This appeal is preferred by the appellants/accused against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C. No. 87/2011 dated 24.03.2012 convicting accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

2. Factual matrix of the appeal is as under :

Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were engaged in chit business. The deceased, Srikanth was also a member of the chit fund business run by the accused. One Ravi Mestru and his mother were also members of the chit. Ravi and his mother had taken the chit amount for which Srikanth stood as surety. But however, the said Ravi mestru and his mother did not repay the monthly installments. Therefore, accused Nos.1 to 4 insisted Srikanth to pay the chit amount since he stood as surety. Accordingly Srikanth was regularly paying the amounts towards the chit. Inspite of it accused Nos.1 to 4 were demanding Srikanth to pay more and more amount. On 21.06.2009 at 8.30 p.m. accused Nos. 1 to 4 are said to have come to the house of Srikanth and quarreled with him stating that he had not paid the chit amount of Ravi Mestru and his mother. Inspite of Srikanth promising to pay the said amount the accused persons had assaulted him and abused him in vulgar language. Srikanth who was very much ashamed and embarrassed due to the act of the accused, being unable to tolerate the situation he is said to have committed suicide on 22.06.2009 at about 11.00 p.m. by hanging himself in his room situated at Mysore. It is the accused persons who had abetted Srikanth to commit suicide. In pursuance of the act of the accused a complaint came to be filed by P.W.3 Shanthamma, the mother of the deceased and the crime came to be registered by P.W.8 by recording an FIR as per Ex.P.11. Subsequently the case was taken up for investigation by the aforesaid I.O. who has investigated the entire case by conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased as per Ex.P.1 and also by conducting a mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and other mahazars as per Exs.P. 3 and P. 9 in the presence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and so also P.W.6 and P.W.10 respectively.

3. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 R/w 34 IPC wherein the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. In order to establish the guilt of the accused the prosecution in all examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and got marked several documents as Exs.P.1 to P.12 apart from getting marked M.O.1 to M.O.5. Ex.D.1 was got marked for the defence side. Subsequently, the court below on hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and defence counsel and on appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offences under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for the State.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has taken me through the evidence of P.W.3, the mother of the deceased Srikanth and also the complainant who has filed a complaint as per Ex.P6. Based upon her complaint crime came to be registered and P.W.8 investigated the case and laid a charge sheet against the accused.

The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Trial Court did not consider the plea of the accused that the demand of chit amount does not attract the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC. In a catena of cases the Supreme Court has held that demand of loan will not be an instigation to commit suicide. Further out of 11 witnesses examined for the prosecution P.W.1 a recovery mahazar witness has turned hostile and has not proved the seizures of M.O.1 to M.O.4 under Ex.P.1 and the death note Ex.P.5 under Ex.P.2. Similarly, P.W.2 wh