Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 8249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J
SRIDHAR S/O VENKATASWAMAPPA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 48 OF 2015 | S.C.No.35/2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI AMARESH N
For the Respondents:SRI B LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1, SRI MANJUNATH B R, ADVOCATE FOR R2 – ABSENT
To establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to instigate, which was not proved; mere disputes do not suffice.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 306 - Appeal against acquittal - Judgment of acquittal challenged by the complainant, alleging that the respondent's failure to return money and gold led to the deceased's suicide - Court found evidence insufficient to prove abetment, determining the absence of mens rea. (Paras 3, 7, 20)
(B) Abetment - To hold an individual culpable under Section 306, there must be proved intent to instigate, which was not established in this case - A mere quarrel without clear intent does not amount to abetment of suicide. (Paras 10, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's sister, Varalakshmi, committed suicide after the respondent allegedly refused to return money and gold ornaments given for her husband's bail, creating circumstances of distress.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court concluded the respondent's actions did not demonstrate intent to drive the deceased to suicide, upholding the acquittal.
Issues: Whether the trial Court erred in acquitting the accused charged with abetment under Section 306 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere disputes and economic transactions do not directly lead to abetment unless there is clear evidence of instigation or intent to provoke suicidal action.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. acquittal of accused in suicide case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. negation of trial court errors in acquittal. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. definition and criteria for abetment discussed. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. factors affecting suicide and instigation evidence. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. confirmation of acquittal with no grounds for appeal. (Para 20) |
| 7. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 21) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 15.05.2013 passed in S.C. No. 35/2012 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court – II, Chinthamani, whereunder the respondent – accused has been acquitted for offence under Section 306 of IPC.
2. Factual matrix of the case is that P.W.1 – Sridhara has filed a complaint stating that the deceased – Varalakshmi is his sister and she was given in marriage to one Manjunatha, son of Kempanna about 12 years back and out of the wedlock they had a daughter by name Deeksha aged about 11 years. Husband of the deceased, namely, Manjunatha was arrested and was in judicial custody and the respondent - accused – Manjunatha son of Munivenkatappa promised the deceased to get bail for her husband and took money and gold ornaments and the deceased had intimated the same to the complainant. The deceased had also intimated the complainant that when she asked the respondent - accused to return the said golden ornaments and cash, he had quarreled with her and she had intimated the same to her brother – complainant. The complainant received a phone call at 08.00 pm on 29.05.2011 that the deceased – Varalakshmi had committed suicide by hanging in her house. The complainant went and enquired the father-in-law of the deceased, namely, Kempanna and he told the complainant that he enquired with the accused Manjunath regarding return of money and golden ornaments and he refused to return them and quarreled with him. It is stated in the complaint that the respondent - accused is responsible for the death of his sister Varalakshmi.
3. On the basis of the said complaint filed by P.W.1 – brother of the deceased a case came to be registered against respondent - accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC. The Police after investigation filed charge sheet against the respondent - accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC. Said case came to be committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed charge against the respondent - accused for offence under Section 306 of IPC. The prosecution, in order to prove the charge, has examined 9 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked 7 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and material object as M.O.1. Statements of P.W.4, P.W.7 and P.W.8 are marked on behalf of the accused person as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3. Statement of the respondent - accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court after hearing arguments on both sides has formulated points for consideration and passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. Said judgment of acquittal has been challenged by the complainant – P.W.1 in this appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for appellant – complainant and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 remained absent.
5. Learned counsel for appellant – complainant would contend that the death note – Ex.P.2 which has been seized from the house of the deceased is held to be not proved by the trial Court and inspite of that, the trial Court has placed reliance on its contents and observed in the impugned judgment that the deceased was a woman of easy virtue and therefore, she met a tragic end by hanging herself. He submits that said observation of the trial Court is based on a document which has not been proved. He submits that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 will establish that the respondent - accused has quarreled with the deceased and not returned the money and golden ornaments and therefore, she committed suicide.
