Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAJESH RAI K, J.
Basavaraja, S/o Uddappa Shetty – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 799 of 2014
Decided on : 04-08-2025
Parties: Appellant - Basavaraja (husband of deceased Shobha); Respondent - State of Karnataka. (!) [2]
Background: The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court (S.C. No. 114/2010) under IPC Sections 498-A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide), sentenced to 2 years SI + fine of Rs.5,000/- (default 3 months) for 498-A, and 4 years SI + fine of Rs.20,000/- (default 6 months) for 306 IPC. (!) (!) [6]
Facts: Married 11 years prior to 2010; initially harmonious, but post-partition, appellant allegedly harassed deceased due to alcohol addiction. On 14.05.2010, at ~8 p.m., deceased informed her mother (PW.3) of ill-treatment; at ~11:30 p.m., she locked herself in bedroom, self-immolated with kerosene. PW.6 informed family; PW.1 (brother) filed FIR next day (15.05.2010). Prosecution examined 9 witnesses, marked 18 documents. [2][16] (!)
Appellant's Contentions: Delay in FIR unexplained; contradictions in PW.1/PW.3 evidence (FIR: alcohol; testimony: dowry/male child demands); PW.6 hostile, stated deceased mentally abnormal; no call records/mobile seized; children unexamined; PW.8 (appellant's mother) described quarrel over food, appellant tried to save deceased. No proof of harassment or instigation. [9][10] (!) (!)
Prosecution Contentions: PW.1/PW.3 established harassment driving suicide; appellant present, failed to explain under Evidence Act S.106; corroborated by PW.2,4,5,9. [11][12][18]
Court's Issues: (1) Does judgment suffer perversity/illegality? (2) Justified conviction under 498-A/306 IPC? [13] (!) (!)
Key Findings: - Suicidal death confirmed by autopsy (PW.7, Ex.P14), inquest (Ex.P11, PW.2/8). [14] (!) - No cogent evidence of harassment: Contradictory PW.1/3 testimony; no prior complaints; PW.6/8 denied alcohol/dowry harassment, noted food quarrel, appellant's rescue efforts. [16][17][18][19][20] (!) - No direct/proximate instigation or mens rea for abetment; mere allegations insufficient; prosecution failed beyond reasonable doubt. [19][21][22][24][25][27]
Ratio: Conviction under IPC 306 requires proof of clear mens rea, active instigation/direct acts pushing deceased to suicide; under 498-A, consistent evidence of cruelty needed. Absent here. [22][24][25]
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction/sentence set aside; appellant acquitted. Bail cancelled; fine refunded if paid; records returned. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
ORDER :
RAJESH RAI K, J.
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 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, 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 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 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 rig
Conviction under IPC sections requires clear evidence of instigation; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for charges of abetment of suicide.
Section 306 in Indian Penal Code reads as abetment of suicide.
Abetment of suicide – There has to be clear mens rea to commit offence – Merely on allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to time of occurrence on part of accused ....
To convict under Section 306 IPC, clear mens rea and direct incitement to suicide must be proven, which was absent in this case.
To convict under IPC Sections 498A and 306, credible evidence of cruelty and mens rea must be established; mere quarrels do not suffice.
The judgment establishes the requirement of mens rea for abetment under Section 306 of the IPC and the dependence of cruelty under Section 498A on the consequence of the indictee's acts.
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
