Karnataka High Court
Dr R Radhakrishna vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37900
CRL.P No. 2235 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2235 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. DR. R. RADHAKRISHNA
S/O B.R. RANGANATHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT 541, 16TH CROSS, 35TH MAIN,
6TH PHASE , J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560078.
2. SHOBHA RANI
W/O DR. B.R. RADHAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT 541, 16TH CROSS, 35TH MAIN,
6TH PHASE , J.P. NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560078.
3. SMT. B.R. PADVATHAMMA
W/O LATE U.R. SWAMY,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
signed by
SUMA R/AT 541, 16TH CROSS, 35TH MAIN,
Location: 6TH PHASE , J.P. NAGAR,
HIGH BENGALURU-560078.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
4. SMT. B.R. NIRMALA DEVI
W/O B.H. HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT 1815/1, 7TH CROSS
SUBHASH NAGAR,
MANDYA-571401
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37900
CRL.P No. 2235 of 2021
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY KIRUGAVALU POLICE STATION
MANDYA DISTRICT
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O LATE RAJENDRA PRAKASH B.R.,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT BENDARAVADI VILLAGE,
KIRUGAVALU HOBLI,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. B.V.MANJE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.A.
CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.73/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MALAVALLI, MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 306 READ WITH 34 OF IPC,
WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.73/2020 pending trial before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli, Mandya (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 306 read -3- NC: 2023:KHC:37900 CRL.P No. 2235 of 2021 with Section 34 of IPC, have filed this petition to quash the entire proceedings.
2. An action to prosecute the petitioners was initiated by the respondent No.2 who informed respondent No.1 in writing on 16.12.2019 that her son Rajarathna was a cameraman in the film industry. She claimed that they had disposed off a house at Bengaluru to meet the marriage expenses of her daughter. She claimed that from the date of such sale, the petitioners were all grinding vengeance against her and Rajarathna for selling away the house. She alleged that on 08.10.2019, the petitioners went to her house and abused her for selling away the house and claimed that they too were entitled to a share in the sale proceeds. They also abused them that it was better for them to give up their lives rather than leading their lives by selling away the house. She claimed that after Rajarathna came home on 24.10.2019, she informed the incident to him. At about 9.00 p.m., the said Rajarathna went outside and at about 9.45 p.m., he was found struggling outside the house and on enquiry, they learnt that Rajarathna had consumed poison. Though they shifted him to the hospital, he died on 15.12.2019. She therefore, accused -4- NC: 2023:KHC:37900 CRL.P No. 2235 of 2021 the petitioners of abetting the suicide of Rajarathna. Based on this, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.117/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and took up investigation.
3. During the course of investigation, the respondent No.1 recorded the further statement of respondent No.2, who stated that the deceased - Rajarathna had suffered loss in the film industry and had incurred heavy loss. She accused the petitioners of abetting his suicide by abusing them, which forced him to commit suicide. Based on further statements recorded by the respondent No.1, a charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Chief Ministerial Officer before whom the charge-sheet was filed, perused the records and took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and directed the registration of a case.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court. -5-
NC: 2023:KHC:37900 CRL.P No. 2235 of 2021
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 contended that a perusal of the entire statements of the witnesses recorded would go to show that an offence under Sections 306, 504 of IPC was not attracted. He submitted that there was no abetment by the petitioners to abet the suicide of Rajarathna. Learned counsel further contended that the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Trial Court had taken cognizance and the Trial Court did not apply its mind before taking cognizance.
6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments:-
1) Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 371]
2) Geo Varghese vs. State of Rajasthan and another [2021 SCC Online SC 873]
3) Kanchan Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [2021 SCC Online SC 737]
4) Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and another [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438]
7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand submitted that it was the petitioners who compelled Rajarathna to commit suicide, which is evident from the -6- NC: 2023:KHC:37900 CRL.P No. 2235 of 2021 statements of the respondent No.2 and other witnesses. He therefore, contended that an offence under Section 306 of IPC was made out.
8. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 also submitted that the statements of the petitioners hurt Rajarathna and he was compelled to commit suicide and therefore, the petitioners had to establish their innocence before the Trial Court.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1.
10. The petitioners were all accused of visiting the house of the respondent No.2 on 08.10.2019 and they demanded their share in the property sold by the respondent No.2 and the deceased. They were accused of chastising the respondent No.2 of leading a life by selling away the property. They were also accused of exhorting the respondent No.2 to commit suicide rather than leading a life by selling away the property. The question therefore, is whether these utterances -7- NC: 2023:KHC:37900 CRL.P No. 2235 of 2021 would constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC. It is relevant to note that after the petitioners allegedly visited the respondent No.2 on 08.10.2019, the respondent No.2 is stated to have informed this to the deceased - Rajarathna on 24.10.2019. On the same day, Rajarathna had consumed poison and he was shifted to the hospital on the same day. However, he did not record any statement before the Medical Officer or before any of his relatives, accusing that the petitioners compelled him to commit suicide. The said Rajarathna died on 15.12.2019. For an offence under Section 306 of IPC, it is necessary that there must be an apparent intention on the part of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. To "abet" as defined under Section 108 of IPC is to instigate the commission of any offence with an intention and knowledge that such abetment would result in the death of the deceased.
11. In the case on hand, there is apparently no abetment by any of the petitioners in the act of deceased committing suicide. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar, supra, held as follows:- -8-
NC: 2023:KHC:37900 CRL.P No. 2235 of 2021 "The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 CrPC is annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked him "to go and die". Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased "to go and die", that itself does not constitute the ingredient 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. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25-7-1998 ensued by a quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27-7-1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25-7-1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27-7-1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25-7-1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27-7-1998 would itself clearly -9- NC: 2023:KHC:37900 CRL.P No. 2235 of 2021 point out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25-7-1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below."
12. A perusal of the entire charge-sheet and the materials placed therewith do not show that the petitioners had any intention to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. On the other hand, respondent No.2 in her further statement claimed that deceased had suffered loss in his business. The fact that the petitioners demanded their share in the property sold, could have aggravated the mental turmoil suffered by the deceased, who committed suicide.
13. Therefore, there is no material collected by the respondent No.1 to prosecute the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. In that view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law and therefore, the impugned prosecution of the petitioners is liable to be halted.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37900 CRL.P No. 2235 of 2021
14. Hence, this petition is allowed. The impugned prosecution of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.73/2020 pending trial on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli, Mandya for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35