Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Tabrej @ Mohammed Tabrrez Pasha on 9 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 9 th day of September 2019
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions &
Special Judge, Bengaluru.
S.C.No:757/2013
Complainant The State by
Hennur Police Station,
Bengaluru.
By Special Public Prosecutor
Vs
Accused 1 Tabrej @ Mohammed Tabrrez Pasha
S/o Mohammed Hanif, 22 years,
R/at Razak Palya, Bagalur Post,
Bengaluru.
2 Tabrej @ Afroz Pasha, S/o Abdul
Khuddus, 40 years, R/at
Shidlaghatta, Kolar District.
3 Mohammed Muktiyar @ Nadeem, 20
years, R/at Razak Palya, Bagalur
Post, Bengaluru.
4 Mohammed Hanif S/o
B.K.Mohammed Gouse, 56 years,
R/at Razak Palya, Bagalur Post,
Bengaluru. (Dead)
SC. No. 757/2013
2
5 Syed @ Sardar Khan S/o Proo Khan,
38 years, R/at Razak Palya, Baglur
Post, Bengaluru.
6 Imtiyaz Pasha S/o Abdul Khuddus,
29 years, R/at Razak Palya, Bagalur
Post, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. M.G.S. Adv. for A1 to 3, 5,
A4 Abated, Sri. M.R.H. Adv. For A6)
1 Date of commission of offence 13.03.2012
2. Date of report of occurrence 14.03.2012
3. Date of commencement of 05.07.2018
recording evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence 17.07.2019
5. Name of the complainant Dayanand
6. Offences complained of U/Sec. 306 r/w 149 of
IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of The
Scheduled Castes and
The Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities)
Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge Accused are acquitted.
JU DG M E NT
A charge sheet is filed by the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, K.R. Puram Sub-Division, Bengaluru city against the
accused No.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Section
SC. No. 757/2013
3
306 r/w 149 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes
and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. During the pendency of this case accused No.4 died.
Hence, case against accused No.4 abated as per order dt.
12.2.2016. This case which was pending before II Addl. City
Civil and Sessions Court and Special Court, Bengaluru
transferred to this exclusive special court as per Notification
ADM I (A) 599/2017.
3. The case of the prosecution is as under:
CW.1/Sri. Dayanand @ Babu is the first informant
before Hennur Police. CW.1 is the father of deceased Sindhu
Rani. They belongs to Scheduled Caste. Accused persons are
belongs to Muslim community. CW.1 his daughter and wife
are all residing at A.K. Colony, Hennur village, Bengaluru.
The deceased Sindhu Rani and accused No.1 who were
working in Delhi Public School situated at Bhagalur loving
each other. On 9.3.2012 Sindhu Rani went for regular work
in Delhi Public School and thereafter did not returned till
12.3.2012 to the house of CW.1. On 10.3.2012 in the evening
accused No.2 and 3 who came near house of CW.1 told that
SC. No. 757/2013
4
accused No.1 and Sindhu Rani loving each other hence their
marriage to be performed, for which CW.1 and his wife CW.5
agreed. It is further case of the prosecution that accused
No.1 and Sindhu Rani themselves married in Rajak-Sha-Sab
Darga situated at Rajak Palya. Thereafter on the same day
afternoon accused No.2 to 6 abused Sindhu Rani in the name
of caste by opposing her marriage with accused No.1.
Accused No.1 to 6 abused Sindhurani and assaulted her with
hands and said that they don't need her. Accused abated her
to go and die. Hence, Sindurani came to her father's house
i.e., CW.1's house at 8.00 PM on 12.3.2012 and narrated
about the incident to CW.1. On 13.3.2012 at about 6.00
A.M., Sindurani committed suicide by pouring kerosene on
herself and litting fire in the house of CW.5 who is the
grandmother of deceased. Immediately Sindhurani was
shifted to Victoria Hospital for treatment, but she could not
survive. Sindhurani succumbed to burn injuries at 9.15 PM
while taking treatment in the Victoria Hospital. Based on the
first information statement lodged by CW.1 on 14.3.2012 at
9.00 a.m., case in Crime No. 65/2012 registered against the
SC. No. 757/2013
5
accused in Hennur Police Station. The Investigation Officer
after collecting all the material on completion of investigation
has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the
aforesaid offences.
4. Accused persons are all on bail. charge sheet copies
furnished to the accused and thereby the provision u/s 207
of Cr.P.C.
5. On 31.10.2017 charges are framed against the
accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 306 r/w 149
of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for which
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. During trial, the prosecution has examined 10
witnesses as PW.1 to PW.10 and got marked the documents
Ex.P1 to Ex.P31 and got marked MO1 to MO3. The
documents Ex.P3 to Ex.P8 are marked by consent on the side
of learned counsel for the accused. During the course of
cross-examination of PW.7 documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2
portion of statement are marked. Out of 23 witnesses cited in
the charge sheet only 10 witnesses are examined.
SC. No. 757/2013
6
7. On 29.7.2019 the statement of the accused No.1 to 3,
5, 6 as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., is
recorded by putting all the incriminating circumstances
available in the prosecution evidence to them. The accused
persons have denied all the incriminating evidence on the
side of the prosecution. The accused persons have not lead
any defence evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments of the learned Special
Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused
and also perused the entire case papers.
9. The following points that arise for my consideration
are as under:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that accused No.1 and
deceased Sindhurani who loving each other
on 9.3.2012 ran away and on 12.3.2012 they
married in Darga situated at Rajakpalya.
Accused persons mentally and physically
harassed Sindhurani on the ground that she
belongs to Scheduled Caste and abused her
in the name of caste and beat her and said
that you go and die and thereby instigated
SC. No. 757/2013
7
her to commit suicide and thereby Sindurani
on 13.3.2012 at 6.00 A.M. committed suicide
in the house of CW.5 by pouring kerosene
and litting fire and thereby the accused
persons have committed the offence
punishable under section 306 r/w 149 of
IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused not being
the members of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribes abused and insulted and
humiliated the deceased Sindhurani who
belongs to Scheduled Caste by naming her
caste and thereby the accused persons have
committed the offence punishable under
section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Schedule
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
3) What order?
10. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point NO.1: In the Negative
Point NO.2: In the Negative
Point NO.3: As per final order
for the following:
SC. No. 757/2013
8
REASONS
11. Point No.1 and 2: These two points are taken up
together for discussion for the sake of convenience and in
order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
12. The death of the deceased due to burn onjuries is
not in dispute. CW.1/PW.1 is the father of the deceased. It is
not in dispute that the deceased and accused No.1 who were
working in Delhi Public School loving with each other. The
documents Ex.P3 P.M. Report, Ex.P4 Inquest Panchanama,
Ex.P5 Report of the Tahasildar regarding the caste of
deceased, Ex.P6 intimation sent by the doctor of Victoria
Hospital to the police, Ex.P7 death intimation, Ex.P8, Copy of
Requisition given by PSI to CMO of Victoria Hospital are all
marked by consent of the learned counsel for the accused.
Thereby the accused have not disputed that death of the
deceased is due to shock consequent to burn injury
sustained. In Ex.P3 PM report the doctor has given opinion
that the death is due to shock consequent to burn injury
sustained. The accused persons have not disputed the
document Ex.P2 spot mahazar and seizure of M.O.1 Kerosene
SC. No. 757/2013
9
bottle, M.O.2 burnt clothes, M.O.3 Match box,. The oral
evidence of PW.5 who registered the case based on Ex.P1
complaint lodged by PW.1 complainant and thereafter
conducted panchanama as per Ex.P2 is remained
unchallenged as learned counsel for the accused has not
cross-examined PW.5.
13. PW.1 Dayanand @ Babu is the first informant before
the police and father of deceased Sindurani. He has deposed
in his examination-in-chief that he belongs to Adi Karnataka
Caste comes under Scheduled Caste. In the year 2012 his
daughter Sindurani was working in Delhi Public School.
Accused No.1 was also working in the same school. His
daughter and Sindurani were loving each other. On 9.4.2012
at about 6 a.m., his daughter went for regular work to the
school but did not returned till evening. Hence, he enquired
with his known persons but could not traced out his
daughter. On the next day on10 th brother of accused No.1
and accused No.5 came near his house and threatened him
that his daughter and accused No.1 went somewhere if he
fails to trace out them he has to face dire consequences. On
SC. No. 757/2013
10
11.4.2012 uncle of accused No.1 called him to Hebbal and
said that the marriage of his daughter to be performed with
accused No.1 for which he consented. PW.1 has deposed that
on 12.3.2012 after noon his daughter Sindurani informed
him over phone that accused No.1 and his relatives abusing
her in the name of caste and assaulted her and said her to go
and die. PW.1 has deposed that his daughter came to his
house at 8.00 p.m. and said that she married with accused
No.1 in Masjid and also narrated about abuse and assault
made by the accused. PW.1 has deposed that his daughter
Sindurani went to her grandmother Ramakka's house in
order to sleep. On 13.3.2012 at about 7.30 a.m., cw.4
Ramakka informed him that his daughter set fire herself by
pouring kerosene. Hence, immediately he rushed to the
house of CW.4 and tried to drouse the fire and thereafter
shifted his daughter to Victoria Hospital. His daughter died
in Victoria Hospital at 9.30 PM. On 14.3.2012 he has lodged
the complaint to the police as per Ex.P1. The police visited to
the spot and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P2 and seized
M.O.1 to M.O.3.
SC. No. 757/2013
11
14. During his cross-examination PW.1 admits that he
is residing in Hennur and accused are residing at Rajakpalya
which is at distance of 20 KM. PW.1 admits that he has not
seen the accused prior to the death of his daughter. He
admits that he has seen the accused persons first time in the
police station. He do not know the names of the accused. He
has deposed that he came to know through one Vijayakumari
that his daughter loving with accused No.1. Thereafter he
advised his daughter not to continue to love the accused
No.1. He has deposed that he had not made any efforts to
lodge missing complaint from 9.3.2012 to 12.2.2012 about
missing of his daughter. He has also not lodged any
complaint to the police on 13.3.2012 soon after his daughter
committed suicide. He has not given any statement before
the doctor by stating the reason for his daughter committing
suicide. PW.1 has denied the suggestion that due to quarrel
made by him with his daughter she had committed suicide.
PW.1 deposed that he do not know how accused No.2 to 6 are
related to Accused No.1. He has denied all other suggestions
made to him.
SC. No. 757/2013
12
15. PW.2. Babujaan has completely turned hostile to the
case of the prosecution by deposing that he do not know the
accused and the deceased. He do not know anything about
this case. In his presence the marriage of accused No.1 was
not taken place. He has not given any statement before the
police. Even though learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-
examined PW.2 in detail nothing is elicited from his mouth to
support the case of the prosecution. PW.2 has denied of
giving any statement before the police as per Ex.P9.
16. PW.3 Kalim has also turned hostile to the case of
the prosecution. He has deposed that he knows the accused
but do not know the deceased Sindurani. In Rajak Sha Darga
the marriage of accused No.1 was not performed. He do not
know about Sindurani. He has not given any statements
before police. Having turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-
examined PW.3 in detail. In his cross-examination PW.3 has
denied of giving statement before the police as per Ex.P10.
Nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW.3 to support the
case of the prosecution.
SC. No. 757/2013
13
17. PW.4 Y.K. Thimmaiah was the Head Constable has
deposed that he was guarded the dead body of the deceased
while conducting inquest mahazar by Tahasildar and while
conducting Postmortem by the doctor in the Victoria Hospital.
The oral evidence of PW.4 is formal in nature.
18. PW.5 Gopinath, PSI has deposed that on 14.3.2012
on the basis of Ex.P1 complaint lodged by PW.1 he has
registered the case in Crime No.65/2012 and sent Ex.P11 FIR
to the court. On the same day he visited to the house
No.116/H and conducted the spot panchanama as per Ex.P2
and seized M.O.1 to M.O.3. He has received Ex.P7 death
intimation from Victoria Hospital. He has sent requisition to
Tahasildar to conduct inquest panchanama. The chief-
examination version of PW.5 remained unchallenged as
learned counsel for accused not cross-examined this witness.
19. PW.6 Ramakrishna is the circumstantial witness
has deposed that on 9.3.2012 Sindurani went to school for
regular work. On 12.3.2012 PW.1 brought his daughter from
Hunasamaranahalli to his house. On 10.3.2012 the accused
who came to Hennur quarrelled with PW.1. On 13.3.2012
SC. No. 757/2013
14
Sindurani committed suicide. The police visited to the house
and conducted Ex.P2 panchanama and seized M.O.1 to
M.O.3. During the course of cross-examination by the
learned counsel for the accused PW.6 admitted the suggestion
that he has not personally seen the incident to say that
accused persons quarrelled with PW.1. He could not
identified the accused before the court.
20. PW.7 Vijayalaxmi has deposed that she was working
in Delhi Public School in the year 2012. During that year
accused No.1 and Sindurani were also working in that school.
Accused No.1 and Sindurani were loving each other. She had
advised the Sindurani not to continue the love affairs because
she belongs to Scheduled Caste and accused No.1 belongs to
Muslim community. When she advised accused No.1 and
Sindurani at that time accused No.1 told that he will
persuade his family members for marriage and will marry
Sindurani. PW.7 has deposed that she informed about the
love affairs of accused No.1 and Sindurani to CW.1 and CW.5
parents of Sindurani. She has deposed that she came to
know that on 9.3.2012 accused No.1 and Sindurani in order
SC. No. 757/2013
15
to marry went to Hunasemaranahalli. PW.7 has deposed
that on 11.3.2012 at about 5.30 to 6.00 pm accused No.2 to 6
who came near her house quarrelled with her asking
whereabout of Sindurani and accused No.1. Then she told to
accused No.2 to 6 that she do not know their whereabouts.
She has deposed that on 10.3.2012 she came to know
through her neighbour that accused No.1 married to
Sindhurani. On 12.3.2012 she came to know that Sindurani
came to her house. Hence at about 9.30 to 10.00 pm she
went to the house of Sindurani. At that time, Sindurani told
her that accused No.1 married her in Hunasemaranahalli
Masjid. Sindurani told her that after her marriage accused
No.2 to 6 who came there quarrelled with her abused her
saying that she belongs to lower caste and assaulted her and
abused her saying go and die and leaving her in that place all
the accused went away. Thereafter his father brought her
from Hunasemaranahalli Masjid to her house. Thereafter on
13.3.2012 at about 8.30 AM when she returned from her
work she came to know that Sindurani committed suicide.
SC. No. 757/2013
16
21. During the course of her cross-examination by
learned counsel for accused portion of her statement u/s 161
of CrPC is marked at Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. She admits that
while accused No.1 loving Sindurani accused No.1 knows that
Sindurani belongs to Scheduled Caste. She admitted the
suggestion that she has seen the accused No.3 first time
before the court earlier to that she was not seen the accused
No.3. PW.7 admitted the suggestion that when she advised
Sindurani then Sindurani stated she will marry accused No.1.
PW.7 has deposed that Sindurani has not stated the names of
the persons who quarrelled with her but stated before her
that the supporters of the accused No.1 quarrelled with her.
PW.7 admitted the suggestion that Sindurani is very mild and
highly sensitive lady. She has denied the suggestion that
Sindurani already married with another person and had a
female baby. PW.7 has denied all other suggestions made to
her.
22. PW.8 Krishna, Head Constable has deposed that on
22.3.2012 ACP, K.R. Puram deputed him and CW.15, CW.16
to trace out the accused. Hence, they apprehended the
SC. No. 757/2013
17
accused Mohammed Tabrez Haneef, Syed Su@ Sardar Khan
and Imthiyaz Pasha at 10.30 AM at Rajak Palya Bus Stand
and produced before I.O.,
23. PW.9 Riyzuddin Bhagwan who was working as PSI
of Hennur Police Station has deposed that on 13.3.2012 he
has received Ex.P6 intimation from Victoria Hospital. Hence,
he visited to the hospital and given requisition to the doctor to
know whether victim is fit condition to give statement. On
the same day he has sent requisition to the Tahsildar to
record the statement of victim. He has deposed that the
doctor has endorsed on Ex.P8 that the victim is not in a
position to give any statement. During the course of his
cross-examination by the defence nothing is elicited from his
mouth to discard his version.
24. PW.10 Dr. D. Narayanaswamy, ACP has deposed
that on 14.3.2012 he took up the case file from CW.20 for
further investigation. He has recorded the statement of
CW.18, CW6, CW.3, CW.2. On 22.3.2012 CW.14 to CW.15
have produced A1, A4, A5, A6 before him. Hence, he has
arrested these accused. He has recorded the voluntary
SC. No. 757/2013
18
statement given by Accused No.1. On 23.3.2012 he has
received Ex.P3 Inquest Panchanama and Ex.P4 P.M. Report.
On 7.7.2012 he has sent M.O.1 to M.O.3 to the FSL Madivala,
Bengaluru. On 9.8.2012 he has received Ex.P5 report of the
Tahsildar about caste of the deceased. On 20.1.2013 he has
recorded statements of PW.2, PW.3. On 21.1.2013 he has
received Ex.P3 MLC extract. He has received Ex.P25 photo of
A1 and deceased Sindurani from mother of deceased. He has
collected Ex.P27 to Ex.P31 photos of the dead body of the
deceased which was taken at the time of conducting Inquest
Panchanama by the Tahsildar. He after completion of
investigation has filed the charge sheet against the accused.
The document Ex.P16 DCP order marked through PW.10.
During the course of his cross-examination by the learned
counsel for the accused PW.10 has denied the suggestion that
without authority he started to conduct investigation. He
admits that PW.7 has given statement as per Ex.D1 and
Ex.D2. He has denied all the suggestions made to him.
25. Based on the above evidence, it is necessary to
examine as to whether the prosecution has proved the
SC. No. 757/2013
19
charges framed against the accused for the offences u/s 306
r/w 149 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
26. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that
PW.1 who is the father of the deceased who lodged his
complaint as per Ex.P1 deposed regarding the instigation
made by the accused to the deceased to commit suicide. She
argued that PW.6 and PW.7 who are neighbours of PW.1
supported the case of the prosecution. PW.10 is the
Investigation Officer who conducted the investigation and
filed the charge sheet. She argued that the prosecution has
proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt.
27. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that
PW.1 has lodged the complaint after the death of the
deceased. There is delay in lodging the complaint. None of
the witnesses have deposed about where and when the
accused No.2 to 6 assaulted the deceased and abused her
touching her caste. Except PW.1 and PW.7 no other
SC. No. 757/2013
20
independent witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution. PW.10/I.O., without appointing him by DCP as
Investigation Officer started investigation in contravention of
rule 7 of SC/ST (POA) Rules. PW.1 has not deposed anything
about the accused persons knows about his caste. PW.1 has
improved the version by stating that his daughter called the
accused No.1 on 13.3.2012 over phone in morning hours.
PW.1 has not deposed about the presence of PW.7 in his
house on 12.3.2012. PW.1 in his cross-examination clearly
stated that he has not seen the accused prior to death of his
daughter. PW.7 has also deposed that she was not seen
accused No.3. PW.7 has admitted the suggestion that the
deceased was very sensitive nature lady. He argued that
there is no cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to
show that accused No.1 married to Sindurani in Darga. PW.2
and PW.2 have completely turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution. He argued that as PW.1 and his family members
opposed to love affairs of the deceased with accused No.1
hence for for that reason deceased died. He submitted in
Ex.P8 requisition it is mentioned regarding accidental burn
SC. No. 757/2013
21
injuries sustained by the deceased. He submitted that there
is no cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to attract
Section 306 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
There is no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. He
submitted the prosecution has failed to prove the case against
the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
28. The learned counsel for the accused relied upon
following decisions: -
1) 2011 Cr.R. 579 (Kant.) in Eswarachari @ Eshanna vs.
State of Karnataka to contend that Sec. 306 0 Abetment
of suicide - No conviction can be passed on vague and
ambiguous statement of witnesses which are of
omnibus nature - Section 306 IPC is attracted only
when one person conspires or assists or instigates
other, in commission of suicide of later.
2) (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 917 in Gangula
Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh to contend
that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing - Without a positive act on the part of accused to
SC. No. 757/2013
22
instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot
be sustained - In order to convict a person under S.
306, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence
- It also requires an active act or direct act which leads
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this
act must have been intended to push deceased into
such a position that he commits suicide - Also,
reiterated, if it appears to court that a victim committing
suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, dicord
and differences in domestic life quite common to society
to which victim belonged and such petulance, discord
and differences were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced individual in a giving society to commit
suicide, conscience of court should not be satisfied for
basing a finding that accused charged of abetting
suicide should be found guilty - Herein, deceased was
undoubtedly hypertensive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences which happen in day-to-day life
- In facts and circumstances of case, none of the
SC. No. 757/2013
23
ingredients of offence under S. 306 made out - Hence,
appellant's conviction, held, unsustainable.
3) He relied upon decision reported in 2016 Cr.R. 423
(Kant.) in Sikander @ Gouruba vs. State of Karnataka to
contend Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - Appeal
against conviction - Act of abetment plays a vital role -
Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing - Without a positive act on part of accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot
be directed/attracted, much less sustained - While
examining prosecution case, it has to be found out
whether there was an active and direct role of accused
which led deceased to commit suicide seeing no option -
It is for prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable
doubts active or direct role of accused with regard to
alleged trial.
4) 2010(4) Crimes 101 (SC) in S.S. Cheena vs. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan and another to contend that Sec. 306 of IPC -
SC. No. 757/2013
24
Ingredients of abetment is not attracted merely on the
statement of the deceased.
5) AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1998 in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh
Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh to contend that
Section 306, 107 - Abetment of suicide - Proof - Quarrel
between accused and deceased - Accused telling
deceased to 'go and die' - That itself would not
constitute ingredient of 'instigation' - Presence of mens
rea is necessary concomitant of instigation - Fact that
deceased committed suicide after two days of quarrel
during which said words were uttered by accused -
Would show that suicide was not direct result of quarrel
- Suicide note left by deceased showing that he was in
great stress and depression - Statement by his wife that
he was frustrated man and was in habit of drinking -
Held, charge sheet framed under S. 306 against
accused was liable to be quashed as ingredients of
abetment were totally absent.
6) 2007 (4) AIR Kar. R 307 (SC) in Bhagwan Das vs.
Kartar Singh and others to contend that "Abetment of
SC. No. 757/2013
25
suicide - Harassment of wife by husband or in-laws due
to differences - Per s does not attract Section 306 read
with Section 107 IPC, if the wife commits suicide - For a
charge under S. 306 there has to be some thing more.
7) 2018 (3) KCCR 2731 in Gangadhar and another vs. The
State of Karnataka by Rural Police Station, Shimoga to
contend that - Section 306 - Suicide - Suicide is a
process wherein a person gets dejected over his / her
life and decides to bid adieu to the planet. The person
who commits suicide becomes victim of the
circumstances. When hopes are shattered, no chance
of seeing a better situation, gets depressed and come to
a irreconcilable conclusion that death is the only
alternative and resorts to extreme step. It is the mental
attitude that a person decides to die and it is the
instigation to commit suicide when the mental state is
inducted by others in which event they would be
committing instigation to commit suicide. The maturity
lies in controlling emotions and when a person gets
defeated by emotions, becomes distressed, enters the
SC. No. 757/2013
26
state of thoughtless mind and in that depressing mood
he/she commit suicide. In this connection, the reasons
for instigation to commit suicide cannot be judged
exclusively from the point of a person who commits
suicide or the person against whom instigation is
alleged, the accused in this case. The personality of the
victim may be very hard, may not get bogged down to
any kind of pressure, disturbance or annoying
situations. On the other hand, a person may be hyper
sensitive to get confused and depressed and in that
desperate may commit suicide and in so far as the
person who instigates may be unmindful of his act and
the impossible impact on the person and the chances of
the later taking extreme step. Thus, in case of offence
relating to instigation to commit suicide an independent
assessment only would tell whether that act of the
accused really instigated the victim to commit suicide.
In the instant case the very words or act of the accused
towards the victim do not possess the effect of throwing
the victim to spot centre of suicide. In the normal
SC. No. 757/2013
27
circumstances, in any family, when an incident like the
marriage of a member with a person who is not
agreeable to family or who is already husband of
another lady or when the bridegroom is unreasonably of
higher age. There were even exchange of heated words
and passing abuses, they cannot be treated as those
who pushed the victim to commit suicide unless the
accused carried out dreaded acts and torture the victim.
Thus, the instigation should be of such kind wherein
the victim is put into such a platform wherein he/she
will not have any option but to commit suicide.
Emotional, sentimental, or ego factor or any ironical
words cannot be termed as cause for committing
suicide. The hyper sensitive nature of the victim for
resorting to extreme step as in the circumstances of
failing in examinations, failed love affair, lack of
employment and apprehending risk, committing suicide.
They cannot be regarded as the said offence. There is
an old saying in rural side that if a person secures a
rope with an intention of committing suicide some how
SC. No. 757/2013
28
the rope does not allow that person to come out of his
decision die. Incidentally it also refer to a situation that
when a person develops suicidal tendency it will be
difficult to come out of the same. Reference made to
meaning given in Google."
29. I have appreciated the rival contentions and also
gone through the decisions cited by the learned counsel for
the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has mainly
relied upon the evidence of PW.1, PW.6, PW.7 and PW.10 I.O.
Admittedly, PW.1, PW.6 and PW.7 are not eye witnesses.
PW.1 and PW.7 have stated in their examination-in-chief that
accused No.1 was in love with the deceased deceased
Sindhurani as they were working in the same school in Delhi
Public School. PW.1 and PW.7 have deposed that they have
advised deceased Sindhurani not to love with accused No.1 as
she belongs to Scheduled Caste and accused No.1 belongs to
Muslim community. It has come in the evidence of PW.1 and
PW.7 that inspite of their advise deceased Sindhurani
continued her love affairs with accused No.1 and she was not
heeded to their words. PW.7 in her examination-in-chief itself
SC. No. 757/2013
29
has stated that the accused No.1 who belongs to Muslim
community knows about the caste of Sindhurani. During the
course of her cross-examination also PW.7 has admitted the
suggestion that accused No.1 who knows that Sindurani
belongs to Scheduled Caste loving her. PW.7 also admitted
the suggestion that when she advised Sindhurani not to love
accused No.1 then Sindhurani told her that she would love
accused No.1. It is the case of the prosecution is that
accused No.1 and Sindhurani went away on 9.3.2012. PW.1
has deposed that on 9th his daughter who went to school for
regular work did not returned. Thereafter on the next day on
10th the brother of the accused and another accused No.5
came near his house and threatened him that if he fails to
trace out the accused No.1 and his daughter to face with dire
consequences. PW.1 has deposed that on 11 th as the uncle of
accused No.1 called him to Hebbal, he went to Hebbal and
talked with the uncle of the accused No.1 and agreed to
perform the marriage of his daughter with accused No.1. It is
pertinent to note that the oral evidence of PW.7 is not
corroborating with the oral evidence of PW.1 because PW.7
SC. No. 757/2013
30
has deposed that on 11.3.2012 at about 5.30 to 6 PM the
accused No.2 to 6 came near her house and quarrelled with
her asking whereabouts of accused No.1 and Sindhurani.
PW.1 has not deposed anything about the accused No.2 to 6
have came near his house on 11.3.2012 and quarrelled with
him. It is pertinent to note that during the course of his
cross-examination of PW.1 he admits that he has not seen the
accused No.1 to 6 prior to the death of his daughter
Sindhurani. PW.1 has admitted the suggestion that he has
first time seen the accused persons in the police station.
Under such circumstances it is very difficult to believe the
oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.7 that accused No.2 to 7 came
near the house of PW.7 and quarrelled with her on 11.3.2012.
Even in the cross-examination of PW.7 she has stated that
she was not seen the accused No.3 prior to seeing him before
this court. The Investigation Officer PW.10 who has filed the
charge sheet in the charge sheet itself mentioned that on
10.3.2012 in the evening accused No.2 and 3 who came near
the house of CW.1 told that accused No.2 and Sindhurani
loving each other. Hence, their marriage to be performed by
SC. No. 757/2013
31
CW.1 and his wife, CW.5 for which they agreed. But quite
contrary to the case of the prosecution PW.1 has deposed that
on 10th the brother of the accused No.1 and accused No.5
came near his house and threatened him dire consequences if
he fails to trace out accused No.1 and his daughter. There is
no corroboration in the oral evidence of PW1 & PW7 regarding
the previous incidents previous to the death of Sindhurani.
30. PW.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that he
do not know the name of accused persons. He admitted the
suggestion that he was not seen the accused persons prior to
the death of his daughter Sindhurani. PW.1 has deposed that
he has not made any efforts to lodge missing complaint from
9.3.2012 to 12.2.2012 about missing of his daughter. He has
also not lodged any complaint to the police and on 13.3.2012
soon after his daughter Sindhu Rani attempted to commit
suicide. Admittedly Sindhurani sustained burn injuries on
13.3.2012 in the morning hours and she succumbed to the
injuries while taking treatment in the Victoria Hospital on the
same day at about 9.30 PM. PW.1 has lodged his complaint
as per Ex.P1 on the next day on 14.3.2012. If at all his
SC. No. 757/2013
32
daughter Sindhurani narrated about the incident of abuse
and assault made by the accused to her, under such
circumstances immediately after coming to know about this
incident PW.1 would have lodge the complaint or immediately
after his daughter attempted to commit suicide he would have
lodged the complaint to the police. PW.1 has not deposed
anything about in which place and where and at what time
the accused persons abused Sindhurani in the name of caste
and assaulted her with hands. PW.1 has simply stated that
Sindhurani who came to his house on 12.3.2012 at about 8
PM narrated him that accused No.1 married her in the Masjid
and also narrated that thereafter the accused persons abused
her in the name of caste assaulted her. It is the case of the
prosecution is that CW.1/PW.1 himself went near the Masjid
and brought Sindhurani to his house but quite contrary to
the case of the prosecution, PW.1 has deposed that his
daughter Sindhu Rani came to his house at about 8 PM on
her own. PW.1 has not deposed anything about where
actually the incident of alleged assault and abuse was taken
place. PW.7 has deposed that Sindhurani told her on
SC. No. 757/2013
33
12.3.2012 at about 9.30 to 10 PM that she married with
accused No.1 in Hunasemaranahalli Masjid and thereafter
after the marriage the accused No.2 to 4 who came there and
quarrelled with her and abused her saying that she belongs to
lower caste and assaulted her and also abused her saying go
and die and left her alone in that place and went away. First
of all PW.1 has not deposed anything about the presence of
PW.7 in his house when Sindhurani returned to his house;
secondly PW.1 has not deposed anything about he was
brought his daughter Sindhurani from Hunasemaranahalli
Masjid to his house. PW.1 has deposed that Sindhurani who
narrated about the incident to him at about 8 PM and
thereafter she went to her grandmother's house i.e., CW.4's
house in order to sleep. PW.1 has not deposed anything
about PW.7 Vijayalakshmi came to his house and talked with
Sindurani on 12.3.2012. Admittedly, the burn injuries were
sustained by Sindurani in the house of CW.4 who is the
grandmother of Sindurani. PW.1 has not deposed anything
about whether his daughter Sindurani used to sleep in he
house of CW.4 regularly. Admittedly CW.1 and CW.4 are
SC. No. 757/2013
34
residing in the separate house. There is no clear evidence on
the side of the prosecution what made Sindurani to go and
sleep in the house of CW.4. The learned counsel for the
accused rightly argued that PW.1 in his examination-in-chief
made certain improvements. PW.1 has deposed that his
daughter Sindurani talked with accused No.1 over phone in
the morning hours on 13.3.2012 and at that time the accused
persons abused her over phone. There is no such mention in
Ex.P1 complaint that the accused persons abused deceased
on 13.3.2012 over phone. This improved version of PW.7
shows that he want to connect the death of his daughter with
the accused. It has come in the evidence of PW.1 is that
when he heard that Sindhurani was loving with accused No.1
at that time he was opposed for the same and advised
Sindhurani not to love the accused No.1. Despite of that she
continued her friendship with the accused No.1. The oral
evidence of PW.6 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution
as he has in his cross-examination has clearly admitted the
suggestion that he was not witnessed any incident. He has
also not identified the accused. The oral evidence of PW.1
SC. No. 757/2013
35
would go to show that he did not like his daughter's mentality
of getting married with accused No.1 and he was also opposed
in continuing love affairs, despite of that his daughter
continuing the friendship with accused No.1. The accused
have taken defence that as the PW.1 and his wife not
permitted to continue her to love with accused No.1 for which
Sindurani was depressed and due to mental pressure she was
committed suicide. The accused persons have also taken
defence that it was the accidental burn injuries as mentioned
in Ex.P8. In order to show that it was accidental burn
injuries there is no cogent evidence. The oral evidence of
PW.1, PW.6, PW.7, PW.10, PW.5 and documents Ex.P3 to P8
would go to show that the deceased committed suicide by
pouring kerosene on herself and litting fire.
31. So far as the charge in respect of the offence
punishable u/s 306 of IPC is concerned, the evidence on
record does not disclose that the accused persons had abated
the deceased in committing the suicide. The ingredients of
abetment as defined u/s 107 of IPC is not made out on an
overall appreciation of evidence on record. Merely quarelling
SC. No. 757/2013
36
or misunderstanding between two individuals would not
amount to abetment u/s 306 of IPC. The evidence of PW.1,
PW.6 and PW.7 are not consistent enough to rely upon the
same and hold the accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are guilty of
the offences u/s 306 r/w 149 of IPC. In order to make out
offences u/s 306 of IPC., the prosecution necessarily needs to
prove by direct evidence that there was an active role on the
part of the accused in abetment by direct or indirect act of
instigation in order to facilitate the commission of suicide. In
the instant case, there is no such evidence on record to come
to conclusion that the deceased committed suicide only on
account of instigation of accused.
32. It is the contention of the prosecution is that
accused No.1 married the deceased in Rajak Shaw Darga
situated at Rajakpalya on 12.3.2012. PW.2 and PW.3 who
allegedly seen the marriage have completely turned hostile to
the case of the prosecution. PW.1 and PW.7 are hear say
witnesses. PW.10 Investigation Officer has deposed that he
has collected Ex.P25 photo from the mother of the deceased.
On perusal of Ex.P25 photo it does not depicts it is the
SC. No. 757/2013
37
marriage photo of accused No.1 and the deceased. The
Investigation Officer has not collected any documents to show
that marriage of the accused No.1 and deceased was held
with Rajak Sha Darga. There is absolutely no evidence on the
side of the prosecution to show who was snapped Ex.P25
photo. The prosecution has also not produced certificate u/s
65B of Evidence Act. No doubt PW.1 and PW.7 have deposed
that the deceased told them that accused No.1 married her.
PW.1 and 7 are not the eye witnesses. According to them the
deceased herself stated before them that accused No.1
married her in the masjid. Except the oral evidence of PW.1
and PW.7 there is no other evidence to show that accused
No.1 and Sindhurani married in Darga. In the absence of any
cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that
accused No.1 and Sindurani married in Darga it cannot be
held that they married in the darga. There is cogent evidence
on the side of the prosecution to show that accused No.1 and
Sindhurani loving each other. There is no cogent evidence to
show that the accused persons have abetted the commission
of suicide by the deceased Sindurani. It has come in the
SC. No. 757/2013
38
evidence of PW.7 that Sindhurani was very mild and sensitive.
The defence of the accused that since PW.1 was not allowed
Sindhurani to continue friendship with accused No.1 the said
Sindhurani was depressed and due to mental pressure she
committed suicide looks probable in view of certain
admissions made by PW.1 and PW.7 during their cross-
examination. PW.1 has not made it clear that why
Sindhurani went to her grandmother's house in order to
sleep. In the present case, it is not in dispute that PW.1 and
the deceased are belongs to Adi Karnataka Scheduled Caste.
The document Ex.P5 report of the Tahasildar about the caste
of the deceased is marked by consent. It is the case of the
prosecution is that accused persons abused deceased in the
name of caste. The oral evidence of PW.1, PW.6 and PW.7 are
not sufficient to hold that the accused persons abused the
deceased in the name of caste. PW.1 has not deposed
anything about the place and time of the alleged incident.
When the evidence on record and the defence taken by the
accused are considered, it cannot be said that the ingredients
of the offences u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act are proved by
SC. No. 757/2013
39
the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no
cogent evidence to show that the accused persons have
committed the offences punishable u/s 306 r/w 149 of IPC
and 3(1)(x) of SC/SCT (POA) Act. I have gone through the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
Hon'ble High Court in the above cited decisions. The
principles of these cited decisions are aptly applicable to the
present case. The act of committing suicide is based on the
individual thinking of a person, no person can be forced to
commit suicide and it depends on his or her mental state of
affairs and the defence taken by the accused that Sindurani
was depressed on account of preventing her to get married by
the accused No.1 cannot be ruled out when the entire
evidence is considered. Even otherwise there is no direct
evidence to connect the act of the accused with the act of the
deceased Sindhurani to have committed suicide. The oral
evidence of PW.1,PW.6 and PW.7 are in the nature of hear say
evidence. The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.7 are not
corroborating with each other. PW.10 I.O., has deposed
regarding the investigation on an overall appreciation of
SC. No. 757/2013
40
evidence on record it cannot be said that the prosecution has
proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused persons
have committed offences punishable under Section 306 r/w
149 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The
prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 and
2 in the negative.
33. Point No.3: In view of my findings on point nos.1
and 2 , I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 Tabrej @ Mohammed Tabrrez Pasha, accused No.2 Tabrej @ Afroz Khan, accused No.3 Mohammed Muktiyar @ Nadeem, accused No.5 Syed @ Sardar Khan and accused No.6 Imtiyaz Pasha are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec.306 r/w 149 of IPC and U/Sec. 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
SC. No. 757/2013 41 Bail bonds of the accused and their surety bond stand cancelled. However the bond executed in compliance of Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till statutory period.
M.O.1 to 3 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 9th day of September 2019) (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.
A NN E X U R E
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 Dayananda @ Babu
PW2 Babujaan
PW3 Khaleem
PW4 Y.K. Thimmaiah
PW5 Gopinatha
PW6 Ramakrishna
PW7 Vijayalakshmi
PW8 Krishna
PW9 Riyazuddin Bhagawan
PW10 Dr. D. Narayanaswamy
SC. No. 757/2013
42
2.Documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Complaint
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P2 Spot Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P2(c) Signature of PW.6
Ex.P3 P.M. Report
Ex.P4 Inquest Panchanama
Ex.P5 Report of the Tahasildar regarding the
caste of deceased
Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW.10
Ex.P6 MNC Intimation
Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW.9
Ex.P7 Death intimation
Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW.
Ex.P.8 Requisition given by PW.9 to CMO of
Victoria Hospital
Ex.P.9 Statement given by PW.2
Ex.P.10 Statement of PW.3
Ex.P.11 FIR
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.12 PF Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.13 Requisition given by PW.5 to Tahsildar Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.14 Report of PW.8 Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P.14(b) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.15 Requisition sent by PW.9 Ex.P.18 RFSL Acknowledgement Ex.P.19 Letter sent by PW.10 to the Tahasildar Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.20 Report of Report of Revenue Inspector Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.21 Mahazar of R.I. SC. No. 757/2013 43 Ex.P21(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P22 Letter sent by PW.10 to the hospital Ex.P22(a) Signature of PW.9 Ex.P23 MLC Register Extract Ex.P24 Report of Police Constable Ex.P25 Photo Ex.P26 Election I.D., Card of accused No.1 Ex.P27 to Photos 31 Ex.P28(a) Signature of PW.10 to 31(a)
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
NIL
4. Documents marked for the defence:
NIL
5.List of material objects :
M.O.1 Kerosene bottle
M.O.2 Burnt clothes
M.O.3 Match box
(MOHAN PRABHU)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.
SC. No. 757/2013 44 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate detailed ORDER Acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 Tabrej @ Mohammed Tabrrez Pasha, accused No.2 Tabrej @ Afroz Khan, accused No.3 Mohammed Muktiyar @ Nadeem, accused No.5 Syed @ Sardar Khan and accused No.6 Imtiyaz Pasha are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec.306 r/w 149 of IPC and U/Sec. 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Bail bonds of the accused and their surety bond stand cancelled. However the bond executed in compliance of Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till statutory period.
SC. No. 757/2013 45 M.O.1 to 3 being worthless ordered to be destroyed after completion of appeal period.
(MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.