scrupulous reading of the evidence of the entire prosecution witnesses, the evidence is very much silent with regard to the harassment and ill-treatment to the married woman i.e., deceased Deepa by any of the accused persons... The learned Trial Court has wrongly believed the contents of Ex.P8 and termed the same as dying declaration."

The court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.12.2013 and 17.12.2013, acquitting Smt. Jayalaxmi and M.S. Vasanth of all charges and ordering them to be set at liberty.