The court affirmed that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to abet the suicide, which was lacking in this case.

JUDGMENT :

G BASAVARAJA, J.

The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 12^th April, 2023 passed in SC No.330 of 2014 by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short "the trial Court").

2. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, Police Inspector of Basaveswaranagar Police Station, Bangalore submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC ' for short). It is alleged by the prosecution that, the marriage of the accused was solemnized with Smt. Roopa on 21^st June, 2006 as per the customs prevailed in their community and after their marriage, the accused and deceased started residing in a rented house at Laggere, Bangalore. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with two children. The accused was addicted to bad vices and also had illicit relationship with other woman, and failed to take care of the deceased and her children by not bringing the household articles and was also not paying the school fees of the children. The accused used to assault the deceased under the influence of alcohol by abusing and threatening. The accused used to tell to tell deceased to die by hanging or pouring kerosene. The deceased-Roopa, unable to bear the torture and by feeling hurt and disgusted, between 31^st October and 01^st November, 2013 killed her daughter-Lakshmi and committed suicide by hanging. The accused by subjecting the deceased-Smt. Roopa to mental and physical cruelty, abetted her to commit suicide and thereby committed the offences as alleged.

3.1. After filing the charge sheet, the case was registered in C.C.No.1848/2014. Thereafter, the case was committed to Court of Sessions and was registered in S.C.No.330/2014. The accused was enlarged on bail. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court framed charges against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.2. To prove the guilt of the accused, 19 witnesses were examined as PWs1 to PW19; 28 documents were marked as Ex-P1 to Ex-P28, and six material objects were marked as MOs1 to 6. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

4. Having heard the arguments on both sides, Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC and passed the sentence to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the . Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

5. Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is highly illegal, arbitrary and capricious. There are no valid reasons for conviction. The Trial Court has committed a serious error and there are inconsistencies, material irregularities and illegalities in the impugned judgment. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law