Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs P Sadashivan on 7 June, 2011
F») S/O. GOPALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. NO.81S, LAKSHMI V NILAYA, CHOLANAGAR, T BANGALORE. "..«..._REStr>iONDENTS (BY SR: 36. BHAGHANAN, SF€§'CC!JN-SEL FOR R1 TO R4) = " _ j THIS CRL. AppEm;3IS fu/S. 378(1)(3} CR.P.C. BY STATE' 'E'_T>."EOR STATE PRAYING TO GRANT TO :'E'TLE"AN'--."APEEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEM.EfNT__"08.*10;;2004 PASSED BY THE EAST TRACK;.'(SESSI_O7NS)""COURT-II, BANGALORE IN S.C.N.O--.--- t3'e4/SS0 .._AC,QU1T"T1NO< THE RESPONDENTS
ACcDSED"TEOR DEFENCE U/SS. 12013, 306 AND 201 OEIPG; T THIS CRLPd?PEAL1t «COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS "DAY, " COURT DELIVERED THE Fé)}L'QmN"»'?V§""' V JUDGMENT :T'11iSA.appea1u"'iSv filed by the State, challenging the 08.10.2004 passed by the Fast Track 'COD_rt~II.,-- ":03-.v.I:§anga1Ore City in S.C.NO. 364/1999, aequittting the aeeuSed--reSpOndentS Of the Offences Section 120-13, 306 and 201 {PC It is case Of the h"pTOSecutiOn that the accused NOS. 1 to 3 were trustees "Of the ViShveShwaraiah Trust and the Said trust was running a eofiege called aS Rajeev Gandhi Dental ?
3 College. Accused No.1 was the.i»eh_airmlanV'the Accused N032 and 3 are sons aeetijsezzfl» alsg'; trustees of the trust and Aeeused~.Nl:5-._4 was."_the ma,:l5ag¢:.e of the college. It is case lcxfrthe preseet1:t,i0i"1.: the deceased Agra Somaiaj to ltheiirst year B.D.S. course in the éoiiege1.¢::t'eaii:z.1997 and the deceased father failed to meet demands OfAQ§}'L1vS€ClNQ'S.l"tQ"4"fGr the payment of donation ..«:tui1ti0"n fees in time; agreed to do an.'tVillegall5aetl'hf Somaraj to committee suieide.¢vtr1thV to allot that seat to some one else for dQnat§_0n","ilin the event of her death and alsd'«:.tQ__iiVeQtnpel"he1f__.to pay the donation as intended by ' them,-.,_tl2.er.eby_ they are alleged to have committed an 'l_ll'1f:.d'§::;.f'll.Seetion 120~B IPC. It is further alleged that 0n.3'l;.l2.l998 when the deceased Aiya Somaraj it was attending her college in Rajeev Gandhi Dental
--..C';ellege, the accused persons secured her presence to .__tel'1ei:" office at about lO.l5 aim and abused her indiscriminately for having not paid the sum of Rs. 2.11 4 Iakhs being the donation am0umtc__éancidhiuitiehhfeées feud' one year. Since she had fafled 'ivthe, Course, She was a1so.*sVa.sked"1._té '_a.._V_VVsu;n 1 Rs.8O,OO0/M as additional as 1z:,?:'§z1m1 fee of Rs. 89,000/~ said by 111€HJUDiV€1"Sity and told her that that amount immediately tdcskgo fire to her. As a consequehdce-"olffl of the accused, the deceased'Aifya.A:§:e1naeaj- her room in the ladies h0stei. aud suicide by self immolation, thereby 'the accused had committed an offence' of abate1fue11t to commit suicide by her, and ~ v:thereby:.it,1's*alleged that the accused had Committed an 1' Section 306 of IPC.
.1 1*: is further alleged by the presecution that A:c'c'§1sed Nes.1 to 4 on 31.12.1997 at about 11.00 or "§11."3O am. after coming to know that the deceased has 2 "committed suicide in pursuance of their abatement and knowing that an offence punishable under Sections 306 % 5 IPC has been committed by them started' that Myra Somaraj has committed imrnolation, though she had---_ eo'n1rnittted~ _"suielde't'T1.t_in pursuance of the abetemehfippby to} 4; order to screening themselyee-.,of--.the eommitted by them they had to the police and public, therebyvAtVhejr:'~are have committed an offence ~3;""T profeeeution irforciyer to prove the case, has got and has got marked EX.P.l to EX.P.§5O and__p£odu'eed«MOs.l to 4. The defence of the accused ie orleef "total denial. However, the learned Judge......after hearing prosecution and the ' .:defe_r1ee',= that the prosecution has not proved the 'eaee agaihaevthe aeeused beyond reasonable doubt and has paedulltted the accused of all the offences charged V. 'raegainlst. them. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of l 'lvaequittal the State has filed this appeal. 6
4. Heard Sri RM. Nawaz, the learned Add}: SPF' for the State and Sri SC}. Bhaghavan, the fearned Counsel appearing for the accused.
5. The learned Addl. happy' seeeeeeygeeetree' evidence of pW.1, 9, 24 and eeereee the accused Nos. 1 to 3 beiag"incha1"ge dt'he"Ifii'11rr1;ng of V Rajeev Gandhi Dental infact admitted the the first year BDS coursefmiithe 1998 when the adv-lzclose the accused had forceidddffather to pay additional donatiorr * fees for the next year, though dare to the jda-uridice suffered by her the deceased riot paeseddihwthe 15' year examination. He further the evidence of PW.24 mother of the deeea.SedE' and PW26 brother of PW.2-4 clearly A.e3tab}i'ahes that due to the harassment given by the ' '''._dAee:used N05,': to 4 and abusive words hurled at her, on "T31/I2/1998 at about 10.15 to 11,00 a.m.r the deeeaeed 3'"
7
had gone to her room and committed suicide. He therefore submits that the accused are directly responsible for the death of the deeeasedp'..Caitse€la.they suicide, as a result of insult and abuses 'fort' n.on[--_ payment of the additional 'then:
and also the excessivevrlonations whi.e1i"\.£ras1'. "noth prescribed at the time of adrniiission. submits that the accused to.l")e.v__ooi1yietedAAhy allowing this appeal. 'V
6. 4HT7h--e:°'"le_arne;1 appearing for the responde'rits:ji,suhinitsthatilatwthe out set there is no convincing Veviderioe'«..a'dclueed by the prosecution to prove theiélingiredsients of the offence under Sections l20~ ahsoliitely no material to show that the I Vae.et1fs.et;i._Aha§=e:_1eommritted the act of criminal conspiracy in*~..__orcler_to Cause the commission of suicide by the n<:leeease;cl. Further he submits that no Witnesses speak it *-_abo{it the prior meeting of the aeeusecl for the purpose ' " ~ "of commission of any offense. Therefore the prosecution x?
8 has failed to prove the offence vli3VC. He further submits that the ingrekiientsiglvof he under Section 306 IPC naniely,eonhspirae}/§"_=toV"eornrnit an offence, instigate to lor"assistanee to commit an offence person has not been proved}:-y though the 38 witnesses and therefore the accused cannot be convaicted_"foitj.. under Section 306 IPC. He further subinitsf 'that_..the1.'.e is no material to show that the accluspeidp No_s4fl_ either together or separately given false: information to the police regarding the pd"eath»."v0f"._the deceased and that thus, they have llthemselves from the legal punishments them for the offence under Section 308 Hence he submits that the order of acquittal does V suffer from any illegality and irregularity. He also "'V.si;1i:e'--rnits that to convert an order of acquittal into one of " vrconviction the appellate Court has to find that the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is i % 9 perverse apart from other grounds. He submits that there is no such perversity in the judgment the acquittal passed by the T rial Court. Th.e1_tjetoi;te';.V'i2e submits that the appeal may he dismisse§l_.»""-.,:. ' Vi"
7. One perusal of the lo{%zer::._'CoVuft~. observed that the proceedin__gsV_ in this case e'onimeneed'V ' with filing of petition one 'K-.osA.Dayflananda Shetty, who is cited as CW.7fl"/i;_r1 addressed to the P.S.I., I€lehha_l_. it is stated as follows:
:¥f_'SLib:nVVC'(1m_t5laiiit:"regarding that student by l _ 4' _ na1ne'AAi§jx'a':"E3omaraj met fire accident " jwvhiile s'he""ivas in the hostel at 11.30 a"_'["11v,.'..' .... .. 9 the said letter are as follows : .. " "VVith reference to the above, I submit it 'that a student by name Arya Somarajan studying in E BBS course has met a fire accident while she was attempting to boil milk, the details ef the accident is net at % 19 V known. Now she is taken to : 1' hospital for the immediate »t1featm_ent; = 1: .
ed;/}:. 4131 j 91_;2g9'e 'V on 9 if :Da}'3118Iida}'g
8. The above;__petition.1:VVhz1s'been9eiioiorsied by the 19.1., stating that by him, on 31.12.1998 at1.14.O51"'i'1vo11'rS is registered as Cr}. prosecution has produeeo Ramaiah Medical Teaching a1:1d1eVeese't1VVto the P.S.1. Sanjay Nagar P.S. etajging expired on 31.12.1998 at about p:V.'r11..'Tan.d Kindly to do the needful. The said Ainit.i"rana"LV1oor1o.AeontL21i1'1's§V the information stating that Arya 19 years is admitted in the SS. Ward, an of burns etc., on 31.12.1998 at about 12 noon _ub:"ought by her Classmates of Rajeevn Gandhi xD;e'nta1 Hostel and address given as Rajeev Gandhi Collegei Choia Nagari Hebbal, On receipt of this Wintimation by the police at about 10.45 a.1n. on 1.1.1999 the eame has been transferred to the Hebba1 't 11 RS. on the point of jurisdiction. The received the same at 1215 hours on registered it as UDR No.1/' 9 Cr.P.C. it is seen in the pijoseeutieniease the of the deceased was »vorking"i'i:.n"Saudi"Arabia the 9 relevant period at Eanéaiore on 07.01.1999 and he gave regarding the ineidentfas on receipt of the said hours registered the sameias fojruthe offence under Sections 302, . RM. 34 IPC and commenced inyeistigation'...V_VHItV'is seen that having not satisfied with . the post iriortem examination conducted at the instance ~.cA>Vi'.-.tt'~"1e" Victoria Hospital, PW.1 who is father of deeeased has taken body to his native place and iisuhjeeted the dead body for the second post mortem examination. Thereafter on eonipletion of investigation 9 ehargesheet eame to be filed against the accused. /% 1?
9. The relevant evidence in this Case is that the father of deceased who is PW.1, mother of PW.24, PW28, the brother of __iPV\f_.'24 _"and::'fE'Rll7';i9'_' who" "
speaks about the conspiracy.
of the deceased PW.12,Vl also-it relevant to some extent ths"ugh--all_ threeef them have not supported the easelcfthie in full.
10. :'V.the":deceased and the complvainaiiits-lViljlelll he is working in and deceased Arya was his first in PUC --- H in the year tliereafteI7».V_"S_91:ght admission to the college run by ' Lethe ac_:Cusedv ___Nos.l to 3. He has stated that after "eoi1firtnii5fg about the availability of the seat in the eolle.ge',«._ he had given money to one Radha Krishna a A,dist_ant relative but had in turn contacted the personal secretary of then Central Minister C.lVl.lbrahim for securing the seat. Aeeordinglyt he was informed that a sum of Rs.l,Q0,0QO/~ is required to register the /% I3 admission in Rajiv Gandhi Dental College, Bangalore. He had paid the said amount to his wife so as tagixze it to the said Radha Krishna who in turn eon--tajg:te'dI' one Mohana a relative of one of the staff office. Thereafter, they had beeenntoj month of November and ia-tei' contaeteda.*ae:{e?i_sed_:§no.L':
who was the Managing oiviishwevshxxraraiah Trust, which ran No.4 is the Superintendent of i\Ios.2 and 3 are sons of assisting their fathefiilv It is stated by him that after getting admission, his daughtei>._'uC\o1.11d' for the examination due to jaiihdie'e and " therefore, she was declared failed in the ' fi'r*st B_.D.Si"examinations. V\/'hen she approached the "college At"o'f'j_eontinuation of her studies, it was informed to hertthat they have to pay an additional donation and A to pay a sum of Rs.8';'¢,0OO/-- being advance fees for t the next year. She was also informed that for having failed in the subjects she has to pay the fees in advance .,, I4 for appearing for the examination again. It is stated by PW.1 that since he eouid not make arrangementsto pay the entire sum of money as demanded by "in excess of what was agreed upon earlier} his has been summoned to the OfffhiC€b::Ai31"i was abused by the management and-was stated by PW.1 that the have and am if she acoordirlgly. his daughter came to ---and committed suicide. it ivti'v.'th'e"i'ex7idenCe that the authorities that his accidental fire while boiling milk he came to know that his daughter hadeornmioitted suicide and he has also come ' .1:rioW,that is because of the abetment of accused she has committed suicide, otherwise there was no reason for his daughter to commit suicide. AAVifie"~had given a statement to Inspector Munivenkatappa after Coming to India on 07.011999 as per EX,P.1. It is suggested to PW} in the erossexamination that the x?
16 31.12.1998 in the evening when he had gone to the Rajiv Gandhi Dental College, accused Nosl to'il,;i'»iwere standing near the ladies hostel and stating student has not paid the donation of to.
the Trust and she should be fin,ishedlgl:T93rhtilrnifig ;_in the crossexamination, it.»is..__e1icited'from;Vlliirngthat fiigl'. sale deed was registered as decree passed against it 'Civil Court in O.S.No.7521/19f.35. that his son C.N.Ragh_u had filed a suit in of the properties mentioned slulggested to him that he has not l\los.1 to 4 standing near the Rajiy l)enta1vCo11ege in the evening and were not ' «finish one lady dental student. PW24 is 'then/ife . 1. She has stated in same terms as that of 17l>WJ1«;_regarding payment of fees and admission of the A ":1 deeeased in the college and also her committing suicide. 1 her evidence she has stated that her daughter was informing her over telephone that the accused are 9' l8 Va;-ghese in her statement has JSt3t'€& ' . know that Arya Somaraj committed: s~:1icide"in thellhdstel due to the payfnent of additilotnal fe"ef~:«_ fees as V demanded by the ntanagernet1t__an_d thatl.shevvlhas given the statement to effect. PW28 H.R.Dharn'1end_ra off Police Station during the pe1*iod';" stated that on 31.12. 19:93 lijibegyananda Shetty, Office Supervisoift l ""I5ental College appeared before-_hin_1 and produced a written report in English. On the basis of r__eport'hve___has registered a case in Cr1.Misc.Case ' '/._and went to M.S.Ramaiah College Medical that the deceased was being admitted foethe: 'treatment for burns in the burns ward of the T hereafter, he has conducted the investigation
--..vintd'lthe matter. PW.29 K.GoVindaiah has stated that he tvas PS1 in the Hebbal Police Station and on GLO}. 1999, he has received the death memo of Atya Somaraj and registered a UDR N091/' 1999 under Section l74 of l9 Cr.P.C. The said UDR is marked.4ia;'s ' Prithiviraje Urs was the A81. 4'He7has investigation of the case. .31 lDr:.l\>1.a'lliAliyllanjunath has stated that deceased Q.waslVt_:bro'"t1ght "to'"M::§.Ran1aiah Hospital at 12.30 treatment of burns. Xvas the Deputy al ;E.du--c of Governme t of at rat the decease was studying l3ental College Hospital in first yeariv'-BBS. that he was directed to conduct Government regarding the death of theV"st1V1:dent Arya Somaraj. Accordingly, he has report to the Government. PW.36 was Branch, Bangalore. He was directed to take the investigation in UDR No.1/1999. xAecor'dingly, he has conducted the investigation and Visited the spot thereafter, he has recorded the V etaternent of witnesses. On O7".{)l.l999 he has arrested accused Nos} and 2 and produced them before the Court, He has further stated that he has examined the /2 Zl balance consideration of Rs.3,00,000/~ executed the sale deed in CG1'1S8(§i1€ilf1C€:v4lli)f '' 3." decree ' passed against him by the Court.
that his son and daughterl_h-~:1.Ve 3. College for partition of the which seld to the College by him» Therefor'e, in his evidence he has stated that he has i'V'seen_.~...fc'Ic_cjL1s'ed Nosl to 4 discussing 2.ib.oLlvt_"fi1fs3;' ti) gaxvgirl who has not paid the: ilpregrrlented PW.9 to give compvlaintA"'to" is the retired Police Officer of 'iflat all he had heard accused Nos.1 the burning a girl nothing pregferited hiniiwlto inform the same to the police ,A 'iI11TI}€(i.:liA£1lLClfy'._.V Further from his crossexamination, it is . bitter enernity against accused Nosl to"~4. Nos.1 to 4 would not have discussed in the Iéresence of PW.9, who was in enernical terms with _ e;e"i::i and therefore, no credence can be given to 'evidence of l1'V\/'.9 regarding their discussion to burn a girl who has not paid the fees. Apart from this piece of i 22 evidence. no other material is there to shvaW_:"'that.:'thei'e any criminal conspiracy to eommitaii 'offenee'of.ysetting fire to the deceased. Therefore, théyroseetitlion has'<riot..
proved the offence under S
13. 0 far als t'{"jie:i"offenc2e' vun<i1"er"S . 'of: §O63lPC is concerne , merey ecause_.accusedu l os. 0 have demanded the:'donat1'on' their regular list of payrnenteitillcannot be said that they the commission of suicide __ There is nothing to show that the coilnrnissionlcjf by the deceased is direct conseq_uence,VAofh"the- acts alleged against the accused. 'l V. 'Tl':-e:i'e5fore'; the eylidevnce adduced by the prosecution is hold that the accused Nosil to 4 either 'indviyidua£l_y;1' or collectively are the cause for the cornrI1'ission of death of the deceased by committing "s*d.icidVe. Merely saying a person to go and die does not latnount to abetment as held by the Supreme Court in " 2002 Suprerne Court l998 ~» Sanju @ Sanjay Singh 24 by this Court in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the ap7'§£:.al is dismissed.
Sbs /nvj