Karnataka High Court
Mohan @ Pappu vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759
CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200111 OF 2023
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MOHAN @ PAPPU
S/O GNANI NANDGAONKAR,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: ELECTRICIAN WORK,
R/AT VILLAGE KANDGOL,
TQ. HUMNABAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NARENDRA M. REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BASAVAKALYAN TOWN
POLICE STATION, BIDAR,
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P.
Digitally signed by HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
NIJAMUDDIN KALABURAGI BENCH-585105.
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF (BY SMT. ANITHA M. REDDY., HCGP)
KARNATAKA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 415 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED
08.02.2023 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 09.02.2023 PASSED
BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR SITTING
AT BASAVAKALYAN IN S.C.NO.82/2018 ON ITS FILE, THEREBY
ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498-A AND 306 OF IPC.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 02.12.2025 COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759
CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and the sentence imposed thereunder by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, Sitting at Basavakalyan, by judgment dated 08.02.2023 in S.C.No.82/2018.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased-Shantamma married the appellant about four (4) years prior to the incident. The couple allegedly lived harmoniously for about 4-5 months. Thereafter, it is alleged that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental cruelty culminating in miscarriage. About two (2) years prior to the incident, CWs.28 to 34 (elders) mediated a compromise. Later, appellant working as an -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR auto driver in Hyderabad left the deceased at CW.28/Sunita's residence. Thereafter, the deceased returned to Basavakalyan to the house of accused No.2 in search of the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant abandoned the deceased and minor child in Hyderabad without communication or support for about 15 days. On the night of 03.09.2017, the deceased and her infant child were found dead in a well at Basavakalyan.
3. Prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.38 and produced Exs.P1 to P52.
4. PW.1 (mother of the deceased) has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.2 and PW.3 also turned hostile, while PW.27 to PW.33 broadly supported the prosecution.
5. The Trial Court acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 holding absence of direct evidence of abetment, but convicted the appellant reasoning that, -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR i. He failed to discharge the marital obligation and abandoned the deceased and child;
ii. He failed to offer satisfactory explanation in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'Cr.P.C.') and failed to adduce rebuttal evidence; and iii. As the suicide occurred within seven (7) years of marriage, presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act operated warranting conviction under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.
6. The appellant herein is assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum has vehemently argued and submitted that mere failure to discharge marital obligation do not in itself constitute -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR requisite ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. He would further highlight that mother/CW.1 examined as PW.1 has turned hostile. He would further point out that the Trial Court has virtually misread Section 306 of IPC relating to abetment of suicide. He would submit that there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of enticement which ultimately led to commission of suicide. He would contend that mere allegation of harassment, without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of accused No.1 which led or compelled a person to commit suicide, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. He submits that in the absence of active act having a direct nexus on the action undertaken by the deceased, the conviction is not sustainable.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would point out that repeated harassment and virtual abandonment of a young wife with the infant has virtually driven the deceased to take such a drastic step -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR and therefore, there is sufficient material which prompted the Court below to convict the appellant for the aforesaid offences and therefore, the reasons and conclusions recorded by the Court below is based on credible and tangible material and therefore, no interference is warranted.
9. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court has independently assessed the charge-sheet materials and the evidence led in by the prosecution, the following points would arise for consideration:
i. Whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt cruelty under Section 498A of IPC, particularly, with a proximate temporal nexus to the crime?
ii. Whether appellant's acts/omissions constitute abatement of suicide under Section 306 of IPC with requisite mens rea as defined under Section 107?-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR iii. Whether the Trial Court was justified in invoking Section 113A of the Evidence Act to draw a presumption? and iv. Whether the appellant's answer in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., would substitute proof?
Finding on Point No.(i):
10. Though mother of the deceased had not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile, PW.27-Sunita has supported the prosecution case indicating that the accused started harassing the deceased physically and mentally and during the deceased's stay at accused No.2's quarters, the deceased used to often tell this witness about the harassment. She has also deposed that the deceased resided in her house also for some time. She has also deposed that despite deceased's attempts to contact the appellant/accused, the appellant was not accessible to the deceased. She has also spoken about forcible abortion.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR
11. Similarly, PW.28-Mahesh who is the brother of the deceased has also stated that the appellant was harassing the deceased on the ground that she was unable to cook properly and she was not acquainted with agricultural activities. He has also deposed that he intervened along with his parents and pacified and advised the appellant/accused not to harass deceased- Shantamma. This witness was also extensively cross- examined by the defence.
12. PW.30-Swamydas has also deposed about Shantamma having got conceived and later, got aborted due to harassment and has further deposed that he came to know later that, Shantamma and child died and he was summoned to police station where he identified Shantamma and her son-chintu on the basis of photo shown by the Police.
13. PW.33, who is a Police Officer and also residing in the quarters since 2017, has also deposed that the -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR appellant along with the deceased was residing at accused No.2's quarters. However, his statement is that he came to know that, because of harassment by the accused, the deceased along with the child committed suicide.
14. Similarly, PW.35-Mallinath, who was also staying in the quarters, has deposed about the present appellant quarrelling with his wife, Shantamma. Later, he came to know that there are dead bodies of the lady and the child found in the well situated near Sastapur, Shivara.
15. On going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, this Court is of the view that there is some material on record to bring home the guilt of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The evidence of siblings and also the Police Constable staying at the quarters coupled with surrounding circumstances, clearly establish that during the subsistence of marriage which lasted for seven (7) years, the deceased was subjected to some physical and mental
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR cruelty. The consistent testimony of material witnesses, the absence of any plausible defence and the admitted fact that the wife along with her infant child committed suicide by jumping into a well, speak to the atmosphere of there being some harassment.
16. The Trial Court, therefore, referring to these evidences, has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of harassing his wife. The Trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that the prosecution has established the necessary mandate under Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court in respect of the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered in the affirmative. Finding on Point Nos.(ii) to (iv):
17. Before this Court examines whether the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC are made out in the present case, it is necessary to advert to the governing
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR legal principles that define the contours of abetment to suicide. The Supreme Court has consistently held that mere harassment, ordinary domestic discord, or general neglect, a specific, proximate, and active act of instigation or intentional aid does not satisfy the requirement of abetment. There must be a clear and live link between the conduct of the accused and the eventual decision of the deceased to commit suicide, as elucidated in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, [(2017) 1 SCC 433]. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, [(2010) 12 SCC 190], further emphasized that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding the commission of suicide, and that without a positive act attributable to the accused, a conviction under Section 306 cannot be sustained. Similarly, in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of W.B., [(2010) 1 SCC 707], it has been reiterated that the prosecution must establish the requisite mens rea and show that the acts of the accused were of such intensity
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR and immediacy that the deceased was left with no option but to take the extreme step; stray utterances or remote incidents fall short of this threshold. The essential ingredients of the offence have been succinctly summarized in M. Arjunan v. State, [(2019) 3 SCC 315], namely: (i) the factum of suicide; (ii) abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC; and (iii) intention on the part of the accused to aid or instigate the act. The principles laid down in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another, [(2010) 8 SCC 628] and M. Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu, [(2011) 3 SCC 626] also reinforce the requirement that abetment must be clearly established through cogent and proximate conduct.
18. In the light of the essential ingredients summarized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the reported judgments cited supra, this Court needs to examine as to whether the Court below was justified in invoking Section 113A of the Evidence Act, which emphasizes discretionary presumption conditioned on proof of cruelty.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR
19. The presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is not automatic. The language is quite clear, which says that the Court may presume only upon proof that the woman committed suicide within seven (7) years of marriage and that she was subjected to cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.
20. Though, while answering point No.(i), this Court has held that there was some degree of harassment and cruelty, but the question is whether the cruelty was of such a degree that it would have driven the deceased to commit suicide. Stray or remote incidents do not suffice and allegations regarding abetment under Section 306 of IPC must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Even grave material indiscretions without clear proof of cruelty driving the woman to suicide will not by themselves attract Section 306 of IPC.
21. The mother/PW.1, who is the complainant, has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR prosecution. Her cross-examination of harassment for about four years earlier is vague and temporally remote from the suicide. PWs.2 and 3 have also turned hostile. The remaining witnesses, PWs.27 to 33, speak broadly about prior discord and a compromise two years before the occurrence of the incident. No witnesses described a specific proximate and contemporaneous act of cruelty or instigation shortly before 03.09.2017.
22. The prosecution case hinges on the alleged abandonment by the appellant for a period of 15 plus days. The prosecution asserts that the appellant left the deceased and the child without contact/support for over 15 days. Even assumed neglect, there is no tangible evidence which has driven the deceased to take such a drastic step. As repeatedly held, mere neglect or failure to discharge marital obligations, without more, does not constitute abetment under Section 306 of IPC and would not satisfy instigation or intentional aid under Section 107 of IPC, and therefore, may not constitute an abetment.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR
23. An unsatisfactory answer in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., cannot substitute the prosecution's burden to prove the essential ingredients of offence. To prove the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, an adverse inference cannot by itself form a conviction for abetment. The substratum of instigation/aid with mens rea must first be independently established.
24. Therefore, in the light of the mother turning hostile, this Court needs to examine whether the Trial Court erred in invoking Section 113A of the Evidence Act, merely because suicide occurred within seven years of marriage and because the appellant allegedly abandoned the deceased. This approach, according to this Court, is legally infirm. The prosecution's evidence though sufficient to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC, however, lacks credible evidence to convict the appellant under Section 306 of IPC. The charge
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR sheet materials and the evidence of the witnesses do not demonstrate that the conduct of the appellant was of such a nature that it drew the deceased to commit suicide.
25. Applying the above principles, the records lack proof of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. There is no positive act by the appellant proximate to the suicide. The prosecution has not shown the requisite mens rea. The Trial Court's inference that abandonment/failure to discharge marital obligations ipso facto amounts to abetment is directly contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat, [(2015) 11 SCC 753]. Accordingly, point Nos.(ii) to (iv) are answered in 'negative'.
26. Conclusion:
(a). At the outset, this Court finds that the learned Trial Judge has proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the scope and ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR The conviction is primarily founded on the premise that the appellant failed to discharge his marital obligations and had allegedly abandoned the deceased and their minor child. Such reasoning, though reflective of a moral disapproval of the appellant's conduct, does not satisfy the statutory requirement of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. Absent proof of instigation, intentional aid, or active participation coupled with mens rea, mere neglect or absence from the matrimonial home cannot be elevated to the level of abetment of suicide.
(b) The Trial Court has failed to identify any positive, proximate or direct act on the part of the appellant which could have compelled or incited the deceased to commit suicide. The evidence on record does not disclose any overt act, words of provocation, threats, or continuous harassment immediately preceding the incident. In criminal jurisprudence, particularly in prosecutions under Section 306 IPC, there must exist a live and direct nexus between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are conspicuously silent on this essential
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR requirement and rest purely on inference and conjecture.
(c) The Trial Court has placed undue reliance on allegations of harassment said to have occurred nearly four years prior to the incident, which were admittedly followed by a compromise between the parties two years before the death of the deceased. Such stale and remote allegations, in the absence of evidence showing their continuation or recurrence in close proximity to the suicide, cannot constitute the basis for a conviction under Section 306 IPC. The law mandates that the conduct relied upon must be of such gravity and immediacy as to leave the victim with no option except to take the extreme step.
(d) A serious legal infirmity arises from the mechanical invocation of the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. The Trial Court has presumed abetment solely on the ground that the suicide occurred within seven years of marriage. In the present case, the foundational facts necessary to attract such presumption have not been proved, rendering the application of Section 113-A wholly unsustainable.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR
(e) The Trial Court has further erred in drawing an adverse inference against the appellant on the ground that he failed to offer a satisfactory explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., or to lead defence evidence. It is well- settled that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt always rests upon the prosecution and does not shift merely because the accused remains silent or fails to adduce evidence. Deficiencies in the prosecution case cannot be cured by drawing adverse inferences from the accused's explanation.
(f) The reasoning adopted by the Trial Court suffers from internal inconsistency. While accused Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted on the ground that there was no evidence of instigation or abetment, the appellant alone has been convicted without any additional or distinguishing material to demonstrate a higher degree of culpability. Criminal liability under Section 306 IPC is personal and cannot be fastened solely on the basis of marital relationship or presumed responsibility of the husband.
(g) Viewed cumulatively, the impugned judgment reveals that the conviction is founded
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR more on moral assumptions and sympathetic considerations rather than on strict legal proof of the essential ingredients of abetment. The approach adopted by the Trial Court dilutes the settled distinction between matrimonial discord and criminal abetment of suicide, which the law has consistently guarded against.
(h) For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Trial Court under Section 306 IPC suffer from perversity, misapplication of legal principles, and non-appreciation of material evidence, thereby warranting interference. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under 306 are liable to be set aside.
27. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The judgment of conviction dated 08.02.2023 and order of sentence dated 09.02.2023 passed by II Additional District
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7759 CRL.A No. 200111 of 2023 HC-KAR and Sessions Judge, Bidar, sitting at Basavakalyan, in S.C.No.82/2018 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is confirmed.
iii. However, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is set aside. The appellant is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
iv. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant is hereby set off against the sentence imposed upon the accused in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. v. The rest of the sentence is affirmed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 45 CT:SI