Karnataka High Court
Sri Raghavendra @ Raghu vs State By Rajajinagar Police Station on 7 June, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 812, 2019 CRI LJ 4586, 2019 (3) AKR 739, (2019) 6 KANT LJ 130
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.954 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAGHAVENDRA @ RAGHU
S/O. K.C. BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.04,
6TH 'B' CROSS,
SHRIKANTESHWARA NAGAR,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU.
2. SMT. SHOBHA
W/O. K.C. BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.04,
6TH 'B' CROSS,
SHRIKANTESHWARA NAGAR,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU.
3. CHETHAN B.J.
S/O. SUBBEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF BOOBI VILLAGE,
THEERTHAHALLI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K. SHRIDHARA, ADV.)
2
AND:
STATE BY RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, H.C.G.P.)
***
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7-3-2018 IN S.C.
NO.222 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XLV ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, (CCH-46) FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF THE I.P.C.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 3-4-2019 AND
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Sessions Case No.222 of 2016 for having dismissed the application filed by them under Section 227 of the Code 3 of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') vide order dated 7-3-2018.
2. The petitioners are the accused before the trial Court and the rank of the parties are retained for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts of the case before the trial court is that Rajajinagar Police, Bengaluru, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the I.P.C.') based on the complaint filed by one Guruprasad @ Raghavendra, the elder brother of the deceased-Deepa, who committed suicide on 23-8-2013 in her house by hanging to a ceiling fan. The deceased left the death note alleging that the accused persons are the cause for her committing suicide. Based upon the complaint, the Police arrested the accused and after investigation, they have filed charge- 4 sheet. After committal of the case by the Magistrate, the accused persons appeared before the trial Court and moved an application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C for discharging them from the charges, which came to be dismissed by the trial Judge. Hence, this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no direct evidence against the petitioners for having abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The case of the prosecution is only based upon the death note of the deceased. Even otherwise, there is no specific allegation that they have abetted the deceased and as per the death note, the deceased said to have given some lakh of rupees to the accused persons by hand loan. The same was not return by them. It is also stated by her that she has borrowed loan from some other person and given to the accused, 5 but the accused have not repaid the same. Hence, she committed suicide. That itself is not a ground to frame the charges against the accused persons there is no strong material placed against the accused persons. Hence, he prayed for discharging them from the charges.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the statement of the family members, the neighbours and death note left by the deceased clearly goes to show that the accused troubled her without repaying the money. The deceased was deserted woman, living separately along with her son, borrowed money from third person and lent to the accused, who are relatives of the deceased. Entire charge-sheet material goes to show that due to the act of the accused, the deceased constrained to commit suicide. Therefore, the trial Court is required to 6 consider all the aspects only after full fledged trial. Therefore, he prayed for dismissing the revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the charge-sheet material.
7. It is not in dispute that the deceased-Deepa was running a beauty parlor in rented premises; lived along with her son, and committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan on 23-8-2013 during night in her house by leaving the death note. After receipt of the information, the brother of the deceased lodged the complaint. Based upon the complaint, the Police registered a case against the accused. The complaint reveals that the complainant lodged the complaint, after the receipt of information and himself finds out the death note of the deceased and he has stated that the accused persons borrowed huge amount from his sister 7 and did not repay. Due to which, she has committed suicide.
8. After visiting the spot, the Police have seized the death note. Inquest panchanama prepared by the Police on the dead body and recorded the statement of Munisiddegowda-the father of the deceased. He has stated that his daughter used to tell that Raghavendra @ Raghu (accused No.1) has borrowed Rs.10 lakh and she has given the said amount by borrowing from some other person. Whenever, she demanded the said amount from accused No.1, he told her to go and die and he cannot repay the amount. Apart from that, she had given Rs.11.50 lakh to Chethana B.J. (accused No.3) and Chethana B.M. (accused No.4) borrowing from others, they have also not repaid the same. Whenever, she demanded the said amount from them, they used to tell that they will not repay the money even if she dies. 8 Mother of the deceased-Saraswathi gave similar statement as that of her husband. Younger brother of the deceased-Nitin also gave similar statement as that of his parents. Uncle of the deceased-Muniraju also gave similar statement and Surya Narayana, the landlord, who has rented the premises to the deceased, also gave similar statement before the Police. Committing suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan is not in dispute. The death note left by the deceased goes to show that the accused were not repaying the money to the deceased as she had borrowed it from others. There was no other way left for the deceased, except committing suicide and she has also stated that, at least, the accused will repay the money, if she commits suicide.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that in similar case, this Court has quashed 9 the charges against the accused persons. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the order of this Court in the case of SMT. SWATI PAI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in WRIT PETITION NO.28602 OF 2015 decided on 7-12-2015. Further, he relied upon the following judgments, i.e. SANJU @ SANJAY SINGH SENGAR v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2002) AIR (SCW) 2035, NETAI DUTTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in (2005) 28 AIC 541; and ASHISH CHAUDHARY v. STATE and DALIP CHAUDHARY v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.725 of 2007 and 66 of 2008 decided on 19-1-2009.
10. On perusal of the statements of the witnesses, especially, the family members of the deceased, all of them have stated that the deceased had borrowed money from others and lent Rs.21.50 lakh to the 10 accused persons. Whenever, she demanded the said amount from the accused, they used to tell her to go and die. The brother of the deceased, while lodging the complaint, at the first instance, has not stated that the accused were telling the deceased to go and die, but he has revealed later that the deceased left the death note stating that the accused were the cause for her committing suicide. At the time of inquest panchanama, the parents have stated that the deceased was telling them that the accused persons have told her to go and die, then only she cannot demand money from them, but the said words uttered by the accused to the deceased did not find place in the suicidal death note. On the other hand, the death note shows that she has borrowed huge money from others and lent to the accused persons, but the accused were not repaying the same and she was unable to repay the money to the person from whom she had borrowed it and 11 the suicide note also says, she was trying to commit suicide for last six months, but could not succeed. Even at page No.4 of death note, she has referred that for last two months, she attempted to commit suicide, but was not possible. At page No.7 of death note, she has stated that since six months, she was trying to commit suicide, but was not successful and further, she has stated that she is praying god to have success in commission of suicide. She has named the persons, i.e. Amudha aunty and Srinivas from whom she had borrowed Rs.5 lakh for the purpose of establishing parlour, but not repaid. She has paid the money to the accused and she has stated the accused Ragu (Ragavendra), Shoba, Chethan B.M. and Chethan B.J. are cause for borrowing loan from others. The death note shows that the deceased committed suicide due to the fact that the accused have not repaid the money which was borrowed from her.
12
11. As regards to the abetment, it is worth to mention the ingredients of Section 107 of the I.P.C. in order to attract Section 306 of the I.P.C. for framing charge, which reads as follows:
Section 107:
"Abetment of a thing.-- A person abets in doing of a thing, who--
Firstly.-- 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, in doing of that thing.13
Explanation 1.-- A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.-- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
12. On reading of the statements of the parents of the deceased go to show that the accused have told the deceased to go and die. Whether the accused were instigating the deceased by telling her to go and die is the fact required to be considered by the Court only after trial.
14
13. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SANJU @ SANJAY SINGH SENGAR v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2002) AIR (SCW) 2035, held that uttering the words 'to go and die' by the accused by itself does not constitute the ingredients of 'instigation'. The relevant portion reads as follows:
"Charge under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. Words 'to go and die' uttered by the accused by itself does not constitute the ingredients 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."
14. On perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case, the husband said to have uttered words 'to go and die' during a family dispute due to heat of passion or during domestic 15 quarrel. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there must be presence of mens rea in order to frame the charges under Section 306 of the I.P.C., but the fact of above case is altogether different from the case on hand.
15. In the case of NETAI DUTTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in (2005) 28 AIC 541, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in respect of abetment, quashed the criminal proceedings based upon the death note said to have been left by the deceased. In paragraph Nos.5 and 6, it has held as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide note that the present appellant had caused any harm to him or was in any way responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was very 16 much dissatisfied with the working conditions at the work place. But, it may also be noticed that the deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never joined the office at 160 B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and had absented himself for a period of two years and that the suicide took place on 16.2.2001. It cannot be said that the present appellant had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the suicide of Pranab Kumar Nag. An offence under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of the "abetment" have been stated in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or 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, or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The explanation to Section 107 says that any willful 17 misrepresentation or willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment".
6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag."
16. In the above said case, the dispute is between employer and employee. Due to quarrel between them, the deceased committed suicide. On this context, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is 18 no role played by the accused in conspiring or instigating the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the charges have been quashed. The fact of the present case on hand is different from the case stated above.
17. The Delhi High Court in the case of ASHISH CHAUDHARY v. STATE and in the case of DALIP CHAUDHARY v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.725 of 2007 and 66 of 2008 decided on 19-1-2009, wherein the deceased borrowed money from the accused and the accused were pressurizing to repay. For that, the deceased committed suicide. The Delhi High Court after referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar stated supra quashed the charges under Section 306 of the I.P.C.
18. Though the fact of the above said case looks identical, but in the present case, the deceased left the 19 elaborate death note regarding borrowing money from others and lending it to the accused and the accused dragged her without paying any interest or principal amount. She has clearly stated in the death note that the accused are the cause for her committing suicide.
19. It is a different case, as the statements of the parents go to show that the accused were instigating the deceased to go and die and the deceased also left the death note against the accused and has categorically stated that the accused are the cause for commission of suicide by her. Therefore, the trial Court, without recording the evidence and appreciating the documents, cannot jump into conclusion that there is no abetment.
20. This Court in the case of SMT. SWATI PAI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in WRIT PETITION NO.28602 OF 2015 decided on 20 7-12-2015 quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 306 of the I.P.C.
21. In the present case, the statements of the parents of the deceased go to show that the accused were instigating the deceased to go and die and the deceased informed the same to her parents. The statements of the parents were recorded during inquest panchanama. The brother, the sister and other relatives have also spoken about the same. Whether the accused persons borrowed money or not from the deceased is required to be considered by the trial Court only after full fledged trial.
22. As I have already discussed above, in order to attract the ingredients of Section 107 of the I.P.C., there must be willful conduct of the accused to aid and abet the deceased to commit suicide. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court has stated, there must be 21 strong suspicion and material should be placed before the Court to frame the charges against the accused under Section 306 of the I.P.C. When deceased had borrowed huge money from others and given to the accused, there must be some pressure to the deceased due to non-returning of the money by the accused which act or omission on the part of the accused can be brought under the definition of instigation. In order to attract Section 107 of the I.P.C., there is material to show that the accused instigated the deceased to do that thing; or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act of illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, or intentionally aids, by any illegal act or omission, in doing of that thing to attract the definition of the word abetment. In this case, there is ingredient or material placed on record by the prosecution to show that in the 22 death note of the deceased, she has clearly stated that the accused abetted her to commit suicide and there is strong suspicion against the accused to frame the charges under Section 306 of the I.P.C.
23. This Court in the case of SHAMABANU IMTIYAZ AHMED JAMBAGI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE SATION, BENGALURU, reported in 2018 (1) KCCR 28, held that when there is no ingredient to frame the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., the object is to see that if the accused person is innocent and no grounds are available to proceed against him, he should not be made to suffer an ordeal of long trial before the Court. If no material are available, instead of wasting time, the matter should be nipped at the bud and the Court should bear in mind that it is an important stage to 23 consider all the material on record and thereafter, to pass an appropriate orders.
24. Of course, the Court is required to discharge the accused when there is no material placed on record. However, it is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Court cannot appreciate the documents and statements on record before recording the evidence and conclusion of trial. Each case should be considered in its own facts and circumstances of that case. There should not be any straight jacket formula adopted in discharging the accused on the ground that there is no material placed on record. The trial Court is required to consider the death note, dying declaration and the statement made by the deceased to her parents and statements of the parents, relatives, neighbours and other evidence to be appreciated by the trial Court, which is possible only after full fledged trial. 24 Therefore, when there is sufficient material placed on record, the Court is required to proceed with the trial by framing the charges and at this stage, it is not possible to accept that there is no ingredient to frame the charges. In the case of sessions trial, when there is no sufficient ground for framing the charges against the accused, the Court shall discharge the accused, but when there is sufficient material available for framing the charges, the Court shall proceed to frame the charges under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. The trial Court, after considering the statements, has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners for discharging them from the charges under Section 306 of the I.P.C. Therefore, considering the entire material on record, there is sufficient ground and material placed on record to proceed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. 25
25. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any illegality or error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE kvk