Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
G.BASAVARAJA
State Of Karnataka, Through PSI Golgumbaz P.S, Rpted. By Addl. State Public Prosecutor H.C. Kalaburagi Bench – Appellant
Versus
Rahul Sunil Gosavi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. BASAVARAJA, J.
1. This appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.04.2019 passed in S.C.No.84/2018 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section306 of IPC.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are :
The PSI of Golgumbaz PS submitted a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.306 of IPC before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Vijayapura, who committed the case for disposal in accordance with law.
It is stated by the prosecution that the complainant is the resident of Rani Bagicha CMC Colony, Vijayapura and he is the father of the deceased Sneha. The deceased Sneha and the accused who was residing in the said lane were in love with each other and after coming to know the said fact, the family members of the complainant and the elders of their lane advised both of them. Two years back the accused married another lady and in spite of his marriage, the accused was forcing the deceased-Sneha to marry him and
To sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active involvement by the accused, which was not established in this case.
Appeal against acquittal – When two views are possible, judgment and order of acquittal passed by trial Court should not be interfered with by Appellate Court unless for special reasons.
In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence is paramount, and the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under IPC sections related to abetment of suicide.
The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere with acquittal unless the trial court's conclusion is unreasonable.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, clear evidence of instigation or incitement is required, which was not proven in this case.
The judgment reaffirms the principle of presumption of innocence, the need for clear evidence in cases of abetment of suicide, and the reluctance to disturb a trial court's finding of acquittal unles....
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.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's actions directly abetted the suicide, with evidence of cruelty being essential for conviction under IPC Sections 498-A and 306.
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
