Karnataka High Court
S Raghavendra vs State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2014
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N. Ananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.347/2009
BETWEEN:
S.RAGHAVENDRA
S/O S.SRINIVASA, AGED 28 YEARS
R/O NEAR SAVI BAKERY
VINOBANAGAR, SHIMOGA. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRIYUTHS SANTOSH S.NAGARALE & V.A.PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH DODDAPET POLICE STATION
SHIMOGA. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
29.04.2009/02.05.2009, PASSED IN S.C.NO.144/2007, ON THE
FILE OF I/C ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIMOGA,
CONVICTING APPELLANT-ACCUSED NO.1 FOR AN OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 IPC & ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
The appellant (hereinafter referred as 'accused No.1') along with accused 2 to 5 were chargesheeted for an offence punishable under section 306 IPC. The learned trial Judge discharged accused 2 to 5. Accused No.1 was charged for offences punishable under sections 306 & 417 IPC on the allegations that accused No.1 having fallen in love with Savitha (since deceased) had committed breach of promise to her with the intention that his acts are likely to drive her to commit suicide. The learned trial Judge has convicted accused No.1 for an offence punishable under section 306 IPC. Therefore, he is before this court.
2. I have heard Sri Santosh S.Nagarale, learned counsel for accused No.1 and Sri B.Visweswaraiah, learned HCGP for State.
3. It is established from evidence on record that accused No.1 had fallen in love with deceased Savitha and they had love affair for a period of 8 months prior to 12.04.2006. 3 Accused No.2-Vani (the younger sister of accused No.1), accused No.3-Kishore (the husband of accused No.2), accused No.4-Srinivas Rao (the father of accused No.1) and accused No.5-Gayatri (the mother of accused No.1) had visited the house of deceased and scolded her parents and close relatives, stating that deceased Savitha was a girl of easy virtues and accused No.1 will not marry deceased Savitha. Therefore, younger sister of deceased namely PW6- Latha lodged first information with Doddapet Police Station, Shimoga City. Accused 1 to 5 were summoned to police station. Accused No.1 agreed to marry deceased Savitha. Therefore, PW6-Latha withdrew complaint. Thereafter, accused No.1 took a 'U' turn and told deceased Savitha that he would not marry her. The deceased was shocked. She ran away from police station to her house and consumed paracetamol tablets to commit suicide. The deceased was shifted and treated in Raikar Hospital at Shimoga for six days, however she could not be saved. The contents of post- mortem examination report would reveal that death of 4 deceased was due to cerebral edema and pulmonary edema as a sequelae of consumption of paracetamol tablets.
4. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that paracetamol tablet is a pain killer, prescribed for head ache and fever. The deceased had consumed bulk quantity of paracetamol tablets. Therefore, it is not possible to infer that deceased had consumed paracetamol tables to commit suicide. It appears, the deceased out of sheer frustration had consumed paracetamol tablets, which had caused cerebral edema and pulmonary edema.
5. The evidence of close relatives of deceased would reveal that deceased and accused No.1 had fallen in love for a period of 8 months before death of deceased on 29.04.2006. The parents and close relatives of accused No.1, including accused 2 to 5 had opposed the marriage between accused No.1 and deceased.
5
6. The evidence on record does not reveal that accused No.1 was pursuing any gainful avocation, so also deceased Savitha. Accused No.1 and deceased were not economically independent. The evidence of close relatives of deceased does not reveal that accused No.1 had promised deceased to marry her at any point of time before her death. The close relatives of deceased have presumed that accused No.1 had promised to marry deceased, because they had moved together for over a period of 8 months before death of deceased. The prosecution has no case that accused No.1 had induced deceased to cohabit with him by holding out a promise to marry her.
7. The evidence of prosecution witnesses accepted at its face value would reveal that accused No.1 had committed an omission by refusing to marry deceased Savitha.
8. Under section 107 IPC, it is stated that a person abets the doing of a thing, who -
First - ........................................ 6 Secondly ..................................... Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
9. In the context of abetment alleged in the case on hand, it is necessary to find out if accused No.1 by refusing to marry deceased Savitha had committed an illegal omission to attract 'abetment' as defined under section 107 IPC. An omission would be illegal only if what has been omitted was required to be done by him under law. Thus, an obligation to do a particular act, which accused No.1 had omitted to do should have been enjoined by statute. A mere omission would not attract 'abetment' under section 107 IPC.
10. In other words, abetment under section 107 IPC is attracted if accused has illegally omitted to do some act, which he is bound to do under law.
In the case on hand, evidence of close relatives of deceased does not reveal that accused No.1 had promised to 7 marry deceased Savitha at any point of time prior to 12.04.2006.
11. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that first information was lodged by PW6-Latha (younger sister of deceased) on 12.04.2006 against accused 1 to 5. It appears, the Station House Officer had summoned both parties to find out possibility of putting an end to dispute by performing marriage of accused No.1 and deceased Savitha. The parents of accused No.1 were against marriage of accused No.1 and deceased Savitha. The evidence on record does not disclose that close relatives of deceased Savitha had accepted to give deceased Savitha in marriage to accused No.1 as parties belong to different castes. The evidence on record does not disclose that accused No.1 with an intention to abet the commission of suicide by deceased had withdrawn his consent to marry deceased Savitha.
12. The evidence of close relatives of deceased does not reveal that deceased Savitha had revealed her relationship 8 with accused No.1 at any point of time prior to 12.04.2006. Deceased Savitha had not told her parents and close relatives that she was willing to marry accused No.1 and accused No.1 had promised to marry her. The state of mind of deceased Savitha can be gathered only through her revelations to her close relatives. The close relatives of deceased have not deposed that deceased had revealed to them that she had intended to marry accused No.1 and that accused no.1 had promised to marry her. A mere breach of promise to marry without any thing more would not attract an offence punishable under section 306 IPC. The accused has been acquitted of an offence punishable under section 417 IPC.
13. The learned trial Judge without considering the basic ingredients of an offence punishable under section 306 IPC, presumably being swayed away by the death of deceased has convicted accused No.1 for an offence punishable under section 306 IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
9
14. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment is set aside. Accused No.1 is acquitted of an offence punishable under section 306 IPC. The bail bond executed by accused No.1 stands cancelled. If accused No.1 has deposited fine amount in terms of the impugned judgment, the same shall be refunded to him.
Sd/-
JUDGE SNN.