Karnataka High Court
Yuvaraj S/O Veerasangappa Vadavadagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 August, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089
CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200056 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
YUVARAJ S/O VEERASANGAPPA VADAVADAGI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCCU: ADVOCATE,
R/O. 1ST EXTENSION,
NEAR BDCC BANK,
MUDDEBIHAL-586 212.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AMIT KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. R.S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by THROUGH THE PSI.,
R HEMALATHA
Location: HIGH
MUDDEBIHAL PS,
COURT OF REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 103.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. F.M. INAMDAR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND THEREBY
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2022 PASSED BY THE
IV ADDL. DIST. SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA IN SESSIONS
CASE NO.36/2019 ON AN APPLICATION U/S. 227 CR.P.C.
FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING DISCHARGE FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.306 IPC DISCHARGE THE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089
CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022
PETITIONER OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM
IN THE CHARGE SHEET IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) The petitioner - accused, who is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, has filed this revision petition challenging the order passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.PC.
2. The summary of the charge sheet is that, on 15.10.2013, the deceased Dinakar Marathe, Senior Advocate at Muddebihal committed suicide by self immolation. Hence, the complainant-son filed a written information to the police and on the basis of which, UDR Case No.37/2013 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.PC. Thereafter, the complainant gave a supplementary information alleging that, the petitioner-accused was responsible for suicidal death of his father, Dinakar. Based on the said supplementary information, a case was registered by the Muddebihal Police Station in Crime No.225/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. In the supplementary statement, the complainant had referred to a suicidal note left -3- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089 CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022 behind by his deceased father, wherein he has pointed out that, the petitioner-accused was the reason behind his suicide.
3. The police, after the investigation, submitted a charge sheet for the aforesaid offence. The petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.PC to discharge him for the aforesaid offence stating that, the charge sheet material does not contain the essential ingredients to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application. Hence, this revision petition.
4. Sri Amit Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel would submit that, in the absence of any material that, the petitioner - accused incited or instigated the deceased to commit suicide, and in the absence of any proximity to the suicidal death of the deceased, the continuation of criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law. In support, he places reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo Varghese -vs- State of Rajasthan and another (2021 SCC OnLine SC 873), Netai Dutta -vs- State of W.B (2005 SCC (Cri) 543 and Mariano Anto Bruno and anr. -vs- The Inspect of Police (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834).
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - defacto complainant would submit that, the death note and the statements of the complainant, the wife of the deceased and purchaser of the land from the petitioner-accused clearly establishes that, the petitioner-accused was responsible for the suicidal death of the -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089 CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022 father of the complainant, and the charge sheet material clearly discloses that, there is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner-accused herein, and at this stage, the various contentions urged by the petitioner can be considered only at the time of trial, and not at this stage and sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard the submissions of the counsels for the parties.
7. The brief factual matrix that emanates from the records is that the de facto complainant Shri. Kedar s/o Dinakar Marathe, had lodged a report at about 2.30 pm, on 15.10.2013, in respect of the unnatural death of his father, Shri. Dinakar Vasudev Marathe, aged 68 years on the basis of which UDR Case No. 37/2018 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. 1973. The deceased-victim was a senior advocate by profession and had committed suicide by way of self immolation on 15.10.2013. The mother of the de facto complainant had disclosed that on the particular day at about 2.15 pm, the deceased-victim had gone to the bathroom of their house to attend nature's call but shortly thereafter started screaming from inside. Thereafter, smoke and flames started emerging from the bathroom, upon which the de facto complainant and his mother were forced to break open the door and were shocked to see the charred body of the deceased-victim.
8. On 19.10.2013, in addition to earlier complaint, the de facto complainant stated in his further statement that upon -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089 CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022 discussion with his mother, he was made aware that the petitioner herein who was earlier a junior in the office of the deceased-victim had stealthily got some documents pertaining to Sy. No. 129, measuring 17 acres and in pursuance, had secured a court decree in his favor through misrepresentation. In furtherance of the same, the de facto complainant stated that the petitioner-accused had been harassing the deceased to get a sale deed executed in his favor through his son for four acres of land, and that if the deceased were to fail in the discharge of the same, the Petitioner would diminish the status of the deceased in the society, etc. Hence, it was alleged that deceased-victim committed suicide compelled by the harassment meted out by petitioner-accused.
9. A death note stating that neither the de facto complainant nor the victim's wife but one Y.V. Vadavadagi (petitioner-accused) is responsible for the death of the deceased, was produced and on the basis of the same, the police had registered a case in crime no. 225/2013 under Section 306 of IPC and have filed the chargesheet.
10. It is pertinent to observe that the de facto complainant had in the first instance, on 15.10.2013 stated that the deceased- victim had been depressed for the past ten days and had stated the deceased-victim had remarked with the complainant's mother that he was not going to live and that his existence was not of any use to anybody.
-6-NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089 CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022
11. Furthermore, the complainant had stated that deceased-victim may have drafted the suicide note attributing the reason behind his suicide to the petitioner-accused, but that he had no complaint or grievance against the petitioner-accused. The complainant had further stated yet again, in the conclusion to the complaint that the deceased-victim had committed suicide owing to the latter's mental depression.
12. In respect of the handwriting expert opinion on the questioned writings in the suicide note, the State Forensic Science Laboratory has opined that the deceased has indeed signed the suicide note but did not express any opinion as to the kannada writings in the suicide note (which had purportedly attributed to the conduct of the petitioner-accused as the instigation behind the commission of suicide), as the prosecution had not made available to the forensic department the admitted kannada writings of the deceased-victim.
13. On the issue of a pre-existing dispute between the petitioner-accused and the deceased-victim, a court decree had awarded the petitioner-accused agricultural lands bearing Sy. No. 129, measuring 7 Acres situated in Kuntoji village, Muddebihal Taluk, Vijaypura Dist., Karnataka.
14. Furthermore, the substance of the chargesheet states that on at about 14.15 hours on 15.10.2013, and on multiple occasions prior to the date of the incident, the petitioner-accused -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089 CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022 had insisted that the deceased-victim convey in his favor, a parcel of land measuring four acres, standing in the name of the complainant, which was in fact, fraudulently transferred to the deceased-victim and the complainant-son by CW-13, namely, Shri. Vijaymahantesh Danappa Khadi. The petitioner-accused had further stated that he was in possession of papers signed by the deceased-victim and that if the latter were to refuse to convey the said property in his favor, he would diminish the status of the deceased-victim in the society. Therefore, the deceased-victim committed suicide, frustrated by the intensified harassment meted out by the petitioner-accused.
15. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent that a reference to the governing provisions be made.
16. Section 306 of IPC states that if any person commits suicide, any person who abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
17. Section 107 of IPC defines 'Abetment of a thing' as follows:
(i) first, a person who instigates any person to do that thing; or
(ii) second, a person who engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089 CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022 pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
(iii) third, a person who intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1 states that a person, who by wilful misrepresentation or by wilful concealment of material fact which was bound to be disclosed, and voluntarily attempts to procure or procures a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2 states that any person who prior to or at the time of the commission of the act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3837 defined the word 'instigate' as to "goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act."
19. In the case of Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal 2005 SCC (Cri) 543, where a suicide note contained a reference to the alleged abettor at two places, but contained no reference of any specific act or incidence whereby the alleged abettor therein had allegedly instigated or aided in the commission of suicide, the Apex -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089 CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022 Court concluded that there was no cogent and convincing proof of any act on part of the petitioner-accused having resulted in the suicide of the deceased-victim.
20. In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 917, the Apex Court elaborated that where the deceased-victim was "undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences" of everyday life, relying on its earlier decision in the case of State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, it further concluded that when such annoyance were not expected to "induce a similarly circumstanced individual in given society" to commit suicide, the accused could not be deemed guilty of the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 307 of IPC, 1872.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Anr (2021 SCC OnLine SC
873) observed in a case of an admitted fact of continued act of indiscipline on part of the deceased teenager student that a suicide note lacking specific and definite substantial allegations of harassment and deliberate insult shall not be adequate to constitute abetment. Mere reprimand for indiscipline by a teacher would not be tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide. It further held that it would be unsafe to hold an accused guilty of the offense of abetment where allegation do not contain a direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of the offense of suicide and mere allegations.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089 CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022
22. The Apex Court in the above case referred to its earlier decision in the case of S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190 where it elucidated that in the absence of proof of mens rea coupled with active or a direct act, leading to the commission of suicide, and the alleged act having been intended to push the victim to commit suicide, the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306 of IPC would not arise. Furthermore, the Apex Court in Geo Varghese placed reliance on its earlier decision in the case of Ude Singh v. State of Harayana (2019) 17 SCC 301, wherein it had illuminated on the essential ingredients as follows:
1) Cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide;
2) Mere allegation of harassment of the deceased is insufficient, unless such action on the part of the accused compelled deceased to commit suicide;
3) Offending action must be proximate to the time of occurrence;
4) Presence of mens rea on part of the accused to be examined with respect to the actual acts and whether such acts were mere incidents of harassment or snap show of anger;
5) Whether the accused created a situation by his continuous course of conduct tarnished the self esteem and self-respect of the deceased-victim, leading the deceased to perceive no other option except to commit suicide;
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089 CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022
6) Whether the deceased victim was of a hypersensitive temperament and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a person to commit suicide;
7) Each case is to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.
23. Furthermore, this Court in the case of Devaraju v. State of Karnataka, Crl.P. No. 9244/2021:DD 14.08.2023, laid down the following essential elements to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC:
1) There must be an intention on part of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
2) There must be a suicidal death and abetmet thereof.
3) There must be continuous harassment meted out by the accused before the death.
4) Such irritation or annoyance must be proximate to the time of the occurrence of death.
24. In the case of Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam AIR 2020 SC 554, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the illustration given in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 that "if the scales of the pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal."
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089 CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022
25. In the case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf & Ors. 2023 SAR (Cri) 689, the Apex Court held at the stage of framing of charge that there cannot be selective reference to some of the statements of some persons recorded during the course of the investigation, and that Court must come to a conclusion to whether frame a charge or to discharge upon comprehensively referring to all the material evidence collected by the investigative agency.
26. It is settled law, propounded in the cases of Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 210 and Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 SCC 704 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that as the science of identification of handwriting has not attained perfection and is susceptible to an incorrect opinion due to honest defect of observation, Courts may insist on substantial corroboration of such expert opinion, either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
27. The Apex court remarked that "expert opinion must always be received with great caution" and that it would be "unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration."
28. Adhering to the ratios enunciated above, the Apex Court in a more recent case of Padum Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2020 SC 447, reiterated that convictions could not
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089 CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022 be based solely on expert opinion, without independent and reliable corroboration.
29. Furthermore, on the issue of framing of charge, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre 1988 1 SCC 692 has postulated that the test for framing of charge is to see whether uncontroverted allegations, as made prima facie, establish the offense as alleged.
30. In the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020) 2 SCC 768, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decisions in the cases of P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2010) 2 SCC 398 : 2010 (1) SCC (Cri) 1488 and State of J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar (1995) 4 SCC 181 and held that while determining a discharge application:
1) The defence of the accused is not to be looked into;
2) The accused can only rely on the materials which are produced by the prosecution;
3) The Court can base its 'grave suspicion' of the accused having committed the alleged offences only in terms of the materials made available by the prosecution;
4) The accused is always at liberty to appeal to the broad probabilities of the case to persuade the Court to discharge him.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089 CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022
31. The relevant facts in the instant case may be recorded, as follows:
(i) the entire chargesheet rests on the alleged suicide note, which lacks specific and definite allegations of the petitioner-
accused's conduct that purportedly led to deceased-victim to commit suicide;
(ii) the handwriting expert did not express any conclusive opinion on the question of authorship of the 'questioned kannada writings' in the suicide note as the investigative agency had not made available any 'admitted kannada writings' of the deceased victim to the forensic science laboratory;
(iii) the investigation has not led to production of any material, in addition to the material that was produced at the stage of the earlier Crl. P. No. 200102/2014, which had been preferred by the petitioner, seeking to quash the complaint and FIR but had been dismissed vide order dated 13.03.2015, so as to afford an opportunity to investigate into the allegation of abetment by the petitioner-accused;
(iv) the deceased-victim was a senior advocate and well- acquainted with use of legal processes to redress grievances arising from disputes, primarily civil and commercial in nature;
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089 CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022
(v) the complaint in the first instance discloses that judgment of deceased-victim was clouded with depression and had on earlier occasions, eight to ten days preceding the date of the incident that he was not going to live, and that he was no longer of any use to anybody;
vi) the impugned order of rejection of the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in S.C. No. 36/2019, dated, 01.10.2022 by the court below observed, "on perusal of documents on record, it appears that, no grave suspicion against the accused is forth coming" but nevertheless concluded that on an overall reading of the evidence on record, it appeared that there was, prima facie, a case to proceed against the petitioner-accused by framing of charge;
32. In the instant case, no proof of the presence of mens rea on part of the accused with respect to the 'repeated incidents of mere insistence on reconveyance' of the said property in his favor by the deceased has been adduced by the prosecution so as to adjudge the purported guilt of the accused. At that, no continuous and proximate conduct of the accused that may have instigated the deceased to commit suicide can made out from the material on record, to give rise to a grave suspicion, warranting continuance of the legal proceedings.
33. A criminal conviction warrants proof beyond reasonable doubt in respect of an alleged criminality. The opinion
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6089 CRL.RP No. 200056 of 2022 of the handwriting expert without substantial corroboration cannot be the sole basis for arriving at a judgment of conviction. Thus, where uncontroverted allegations do not establish the alleged offense, the accused ought to be discharged.
34. In light of the established principles alluded to above, the allegations in the complaint and the contents of the suicide note do not, prima facie bring the case within the fold of section 306 IPC, 1872.
35. Accordingly, I order the following: -
ORDER
i) The revision petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order, dated 01.10.2022 in Sessions Case No.36/2019 passed by the learned IV Addl. District Sessions Judge, Vijayapura rejecting the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, is hereby set aside, and the application is allowed, and consequently, the petitioner is discharged of the offence.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE bkm