Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
ANIL B. KATTI, J.
The State of Karnataka Through Managuli P.S. Represented by Addl. State public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
Hussaini, S/o. Nabisab Bagalkot – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.200079 Of 2021 C/w Criminal Appeal No.200082 Of 2021
Decided On : 16-12-2022
Abetment - Suicide - IPC Section 306 - The court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant-State challenging the judgment of acquittal passed against accused No.3 in SC No.25/2016 and accused No.1 and 2 in SC No.64/2018. The court confirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The prosecution alleged that the accused abetted the suicide of the deceased by harassing and humiliating him, leading to his suicide. However, the court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish clear mens rea of the accused in provoking the deceased to commit suicide, as required by Section 107 of the IPC. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased committed suicide by hanging himself to a neem tree, allegedly due to harassment and humiliation by the accused. The prosecution relied on oral evidence and documents to prove the charges against the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish clear mens rea of the accused in provoking the deceased to commit suicide. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Issues: i) Whether the judgments of acquittal warrant any interference by the court? ii) What order?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as the evidence presented was insufficient to establish clear mens rea of the accused in provoking the deceased to commit suicide, as required by Section 107 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the appellant-State were dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court was confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant-State in Crl.A.No.200079/2021 is challenging judgment of acquittal passed against accused No.3 in SC No.25/2016 and Crl.A.No.200082/2021 against accused No.1 and 2 in SC No.64/2018 passed by I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayapura dated 21.07.2020.
2. These two appeals are arising out of the case registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 of Managuli PS Crime No.82/2014. The main case is SC No.25/2016 against accused No.3. The split-up charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.64/2018. The Trial Court has disposed of both Sessions case by separate judgment dated 21.07.2020. In order to avoid repetition of evidence on record, both these appeals are taken together for disposal by this common judgment.
3. The parties to the appeals are referred with their ranks as assigned in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience of discussion.
4. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that from 8.00 p.m. of 24.04.2014 to 07.00 a.m. of 24.05.2014, Ameensab Hajisab Dalawai committed suicide by hanging himself to a neem tree situated in the land belonging to Ramanna Jeer at Managuli village. The accused No.1 wife of deceased Ameensab was having illicit intimacy with her relative accused No.2. The accused No.3 being the father of accused No.2 with common intention to grab property of deceased Ameensab were abusing and humiliated by saying "go and die". On account of such abetment caused by all the accused, the deceased Ameensab has committed suicide by hanging himself to a neem tree. On these allegations, the investigating officer has carried out investigation and filed the charge sheet.
5. The trial Court after securing the presence of accused in both the cases on being prima facie satisfied with the material evidence placed on record, has framed Charge against all the accused for the offences alleged against them. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution was called upon to prove the charges leveled against the accused.
6. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of accused No.3 in SC No.25/2016 has relied on oral evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and the documents as per Exs.P1 to P14 so also got identified MO Nos.1 to 5.
7. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.64/2018 has relied on the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and the documents as per Exs.P1 to P12, so also got identified MO Nos.1 to 5.
8. The accused in both the cases have not led any defence evidence. The trial Court after having heard arguments of both sides and on perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed before it, has acquitted the accused in both the cases for the offences punishable under Sections 306 R/w Section 34 of IPC.
9. The appellant-State in both the appeals challenged correctness and legality of acquittal judgment passed by the Trial Court contending that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The material witnesses PW1, PW4, PW6 and PW7 in SC No.25/2016 have supported the case of the prosecution and their evidence has been brushed aside by the Trial Court without assigning convincing reasons. Their admissions in the cross examination on the issue of abetment after recalling cannot be relied for the reason that they have been recalled after turning hostile in the split-up charge sheet. The complainant PW1 in SC No.64/2018 has supported the case of prosecution, though the other witnesses have turned hostile. The available evidence would be sufficient to draw an inference that on account of abetment caused by accused Nos.1 to 3 the deceased Ameensab has committed suicide by hanging himself to the neem tree. The approach and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record. Therefore, prayed for allowing both the appeals and to convict accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charge leveled against them.
10. In response to t
AI
The prosecution must establish clear mens rea of the accused in provoking the deceased to commit suicide, as required by Section 107 of the IPC, to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 306 of....
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, clear evidence of instigation or incitement is required, which was not proven in this case.
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's judgment is perverse or lacks proper reasoning.
To convict under Section 306 IPC, clear proof of active instigation and direct acts leading to suicide is necessary; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
In appeals against acquittal, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish abetment of suicide.
The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under IPC Sections 306 and 498-A; clear evidence of instigation is necessary.
Mere allegations of harassment without proximate actions leading to suicide do not constitute abetment under Section 306 RPC.
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or incitement to suicide is essential; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
