Karnataka High Court
Shri. Uday Chilagoudu Alias Chilagoudu ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437
CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024
CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103167 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102838 OF 2024
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103168 OF 2024
IN CRL.P.NO.103167/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. UDAY CHILAGOUDU @
CHILAGOUDU UDAYAKUMARA
S/O. SHANMUKHAPPA,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES/PRESIDENT,
R/O: C/O: PRESIDENT OF MORIGERI GRAMA
PANCHAYATHI, MORIGERI VILLAGE,
H. B. HALLI, TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST: VIJAYANAGARA - 583 220.
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
Location: High Court
of Karnataka, 2. SHRI. PRAKASH @ LANGATADA PRAKASHA
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
S/O. SHANMUKHAPPA,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: COMPUTER OPERATOR,
R/O: C/O: COMPUTER OPERATOR AT
MORIGERI GRAMA PANCHAYATHI,
MORIGERI VILLAGE, H. B. HALLI,
TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST: VIJAYANAGARA - 583 220.
3. SHRI. KOTRESH @ CHAPPARADAHALLI KOTRESHA
S/O. CHAPPARADAHALLI NAGAPPA,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BFT,
R/O: C/O: BFT AT MORIGERI
GRAMA PANCHAYATHI, MORIGERI VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437
CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024
CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024
(WRONGLY SHOWN AS HAREGONDANAHALLI
VILLAGE), H. B. HALLI,
TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST: VIJAYANAGARA - 583 220.
4. SHRI. SHIVAKUMARA @ SOGI SHIVAKUMARA
S/O. SOGI BASAPPA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BILL COLLECTOR,
R/O: C/O: BILL COLLECTOR AT MORIGERI
GRAMA PANCHAYATHI, MORIGERI VILLAGE,
H. B. HALLI, TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST: VIJAYANAGARA - 583 220.
5. SHRI. RAGHAVENDRA @ A. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O. AGALURAPPA,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE OF MORIGERI
GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
R/O: C/O: ANTHAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ: SONDURU, DIST: BALLARI - 583 115.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ITTIGI POLICE,
REP.BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 580 001.
2. SHRI. DURUGAPPA DIDGI
S/O. PAKKITAPPA DIDGI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PAINTER,
R/O: MORIGERE VILLAGE, H.B.HALLI,
TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST: VIJAYANAGARA - 583 220.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
(528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437
CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024
CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2, 4 AND 6 TO 8 IN
SPL.C. NO.497/2024 (CRIME NO.21/2024) ITTIGI P.S. NOW
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, FOR THE ALLEGED COMMISSION
OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(f),
3(1)(g) , 3(2)(vii) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND
SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
AMENDMENT ORDINANCE, 2014, ALSO FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(2)(V) OF THE
SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 AND FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 306, 107 AND 34 OF THE IPC,
1860. PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER(S) AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
IN CRL.P.NO.102838/2024:
BETWEEN:
SMT. KHAJA BANU @ KHAJABANI N.
W/O. REHIMANA SAHEB B.,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: PDO,
R/O: W. NO.25, KURADAGADDI,
NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE,
HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST: VIJAYANAGARA - 583 212.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ITTIGI POLICE, STATION,
HADAGALI CIRCLE, REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
2. SHRI. DURUGAPPA DIDGI
S/O. PAKKIRAPPA DIDGI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PAINTER,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437
CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024
CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024
R/O: MORIGERE VILLAGE, H. B. HALLI,
TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST: VIJAYANAGARA - 583 220.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS
2023 SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE
ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN SPL.C.NO 497/2024
(HADAGALI CIRCLE ITTIGI POLICE STATION CRIME NO
21/2024) NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI FOR
THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(2)(vii) OF THE
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION
OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 2014, ALSO FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(2)
(V) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 AND FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 306, 107
AND 34 OF IPC 1860. PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER(S) AS
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT ON THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
IN CRL.P.NO.103168/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. BASAVARAJA @ G. BASAVARAJA
S/O. T. HEMANNA,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: COMPUTER OPERATOR,
R/O: C/O: COMPUTER OPERATOR AT
MORIGERI GRAMA PANCHAYATHI,
MORIGERI VILLAGE, H. B. HALLI,
TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST: VIJAYANAGARA - 583 220.
2. SMT. SHAILAJA @ AKKI SHYLA
W/O. AKKINAGARAJA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE OF MORIGERI
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437
CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024
CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024
GRAM PANCHAYAT,
R/O: C/O: MORIGERI GRAMA PANCHAYATHI,
MORIGERI VILLAGE, H. B. HALLI,
TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST: VIJAYANAGARA - 583 220.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ITTIGI POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 580 001.
2. SHRI. DURUGAPPA DIDGI
S/O. PAKKIRAPPA DIDGI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PAINTER,
R/O: MORIGERE VILLAGE, H. B. HALLI,
TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
DIST: VIJANAYAGARA - 583 220.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
(528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3 AND 5 IN SPL.C.
NO.497/2024 (CRIME NO.21/2024) ITTAGI P.S. NOW PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BALLARI, FOR THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 306, 107 AND 34
OF THE IPC, 1860. PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER(S) AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT ON THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437
CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024
CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
Crl.P.No.103167/2024 is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4 and 6 to 8, Crl.P.No.102838/2024 is filed by accused No.1 and Crl.P.No.103168/2024 is filed by accused Nos.3 and 5. All the three petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in Spl.C.No.497/2024 pending on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari registered for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vii), of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity) and Sections 306, 107 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2024, at about 9.30 a.m., the complainant's relatives namely Abhishek and Huchengeppa, informed the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437 CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024 CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024 complainant over phone that, on 04.04.2024, accused Nos.1 to 8 undertook labour/Civil work under NREGA(National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) Scheme, in the Government land bearing Survey No.654/A measuring 5-00 acres which was allegedly in possession of complainant's family. At that time, the mother of complainant namely, Smt.Mylamma Didgi, said to have objected the accused Nos.1 to 8 from interfering with the possession over said lands and she voluntarily stated that she is being troubled by accused Nos.1 to 8, just because she belongs to Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe and she suddenly drank the poison from a bottle brought by her and she was taken to hospital at Morigere and thereafter, she was shifted to Taluka Hospital, H.B. Halli and then to the District Hospital, Koppal. She died on 05.04.2024 at District Hospital, Koppal at about 11.30 a.m.
3. On 05.04.2024, respondent No.2 filed a complaint against accused Nos.1 to 8 and came to be registered in Crime No.21/2024 of Ittigi P.S. for offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v-a) of the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437 CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024 CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024 Act and Sections 504, 149, 306 of IPC. The police after investigation, filed chargesheet against the accused Nos.1 to 8 for offences under Sections 306, 107, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(2)(vii) and 3(2)(v) of the Act.
4. On the basis of the said chargesheet, a case came to be registered against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 in Spl.C.No.497/2024 and it is pending on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari. The proceedings of the said case are sought to be quashed in the present petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for petitioners in all the three petitions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in all the three petitions and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that the statement of eye witness namely, Abhishek did not contain any allegation of abuse touching the caste of the deceased. The deceased had brought poison bottle and that itself indicate that there was no abetment by the -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437 CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024 CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024 petitioners to the deceased to commit suicide. The acts of the petitioners doing work in the Government land of NREGA does not amount to abetment to the deceased to commit suicide. Merely, because the petitioners told the deceased "to go and die" does not amount to abetment. He further submits that there is no sanction to prosecute accused No.1 who is a public servant. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing all three petitions.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that the land in which the accused persons were carrying out NREGA work is a Government land and the deceased had filed Form No.57 claiming grant of the said land. He submits that the deceased was in possession of the said land, the acts of petitioners getting work done of NREGA in the said Government land which is in possession of the deceased and accusing her and telling her "to go and die" amounts to abetment. There were 100 persons present at the spot, on the date of accident. Chargesheet contains 59 witnesses and it is a matter of trial. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the petitions.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437 CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024 CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024
8. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State would contend that the act of petitioners getting NREGA work done in a Government land which is in possession of the deceased and asking her "to go and die" amounts to abetment to commit suicide.
9. In reply, the learned counsel for petitioners would contend that in chargesheet column No.17, it is stated that Form No.57 filed by the deceased has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, that itself indicate that deceased had no right over the said property on the date of incident. He further submits that Abhishek-relative of the deceased, instead of saving the deceased or stopping her from consuming the poison, recorded the said incident in his mobile and actually, he has abeted the deceased to commit suicide.
10. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the chargesheet materials.
11. The petitioners being Government servants and Elected representatives of Morigeri Gram Panchayat were
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437 CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024 CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024 carrying on NREGA work in the Government land and at that time, deceased came to the spot and asked the petitioners to stop the work and she intimated them that she belongs to Schedule Caste and when petitioners/accused persons did not stop the NREGA work, the deceased again objected and at that time, the petitioners stated to have told the deceased "to go and die" and she consumed poison from a bottle which was brought by her and she died in the Hospital.
12. The column No.17 of the chargesheet indicates that deceased made a claim for Government land bearing Survey No.654/A measuring 5-00 acres contending that she is in possession and cultivating the said land and filed Form No.57. The said application filed by the deceased seeking regularization of her cultivation over the said Government land bearing Survey No.654/A measuring 5-00 acres came to be rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayanagara District by order dated 05.12.2023. The alleged incident has taken place on 04.04.2024. Prior to the said date of incident, about four
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437 CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024 CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024 months ago, the application filed by the deceased seeking regularization of cultivation came to be rejected. The statement of Abhishek (eye witness) indicates that the Gram Panchayat people of Morigeri village were getting done NREGA work in Survey No.654/A since last 5 to 6 months. The said aspect indicates that deceased was upset with the said work of the petitioners and also rejection of her application filed in Form No.57. It is material to note that the deceased had brought the poison bottle which she consumed on the spot. The petitioners were carrying on the NREGA work in the Government land and they did not do any positive act, abetting the deceased to commit suicide. It is alleged that the petitioners have told the deceased "to go and die" when she objected for their work. The said aspect of petitioners telling the deceased "to go and die" does not amount to abetment.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437 CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024 CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal V/s Indrajit Kundu1, reads as under:
6. By the impugned order, the High Court by recording a finding that terming the deceased as a call girl, there was no utterance which can be interpreted to be an act of instigating, goading or solicitation or insinuation to the deceased to commit suicide.
By referring to the case law decided by this Court wherein similar utterances like, "to go and die" does not constitute an offence for abetment, allowed the application filed by the respondents. It is observed in the order that the act or conduct of the accused, however insulting and abusive, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide, unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts, the consequence of suicide. By discussing the case law on the subject, the High Court allowed the application by setting aside the order of the trial court and discharged the respondent-accused from the charge." 1 (2019) 10 SCC 188
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437 CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024 CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024
14. This Court in Mangala Gowri V/s State of Karnataka2 has observed in paragraphs No. 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26 which reads as under:
16. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860 which reads as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing.- A person is said abet the doing of a thing who First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - 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 pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
17. As per the aforesaid definition there should be instigation to do that thing and then it amounts to abetment. A person is said to have instigate another to an act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to act by means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the 2 2023 SCC Online Kar 64
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437 CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024 CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024 form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement.
18. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. Sate of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 wherein it is held as under:
"...........Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased "to go and die", that itself does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". The word "instigate"
denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion..."
19. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. Sate (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 wherein it is observed as under:
"17. Thus to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437 CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024 CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024 of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction" (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).
18. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar, where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, and "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words,
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437 CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024 CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024 deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction;
and
(ii) that the accused had the
intention to provoke, urge or
encourage the deceased to commit
suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
20. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on is inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437 CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024 CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024 Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self."
21. How a human mind reacts has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 wherein it is observed as under:
"16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437
CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024
CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024
be dealt with on its own facts and
circumstance"
22. The person may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons such as depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acture or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment. The same has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 2014 SC 178.
26. In the similar situation that the deceased committed suicide as the accused insisted the deceased to repay the loan amount, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Arjuna v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 : AIR 2019 SC 43 has observed reads as under:
"8. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
Unless the ingredients of
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5437
CRL.P No. 103167 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 102838 of 2024
CRL.P No. 103168 of 2024
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under section 306 I.P.C."
15. Considering the above aspects, the acts of the petitioners carry out the work of NREGA in the Government lands and when she objected for the said work, abusing the deceased does not amount to abetment to commit suicide. Considering the said aspect, the proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of law.
16. In the result, the following:
ORDER i. All the three petitions are allowed.
ii. The proceedings against the petitioners/
accused Nos.1 to 8 pending in
Spl.C.No.497/2024 on the file of the
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari are quashed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE RKM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7