Karnataka High Court
Praveena vs State Of Karnataka By on 18 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:28675
CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 532 OF 2014 (C)
BETWEEN:
PRAVEENA
S/O S. GOVINDA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/O 141/2012
DEVARA CHIKKANHALLI
I.I.M.B., CAMPUS
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE
BANGALORE DISTRICT-560 076
(PRESENTLY LODGED AT CENTRAL PRISON
PARAPPANA AGARAHARA BANGALORE)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
SHAKAMBARI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KARNATAKA
KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-560 034
BANGALORE DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 27.6.2014 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C.-IV, BANGALORE
IN S.C.NO.95/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 OF IPC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:28675
CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The Appellant/accused has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Session Case No.95/2012 dated 27.06.2014 by the City Fast Track Court-IV, Bengaluru City.
2. Parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the purpose of convenience.
Case of the Complainant before the trial Court:
3. That, one Kumari Shyamala D/o Nagaraj, resident of the address so stated in the complaint, gave her statement when she was admitted to Victoria Hospital on 21.01.2009, stating that she was working as a receptionist -3- NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 in the office of one Talwar situated at 8th Main Road, Basaveshwarnagar, for the last one week prior to filing of the complaint. It is stated that, for the last 3 months, a person by name Praveena, who is the accused in this case, is acquainted with her. He used to come near her office and force her to marry him. She expressed that she is not having any interest in marrying him. Thereafter, the accused used to come near her office and used to do galata.
4. It is alleged by the complainant that, at 10.00 a.m. on 21.01.2009, the accused came to her house and shouted her name. When she opened the door, the accused asked her to marry him and told her that he was not going to marry any other girl. When the accused told these words, the complainant-victim was about to consume the tablets. But the accused snatched the said tablets from her hands. Thereafter, she told him that she was not going to marry him. At that time, the victim girl took out the kerosene and poured the same on her person -4- NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 and told the accused that she was going to die. By saying so, she lit fire. The said accused, Praveena and the neighbours put off the fire. The accused shifted the injured to the hospital for treatment. Accordingly, she was taking treatment in the hospital.
5. It is alleged in the complaint that, as she was not interested in marrying the accused, she set fire to herself. With these allegations, she gave a statement before one Narasimhaiah, the then ASI of Kamakshipalaya Police Station, who came to the hospital to record the statement. Based upon this, a crime was registered in Crime No.55/2009 for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, "IPC") and the criminal law was set in motion. The Investigation Officer after completion of the investigation, has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under U/Sec.306 of IPC.
6. Before the learned trial Court, to prove the case of the prosecution, in all it examined 13 witnesses from -5- NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 with respective signatures thereon and also got marked MOs. No.1 to 3 in support of prosecution. On behalf of defence, Ex.D1 and D2 were marked.
7. The learned trial Court on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence, found the accused guilty of committing the offence under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced the accused as under:
"Accused-Praveen is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC."
8. This is how the accused is before this Court challenging the judgment of his conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.
Proceedings before this Court:
i) Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
9. The learned Senior Counsel Sri C.H. Jadhav, with all vehemence, submits that, on reading the contents of Ex.P3, the so-called complaint (statement of victim), the ingredients of the offence of abetment to commit suicide are missing. He submits that, even in this case, the MLC register is not produced. He submits that, on 23.01.2009, the deceased died at about 5.30 p.m. Initially, the crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 309 of the IPC. He submits that, as there are no ingredients of abetment to commit suicide, the said offence alleged against the accused does not amount to abetment to commit suicide.
10. The learned Senior Counsel by relying upon the various evidences placed on record by the prosecution, submits that there is no abetment and there is no inducement. Therefore, he submits that the trial Court has committed a grave error in finding the accused guilty of committing the said offence. He further submits that the trial Court has grossly erred in giving a finding with regard -7- NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 to abetment to commit suicide against the accused. There are so many lacunas in the case of the prosecution. No independent witnesses like neighbours or relatives are examined by the prosecution so as to prove that the accused really abetted the victim to commit the suicide. The evidence of the prosecution suffers from material particulars. Learned counsel submits that no offence is made against the accused. He prays to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and acquit the accused.
ii) Submissions on behalf of the Respondent- State:
11. As against this submission, the learned HCGP Sri. K.Nageshwarappa submits that the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution does establish the offence committed by the accused. The accused wanted to marry the victim, but she refused. There was a persistent force by the accused to get married to the victim girl. As the victim has refused to marry the accused, because of the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 force made by the accused on the complainant, she committed suicide. In that view, he submits that the ingredients as required under Section 309 of the IPC are fulfilled by the prosecution. The learned HCGP also put forth the various evidence placed on the record by the prosecution. He prays to dismiss the appeal.
12. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments on both sides and meticulously perused the records. The points that would arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the deceased succumbed to the injuries because of the burn injuries sustained by her and is it a suicidal death or otherwise?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, it was accused who abetted the victim to commit suicide in the manner alleged by the prosecution?
Point No.1 and 2 are discussed together:
13. So far as the death of the victim is concerned, the prosecution relies upon the complaint Ex.P3. It shows that, on 21.01.2009 at 10.00 a.m., the accused came to -9- NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 the house of the victim Shyamala and shouted the name of the victim. When she opened the door, he entered the house and forced her to marry him. She took the tablets for the purpose of consuming them to commit suicide, but the accused snatched the said tablets. She told the accused that she was not going to marry him. When the accused snatched the tablets, victim Shyamala took the kerosene and poured the same on her person and lit the fire for herself. At that time, the accused and neighbours came and put out the fire. It was the accused who shifted the injured to the Victoria Hospital, and there she took the treatment. When she was under treatment, on 21.01.2009 itself, Narasimhaiah, the then ASI of Kamakshipalya Police Station, came and, after getting permission from the doctor, recorded the statement as per Ex.P.3. Thereafter, in the hospital itself, because of the burn injuries, she died.
14. To that effect, the police prepared the inquest panchanama as per Ex.P.5. On reading this panchanama,
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 it shows that what were the injuries sustained by the deceased on her person after lighting fire on her person. The doctor in the said hospital conducted the post-mortem as per Ex.P.2. The doctor has noticed the injuries on the person of the deceased. They read as under:
"I. External Appearance
1) Condition of Subject stout, emaciated, decomposed etc.
2) Wounds: Position, size, character.
3) Fracture, dislocation etc.
4) Mark of ligature on neck.
The dead body is that of a female measuring 167 cms in length, moderately built, rigor mortis present over all parts of the body. Livormortis could not be appreciated due to burn injury sustained. Intravenous cannula present over the inner aspect of left ankle. Blue ink mark present over the inner aspect of both the great toes.
External Injuries:
Second and third degree burn injury present over whole of face, neck, front and back of chest, front and back of both upper limbs, front and back of both thighs and legs. In patches over the front of abdomen. Both the ankles and foot, genitalia, back and both the genitalia region are spared. Cuticles is peeled off at places, exposing the red areas. Scalp hair is singed.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
15. It was the opinion of the Doctor that death occurred due to the result of burn injuries she sustained.
The Doctor was examined as PW.2. This PW.2 Dr. P.K. Devadas, who has conducted the post-mortem on the victim girl, has stated in his evidence that he noticed 2nd and 3rd degree burn injuries to the extent of 75% to 77% on the dead body. The burn injuries were antemortem in nature. After conducting the postmortem, he has issued a postmortem report as per Ex.P.2. It is his opinion that if the burn injuries are to the extent of 75% to 77%, there is a possibility of death because of burn injuries.
16. He has been cross-examined by the defence. It is stated in the cross-examination that the types of shock to the victim because of burn injuries depend upon the gravity of burn injuries. The shock sustained by the deceased was the combination of neurogenic and hypovolumic. At the early stage, the victim of burn injuries may be in a position to speak. At the stage of death, the victim may not be in a position to speak with clarity.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
17. When she was admitted to the hospital, she gave a statement before the police. Thereafter, after two days, she died. On reading the contents of the evidence of the doctor as well as the post-mortem report and inquest report, it does demonstrate that the deceased succumbed to the injuries because of the burn injuries due to lighting fire for herself by pouring kerosene. Coupled with that, other witnesses examined spoke about the burn injuries sustained by the deceased. If all these factual features are put together with documents and the contents of the complaint, it shows that she herself lit the fire and sustained burn injuries. Because of those burn injuries, she succumbed to death. Hence, the prosecution is able to prove the suicidal death of the deceased.
18. It is the case of the prosecution that it was the accused who abetted and induced the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, because of that, a criminal case was registered against him. Therefore, he is liable for
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 conviction. As per the case of the prosecution, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused.
19. Merely because the deceased Shyamala committed suicide and died, it does not mean that it was the accused who abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is a bounden duty of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
20. Learned Senior Counsel Sri C.H. Jadhav submits that, in this case, the concept of abetment is missing. It requires mens rea on the part of the abettor. Person abetting--the doing of thing must know the happening of the thing. In this case, according to him, the accused never instigated or induced the deceased to commit suicide. Ex.P.3 cannot be termed a dying declaration. It is his submission that, when ingredients of the said offence are not proved by the prosecution, then the judgment of conviction and order of sentence require interference by this Court.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
21. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon two judgments in support of his submission. They are:
(i) Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh - (2001) 9 SCC 618.
(ii) Bombay High Court in Ramdas Ajinath Bhandwalkar V. State of Maharashtra and Anr - 2012 Crl.L.J 2497.
22. And also latest judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.39981 of 2022 dated 30th January 2024, in the case of Prabhu V. The State rep by the Inspector of Police and Anr., covering all other earlier judgments with regard to offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, it is observed as under:
"xxx The essential ingredients which are to be meted out in order to bring a case under Section 306 IPC were also discussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal in the following paragraphs:
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
On a careful reading of the factual matrix of the instant case and the law regarding Section 306 IPC, there seems to be no proximate link between the marital discord between the deceased and the appellant and her subsequent death by burning herself. The appellant has not committed any positive or direct act to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased."
23. Learned HCGP submits that, facts of this case are quiet different and therefore, not applicable to the present facts of the case.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
24. By keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, let me analyze the evidence placed on record by the prosecution to know whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt or otherwise. This Court, being the First Appellate Court, can re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence and ascertain whether the trial Court has committed illegality in assessing the evidence.
25. PW.1 Gagadhar Channiganna is the scene of the offence pancha. He speaks that, on 22.01.2009 at 8.00 p.m., he was called by the police when the police were conducting the panchanama of the scene of offence. It is his evidence that, in his presence, Ex.P.1 panchanama was conducted by the police and certain MOs were seized by the police from the scene of the offense. No cross- examination is directed to this witness by the defence.
26. The Investigation Officer PW.13 Kallappa Shankarapa Karar, the then PSI of Kamakshipalya Police Station, on 22.01.2009 went to the scene of the offence
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 and conducted the spot panchanama and also recorded the statements of various witnesses. He identified his signatures on Ex.P1. Though lengthy cross-examination is directed to him, nothing worth is elicited from his mouth so as to disbelieve his version given in the examination-in- chief. Ex.P1 is the scene of the offence panchanama prepared by the police on 22.01.2009. The said panchanama was prepared between 8.00 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. On reading the evidence of PW.1 as well as the panchanama and I.O., it is proved by the prosecution that the Investigation Officer PW.13 visited the scene of the offence and conducted the panchanama. To that extent, evidence of PW.13 is to be accepted.
27. PW.3 Varalakshmi w/o Nagaraju is the mother of the deceased and PW.4 Anitha Krishnaiah, the sister of the deceased, has come before the trial Court and deposed that Shyamala died because of burn injuries. They state that the accused was working with the deceased in the same office. They have deposed that the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 accused used to force her and harass the deceased to marry him. Evidently, these two witnesses are not the eyewitnesses to the said incident. They have spoken before the Court that the accused used to force the deceased to marry him. But they never deposed that; the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. So far as the relationship between these two witnesses and the deceased is concerned, there is no dispute. They are not the eyewitnesses to any of the incidents. They are the hearsay witnesses. Their evidence would not help the case of the prosecution in any manner.
28. PW.6 Prabhu Jawaregowda, a Sales Executive, was present and had seen the dead body in the mortuary at Victoria Hospital. He was very much present when the inquest panchanama was conducted as per Ex.P5. To the extent of his presence when the inquest panchanama was prepared by the police, his evidence is to be believed and accordingly it is believed.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
29. PW.7 Narasimhaiah, the then ASI in Kamakshipalya Police Station, recorded the statement of the victim on 21.01.2009 at 5.00 p.m. at Victoria Hospital. Thereafter, he went to the police station and based upon Ex.P.3, registered a crime initially for the offence under Section 309 of the IPC. He also went to the scene of the offence and prepared the panchanama as per Ex.P1. He has been cross-examined at length, but he was unable to say the name of the person who has permitted him to record the statement of the injured. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was unable to give her statement. Even he has not recorded the statement of the doctor who gave permission to record the statement of the injured.
30. On reading Ex.P3, based upon which a criminal law was set in motion, never prove the abetment by the accused to commit suicide by the deceased. To the extent of recording the statement of the victim, visiting the scene
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 of offence and preparing panchanama, the evidence of PW.7 is to be accepted.
31. PW.8 P.Mallesh, the Retired Asst. Director of FSL, has issued the FSL report by scientifically examining the material objects that were sent by the Investigating Officer. No cross-examination is directed to him. So far as the deceased sustaining burn injuries because of setting fire by pouring the kerosene is concerned, even defence is not disputing the same. To the extent of correctness of the contents of the Ex.P8, the evidence of this PW.8 is to be accepted.
32. PW.9 Y.V.Siddalingaiah, ASI, gave report as per Ex.P10. To that extent, evidence of this PW.9 is to be accepted. PW.9 apprehended the accused and produced him before the Investigating Officer.
33. PW.10 C. Kantha is a cousin of the deceased. She too is not an eyewitness to the incident. Though she speaks that there was a force by the accused to the
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 deceased to marry him, she is a hearsay witness as per her evidence. She speaks with regard to sustaining the burn injuries by the deceased and subsequently, she died. To that extent, evidence of PW.10 is to be believed. She has expressed ignorance with regard to the conversation between the deceased and the accused.
34. PW.11 Sridhar Poojari K was the Police Inspector who filed the charge sheet against the accused. The filing of the charge sheet is not disputed. Therefore, evidence of this PW.11 is to be accepted to the extent of filing a charge sheet against the accused.
35. PW.12 Basavarajappa, Police Constable, was deputed to carry the material objects to the FSL. This fact is not disputed by the defence. Therefore, evidence of PW.12 can be accepted to the extent of carrying the material objects to the FSL.
36. Then remains the evidence of PW.13 Kallappa Shankarappa Karar, the then ASI, who has conducted the
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 investigation. As per his evidence, he has recorded the statements of the witnesses and after collecting all the documents like the FSL report, postmortem report, etc., and conducted investigation. PW.13 has been cross- examined at length by the defence.
37. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the ingredients so stated under the provisions of IPC, it is the duty on the part of the prosecution to bring the concept of abetment, which requires the "mens rea" on the part of the abettor. In this case, the ingredients of abetment are missing. Accused wanted to marry the deceased. He forced her to marry and because of that, she committed suicide. But the Charge sheet Officer has filed a charge sheet against the accused, saying that it was the accused who abetted the deceased to commit suicide. One has to keep in mind that, in a case of present nature, there must be a direct proof or indirect acts of the accused of inducement to commit suicide. But, in this case, except the contents of Ex.P3 the complaint,
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 there is no evidence. Even on scrupulous reading of contents of Ex.P3, it never proves that there was an abetment to commit suicide. For better appreciation, it is just and proper to incorporate the words used by the deceased in her statement.
"£ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è, £ÉÆÃqÀÄ ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚ ¸ÀÄjzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý ¹ÃªÉÄJuÉÚ ¸ÀÄjzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÉAQ ºÀaÑPÉÆAqÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆUÁrzÉ."
38. These words, if applied to the ingredients of the offence under Section 309 of the IPC, never constitute that the ingredients of abetment to commit suicide are fulfilled. It was she who lit fire by pouring kerosene, stating that she wants to commit suicide. Even there was no single word spoken to by the accused according to PW.3 that she should die. So the ingredients of offence under Section 309 of the IPC are missing. There is no chain of circumstances brought on record by the prosecution to prove that it was the accused who abetted to commit suicide by the deceased.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014
39. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court stated supra relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel are aptly applicable to the present facts of the case. There is no proximate link between the deceased and the appellant with regard to the commission of crime by the deceased herself. There is no positive evidence placed on record by the prosecution. There is no direct act of the accused or instigation to commit suicide by the deceased. Hence, in view of the above, acceptable grounds are made out by the appellant to all the appeals. Prosecution has failed to prove its case. Therefore, the appeal succeeds by holding that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in coming to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence under Section 309 of the IPC. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence suffers from material particulars and there is no proper appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court. It requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the aforesaid points are answered in favour of the appellant and against the prosecution.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:28675 CRL.A No. 532 of 2014 Resultantly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the P.O., F.T.C-IV, Bengaluru in S.C.No.95/2012 dated 27.06.2015, is hereby set aside.
(iii) Consequentially, the accused is acquitted of the charges leveled under Section 309 of IPC.
(iv) His Bail bonds stand cancelled. The accused is set at liberty.
(v) If the fine amount is deposited by the accused, it shall be refunded to the accused forthwith digitally, after collecting necessary documents.
(vi) Send back the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment forthwith.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PSJ, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23