Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SMT KANAKA LAKSHMI B M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 4873 / 2025
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
To establish abetment of suicide, there must be clear evidence that acts of the accused directly instigated or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide, and these acts should be proximate to the act itself (!) (!) (!) .
Mere allegations of harassment or misconduct are insufficient unless there is concrete and proximate evidence showing that the accused's actions left the deceased with no other option but to end her life (!) (!) (!) .
The psychological autopsy of the deceased indicates that feelings of entrapment, hopelessness, perceived threats, and humiliation contributed to her decision to commit suicide. These factors suggest that her state of mind was influenced by her perception of injustice and psychological pain (!) (!) .
The act of the accused must have a direct nexus with the suicide, and it must have been committed immediately prior to the act, with the intent to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the accused's conduct, including continuous harassment or provocation, which creates a situation where the victim perceives no alternative but to commit suicide, can constitute abetment. However, words or actions made in anger or without the intent to cause harm may not meet this threshold (!) (!) .
In this case, there is no concrete evidence that the petitioner directly instigated or incited the deceased to commit suicide. The recorded conversations and evidence do not demonstrate acts of instigation or abetment proximate to the time of the deceased's death (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation has been completed, and a draft charge sheet has been prepared. The petitioner’s conduct and psychological autopsy suggest that her actions do not meet the criteria for abetment under the law (!) (!) .
The court considers the petitioner's status as a government servant and the fact that investigation and charges are already underway, which diminishes the likelihood of her fleeing or tampering with evidence. Accordingly, bail has been granted with specific conditions to ensure her presence and prevent interference with witnesses (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal analysis indicates that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The psychological factors and the absence of proximate, concrete acts of instigation support the decision to grant bail.
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused in Crime No.338/2024 registered by Banashankari Police Station, Benglauru City, for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 108 of BNS, 2023 , is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.338/2024 was registered by Banashankari Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the aforesaid offences based on the first information dated 22.11.2024 received from Sangeetha S, sister of deceased Jeeva S. During the course of investigation of the case, petitioner herein was arrested on 11.03.2025 and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody. Bail application filed by her before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Cr.No.338/2024 was rejected on 28.03.2025. Therefore, she is before this Court.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that material on record do not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS, 2023 . In the death note of the deceased, she has not made any allegation of demand for bribe by the petitioner and it is only an improvement by the defacto complainant. He submits that petitioner is a married lady working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, in the Office of CID at Bengaluru. Investigation in the case is already completed. Petitioner's custody is no more required. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned SPP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent No.2 have opposed the petition. They submit that the material on record would go to show that deceased was harassed and ill-treated by the petitioner under the guise of interrogating her. Deceased has left a detailed death note which clearly makes out a case for the alleged offence against the petitioner. Petitioner is a Police Officer and therefore, the chances of she manipulating the records or tampering the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out. Learned SPP submits that eight departmental enquiries were held against the petitioner and she is also involved in two other criminal cases. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.
6. The material on record would go to show that deceased Jeeva was arraigned as an accused in Crime No.56/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , alleging that the accused persons had misappropriated several crores of rupees belonging to the Karnataka Bhovi Development Corporation and out of the said amount, a sum of more than Rs.10 crores allegedly was transferred to the account of the deceased. Petitioner was the Investigation Officer in Crime No.56/2023 and it appears that during the course of investigation in Crime No.56/2023, enquiry notices were issued to deceased Jeeva and thereafter, she had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.8640/2023 and in the said proceedings, it appears that she had filed an affidavit making allegations against the petitioner and also had undertaken to cooperate for the purpose of investigation. This Court on 13.11.2024 had therefore, directed Jeeva (deceased) to appear before the petitioner for interrogation in Crime No.56/2023 for a period of one week commencing from 14.11.2024 to 23.11.2024 and the petitioner was advised to videograph the interrogation and place it before this Court thereafter. The allegation in the first information is that during the course of interrogation, petitioner had ill-treated and tortured the deceased and also had instigated and abetted her to commit suicide. It is alleged in the first information that petitioner had also demanded bribe from the deceased and therefore, deceased was constrained to commit suicide by leaving a death note of eleven pages wherein she has made allegat
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
