Bangalore District Court
State By Hanumanthnagar Police vs Poornima W/O J.Gopal on 4 February, 2022
KABC010160342016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-64) AT BENGALURU. [[[[
Dated this Tuesday the 4th day of February 2022
P R E S E N T :- Sri. B.VENKATESHA B.Sc., LL.B.,
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
S.C.No.839/2016
COMPLAINANT: State by Hanumanthnagar Police
Station, Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
ACCUSED : 1. Poornima W/o J.Gopal,
2. Sagar S/o J.Gopal,
3. Vinod S/o J.Gopal,
All are Residing at No.268, 4th main
Road, 8th Cross, Hanumanthanagar,
Ben galuru.
(By Sri Vinod.V., Adv.,)
1. Date of commission of offence : 17.10.2014
2. Date of report of offence : 17.10.2014
3. Arrest of Accused No.1 to 3 : 08.11.2014
4. Name of the complainant : Smt.Radha S.WPSI
2 S.C.839/2016
5. Date of commencement of trial : 23.02.2017
6. Date of closing of evidence : 13.10.2021
7. Offences complained of : U/S.306 of IPC
8. Opinion of the Judge : A.1 to 3 are acquitted
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Hanumanthanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, has submitted the charge-sheet against the A.1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/Sec.306 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution's case in brief is that, Sri.Gopal J aged 55 years father of A.2 was suffered paralysis stroke from 5 years and that he was under treatment. On 17.10.2014, A.2 came to the police station at about 8.45 p.m and has lodged complaint stating that thinking that he will not be cured from Paralysis stroke, in his residential house, bearing No.268, 4th Main, 8th cross, Hanumanthanagar Bengaluru in between 5.00 to 6.45 p.m on 17.10.2014, his father J.Gopal has committed suicide by way of hanging to a sealing fan of hall with the help of red colour cotton wale. Therefore a case in UDR No.34/2014 under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C has been registered. After registration of the said case, at the time of investigation of the case, a letter was found in the underwear of the dead body of the said J.Gopal. In the said 3 S.C.839/2016 letter, it was shown that his wife and children are cause for his death. After the investigation it was found that A.1 to 3 have not treated the deceased in a very well manner. They have quarreled with the deceased many times and have subjected him to a cruelty. Therefore, the deceased has committed suicide in view of abatement of A.1 to 3 that they have not treated the deceased in a very well manner. Therefore it was alleged that the A.1 to 3 have committed the aforesaid offence.
3. During the crime stage, A.1 to 3 are released on regular bail as per terms of order dated 31.10.2014 passed in Crl.Misc.No.6183/2014 of XIII FTC Bengaluru City. After receipt of the case papers, as per order of this court, A.1 to 3 have put their appearance. They are released on bail. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, this Court has framed charge against the aforesaid A.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offence. It was read over and explained to them in a Kannada language. The aforesaid A.1 to 3 have pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. Thereafter, the prosecution has got examined CW's.2, 4, 3, 5, 16, 1, 15, 12, 13, 9 and 17 as PW's.1 to 12 respectively. The prosecution has got marked 30 documents and 5 objects as Ex's.P.1 to Ex.P.30 and MO's.1 to 5 respectively. Thereafter, the statement U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, of the aforesaid A.1 to 3 has been 4 S.C.839/2016 recorded. They denied the incriminating evidence that appeared against them. They submitted no defense evidence.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned counsels appeared for the A.1 to 3. The learned Counsel for the A. 1 to 3 has relied cases laws reported in 1977(2) SCC 210, 2019(3) SCC 315,2021 SCC Online SC 743, 2002(5) SCC 371 & 2014 SCC On line Kar 12832 respectively.
6. Perused the charge sheet, charges framed and evidence placed before the Court.
7. The points that arise for consideration are as follows :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that with common intention the aforesaid A,.1 to 3 have subjected Sri.J.Gopal (paralysis patient from 5 years) the husband of A.1 and father of A.2 and 3 to a cruelty by way of not looking him in a very well manner and quarreled with him many times and that in view of abatement of the act of A.1 to 3, on 17.10.2014 in between 5.00 p.m to 6.45 p.m in the residential house bearing No.268, 4th main, 8th cross, Hanumanthanagar, Bengaluru City the said J.Gopal has committed suicide by way of hanging to a sealing fan of hall with the help of wale and thereby A.1 to 3 had committed the offence punishable under Sec. 306 r/w 34 of IPC ?5 S.C.839/2016
2. What Order ?
8. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : As in the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1:- It is not in dispute that the A.1 is the wife and A.2 and 3 are children respectively of deceased J.Gopal. It is the case of the prosecution that with common intention, the aforesaid accused in the aforesaid residential house are all have subjected Sri.J.Gopal (paralysis patient from 5 years) the husband of A.1 and father of A.2 and 3 to a cruelty by way of not looking him in a very well manner and have quarreled with him many times and that in view of abatement by the act of A.1 to 3, on 17.10.2014 in between 5.00 p.m to 6.45 p.m in the residential house bearing No.268, 4th main, 8th cross, Hanumanthanagar, Bengaluru City, the said J.Gopal has committed suicide by way of hanging to a sealing fan of hall with the help of wale . Ex.P.1 statement of Prakash H.R P.W.1/C.W.2 discloses that he made statement on 19.10.2014 before the IO stating that deceased J.Gopal is his distant relative. He was suffering from paralysis stroke and he was under treatment. He used to stay in his house only. His wife and children used to quarrel with him. One 6 S.C.839/2016 day he had gone to the residential house of Gopal, he told him that his wife and children are not looking him in a correct manner. They have not providing meal to him. They have not giving money to him for tablet. If he questioned them, they used to abuse him and subjected him to a cruelty. Therefore, he told him that he is unable to live. He advised him as well as to the wife and children of the said Gopal. Ex.P.1 further discloses that on 17.10.2014 when the C.W.1 was in his residential house, one of his relative telephone to him and told that Gopal has committed suicide in between 5.00 to 6.45 p.m in his residential house by way of hanging to a fan. Therefore, he has stated before the police that in view of ill treatment by A.1 to 3, said Gopal has committed suicide. Ex.P.2 and 3 statements of Smt.Ratna C.W.4/P.W.2 and Sri V.K.Gowda C.W.3/P.W.3 also discloses that they also had made similar statements as per Ex.P.1 on 19.10.2014 before the IO. Ex.P.4 the inquest mahazar dated 17.10.2014 discloses that at the mortuary of Victoria hospital, Bengaluru City on 18.10.2014 in between 8.00 a.m to 10.00 a.m in the presence of Parashuram (P.W.4), Varadaraju Avinash and Manoj Kumar, the IO has drawn the inquest mahazar on the dead body of said J.Gopal. The said panchas as well as blood relative of J.Gopal have opined that the said Gopal has committed suicide in view of abatement of A.1 to 3 by 7 S.C.839/2016 way of not looking him very well manner when he was suffering from paralysis stroke. Ex.P.5 Complaint dated 17.10.2014 discloses that A.2 Sagar has lodged complaint before the then PSI of complainant police station at about 8.45 p.m on 17.10.2014 alleging that his father has committed suicide in his residential house by way of hanging to a sealing fan. Ex.P.5 further discloses that a case in UDR No.34/2014 under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C has been registered. Ex.P.6 FIR discloses that a case in UDR No.34/2014 has been registered in view of committing suicide of J.Gopal at Hanumanthnagar, Bengaluru City. Ex.P.7 report of PC13161 Ravikumar T.N of complainant police station discloses that he has received M.O's.1 to 5 and the PM report from Dr.S.Venkataraghav and has produced before the IO of this case on 30.10.2014. Ex.P.8 seizure mahazar dated 03.12.2014 discloses that in the said residential house of said Gopal, the IO has seized Canara bank dairy(Ex.P.09) of Gopal and a rent agreement(Ex.P.10) dated 15.06.2013 that executed in favour of Tibbegowda in the presence of panchas Pramod and Soumyashri H.S. Ex.P.09 is the canara Bank Diary of the year 1991 of J.Gopal. Signature marked as SS4 on Ex.P.9 is the signature of J.Gopal. Portions marked as E.1 to E.9 according to the prosecution are the standard signatures of J.Gopal. Ex.P.10 copy of rent agreement 8 S.C.839/2016 dated 15.06.2013 discloses that J.Gopal has executed the said rent agreement in favour of Tibbegowda in respect of his house bearing No.268/5, 1 st floor, Hanumanthanagar, Bengaluru. Ex.P.11 P.M.Report discloses that Dr.Venkataraghav has conducted P.M. on the dead body of Gopal J on 18.10.2014 at between 11.15 am to 12.15 p.m at Victoria hospital, Bengaluru. M.O's 1 to 5 are found on the dead body at that time. 3 injuries were found on the neck. Doctor has opined that death is due to asphyxia as a result of Hanging. Ex.P.12 copy of spot mahazar dated 17.10.2014 discloses that IO in the presence of panchas Akshay and Adharsh in between 9.15 p.m to 9.45 p.m in the said residential house of J.Gopal has drawn spot mahazar and has recovered a letter marked at Ex.P.13 from the underwear of dead body of J.Gopal. Ex.P.13 letter recovered vide Ex.P.12 mahazar discloses that the J.Gopal has written that his wife and children are cause for death. Ex.P.14 and 15 requisitions given to doctor S.Venkataraghav under Sec.146 (1) and (2) with a request to conduct P.M. on the dead body of J.Gopal. Ex.P.16 report of Radha S. PSI Hanumanthanagar police station discloses that on 17.10.2014 in the said residential house in the presence of panchas she has verified the dead body of Gopal and found slip marked as per Ex.P.13 in the underwear of the said dead body wherein it was shown 9 S.C.839/2016 that my wife and children are cause for my death. Ex.P.17 discloses that based on the report marked as per Ex.P.16, a case in Cr.No.259/2014 was registered against A.1 to 3 under Sec.306 R/w Sec.34 of IPC. The said document discloses that it was submitted before XXIV ACMM, Bengaluru City on 19.10.2014 at about 2.15 p.m through PC6495 with Ex.P.16. Ex.P.18 PF submitted to the Magistrate about recovery of M.O's 1 to 5 and has obtained permission to retain it in the police custody till filing of final report. Ex.P.19 seizure mahazar dated 31.10.2014 discloses that in the presence of panchas Madhu and Girish, IO has seized Ex.P.20 to 23. Ex.P.20 is the specimen signatures card of J.Gopal obtained by Hanumanthanagar Sahakari bank, Limited. Ex.P.21 is the particulars furnished by J.Gopal to the said bank at the time of opening account. Ex.P.22 is the customers profile maintained at Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank Limited about J.Gopal. Ex.P.23 is the letter to submit voters ID for opening of SB Account. Ex.P.20 to 23 discloses that the said J.Gopal is resident of Door No.268, 4th main, 8th Cross, Hanumanthanagar, Bengaluru-19. Ex.P.24 report of SFSL Madivala Bengaluru dated 07.02.2017 discloses that death note marked at Ex.P.13 as well as Ex.P.10 and 20 to 23 are all subjected to a scientific analysis. The expert Dr.Aravindan has opined that the 10 S.C.839/2016 person who wrote the admitted writing and signature marked as E.1 to E.9 and S.S.1 to S.S.4 also wrote the questioned writings and signatures marked as QW and QS respectively. As stated supra admitted writings marked as E.1 to 9 are found in Ex.P.10 dairy. Admitted writings marked as S.S.1 to S.S.4 are found in Ex.P.9, 20 and 21 respectively. Ex.P.25 is the reasons for opinion. Ex.P.26 is the photo copy of the questioned and admitted writings. Ex.P.27 is the photo copy of the specimen signatures of J.Gopal found in Ex.P.13. Ex.P.28 to 30 and Ex.P.28(a), 29(a) and 30(a) are the photo copies of the questioned writings found in Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.10. M.O.1 is black coloured pant, M.O.2 is synthetic wale, M.O.3 is T-shirt, M.O.4 is underwear and M.O.5 is black thread. According to the prosecution, M.O's.1 to 5 are found on the dead body of J.Gopal at the time of conducting postmortem. With the background of Ex's.P.1 to 30 and M.O's.1 to 5, the oral evidence of P.W's. 1 to 12 placed before the court is analyzed to know whether the A.1 to 3 have committed the offence as alleged against them. It is not in dispute that A.1 to 3 are the wife and children respectively of the said J.Gopal. It is not in dispute that the said J.Gopal was suffered from Paralysis Stroke from 5 to 6 years. It is also not in dispute that on 17.10.2014 the said J.Gopal has committed suicide by way of hanging to a fan of hall of his 11 S.C.839/2016 house with the help of wale.
10. P.W.1 Prakash has deposed before this court that the said J.Gopal is his relative and that A.1 to 3 are wife and children of J.Gopal. He has deposed that J.Gopal was suffered from Paralysis stroke and that he was not cured from it. Therefore, he used to stay in his residential house only. He has further deposed that there was quarrel in between J.Gopal and A.1 to 3. He does not know why there was such quarrel. He has further deposed that one day about 2 years back, said Gopal has committed suicide. He has further deposed that he does not know that why the said Gopal has committed suicide. He has not seen that the A.1 to 3 have caused trouble to Gopal and that Gopal has not stated him that his wife and children are caused trouble to him. The aforesaid evidence of P.W.1 is against to the contents of Ex.P.1. The evidence of P.W.2 Smt.Ratna and P.W.3 Sri.V.K.Gowda discloses that they have deposed before this court that A.1 to 3 are in good terms with the said Gopal during his life time. They also deposed that they dose not know that why the Gopal has committed suicide. Their evidence is also against the contents of Ex's.P.2 and
3. Evidence of P.W.4 Parashuram the panch witness to the inquest mahazar marked at Ex.P.4 has deposed that one day about 3 ½ years back police drawn the inquest mahazar on the dead body of Gopal and have obtained his 12 S.C.839/2016 signature that marked at Ex.P.4(a). He also has deposed that he does not know that why the said Gopal has committed suicide. Evidence of P.W.5 Venkatesh Murthy the then SHO of complainant police discloses that on 17.10.2014 at about 8.45 p.m he has received the complaint marked at Ex.P.5 from A.2 and has registered a case in UDR No.34/2016 and has submitted the FIR marked at Ex.P.6.
11. Evidence of P.W.6 Smt.Radha S. the then PSI of Hanumanthanagar police station discloses that she has taken a case dairy of UDR 34/2014 from P.W.5 ASI Venkateshmurthy for further investigation on 17.10.2014. She had visited to the house bearing No.268 with her staff and panchas Akshay and Adharsh. One dead body was lying on the dewan cot. Half cut red colour cotton wale was found. A.2 has shown the said dead body to her and told that his father is suffering from paralysis stroke from 5 years. It was not cured. Therefore on 17.10.2014 his father has committed suicide and died. Her evidence further discloses that she has examined the dead body, ligature mark was found on the neck of said dead body. The letter marked at Ex.P.13 was found in the underwear of the said body. In the said letter, it was written that his wife and children are cause for his death and that one signature in English J.Gopal was found in the said letter. Therefore 13 S.C.839/2016 she seized the said letter by way of drawing mahazar as per original of Ex.P.12. Therefore, on the said day she has registered a case in Cr.No.259/2014 based on her self complaint marked as Ex.P.16 and has submitted the FIR marked at Ex.P.17 to the XXIV ACMM. Thereafter she has shifted the dead body to mortuary of Victoria hospital Bengaluru City. On 18.10.2014 in between 8.00 am to 10.00 am in the presence of panchas Parashuram, Varadaraju and Manojkumar she has drawn the inquest mahazar as per Ex.P.4 on the said dead body. Thereafter she has requested to the doctor as per Ex.P.14 and 15 to conduct P.M of the said dead body. She has recorded the statements of P.W's. 1 to 3 as per Ex's.P.1 to 3. Her evidence further discloses that on 30.10.2014, PC13161 Ravikumar has produced M.O's 1 to 5 before her with the report marked at Ex.P.7 and P.M. report marked at Ex.P.11. She has recovered M.O's 1 to 5 vide P.F marked at Ex.P.18. Thereafter on 21.10.2014 she has received Ex.P.20 to 23 by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.19. Her evidence further discloses that on 08.11.2014, A.1 to 3 are appeared before her and have produced the anticipatory bail order. She has released them on bail. On 03.12.2014, in the said residential house she has recovered Ex.P.9 and 10 in the presence of panchas Promod and Soumyashri by way of preparing 14 S.C.839/2016 mahazar as per Ex.P.8. Thereafter, she has delivered the case dairy to P.I Dilipkumar for further investigation.
12. Evidence of P.W.7 Ravikumar PC13161 of complainant police station disclose that on 30.10.2014 he has produced M.O's 1 to 5 as well as P.M. report before PSI Smt.Radha and has submitted the report marked at Ex.P.7. Evidence of P.W.8 Pramod and 9 Soumyashri discloses that the IO has obtained their signatures on Ex.P.8 on one day about 5-6 years in the residential house of A.2 Vinod when they had gone to the said house to see the dead body of father of A.2. They have deposed that police have not recovered any objects or documents in their presence at that time. They also deposed that they did not know the contents of Ex.P.8. Aforesaid evidence of P.W's.8 and 9 is not supported the case of prosecution about recovery of Ex.P.9 and 10 by drawing mahazar in the presence of said witnesses on 03.12.2014 in the said residential house of J.Gopal. Evidence of P.W.10 Adharsh mahazar witness to the Ex.P.12 discloses that IO has recovered M.O.2 from the neck of dead body of Gopal on 17.10.2014. His evidence is not discloses that on the said day, IO has recovered the death note marked at Ex.P.13 by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.12. Evidence of P.W.11 Dr.V.Aravindan discloses that he has deposed his evidence in accordance with the contents of Ex's.P.21 to 23.
15 S.C.839/2016Evidence of P.W.12 Girish Kumar K.H the then PI of complainant police station discloses that on 02.03.2016 he has received the case diary of this case from Smt.Radha for further investigation. Thereafter he has sent Ex.P.9, 10, 13 and 20 to 23 to the SFSL Bengaluru for scientific analysis. Investigation of the case was completed except receipt of FSL report. From the investigation prima facie it was proved that A.1 to 3 are committed the offence under Sec.306 R/w Sec.34 of IPC. Therefore he has submitted charge sheet before the XXIV ACMM against A.1 to 3.
13. P.W's 1 to 3 are the main witnesses to this case. As stated supra in the chief examination, P.W's 1 to 3 have not supported the case of the prosecution as alleged against A.1 to 3. Evidence of P.W's 1 to 3 is against the contents of Ex's.P.1 to P.3. This Court has treated P.W's 1 to 3 as hostile witnesses at the request of the prosecution. They were subjected to a cross examination for prosecution with permission of the Court. But nothing is elicited in the cross examination of P.W's 1 to 3 in support of the case of the prosecution that the A.1 to 3 have abated the deceased to commit suicide. Nothing elicited that P.W's 1 to 3 have stated before the I.O. as per Ex's P.1 to 3. Nothing is elicited as to why P.W's 1 to 3 have deposed evidence against the case of the prosecution. Therefore it is clear that the evidence of P.W's 1 to 3 is not 16 S.C.839/2016 reliable in support of the case of the prosecution.
14. P.W.4 is the inquest mahazar witness. His evidence cannot be relied that the deceased has commit suicide in view of the alleged abatement on the deceased to commit suicide. P.W's.5 to 7 and 12 are I.O's of this case. P.W's.8 and 9 are the panch witnesses to mahazar marked at Ex.P.2. According to the prosecution in the presence of the said P.W's 8 and 9, P.W.6 Smt. Radha the then PSI of complainant police station by way of preparing mahazar Ex.P.8 in the residential house of the deceased, has recovered Ex's.P.9 and 10 documents. But the evidence of P.W's 8 and 9, is not supported the evidence of P.W.6 Smt.Radha or contents of Ex.P.8. They have not supported that in their presence P.W.6 Radha has recovered Ex's.P.9 and 10 in the residential house of the deceased. This Court has treated P.W's 8 and 9 as hostile witnesses at the request of the prosecution. They were subjected to a cross examination for prosecution with permission of the Court. But nothing is elicited in the cross examination of P.W's 8 and 9 in support of the case of the prosecution that the P.W.6 Smt.Radha has recovered Ex's.P.9 and 10 in the residential house of the deceased by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.8. Nothing is elicited as to why P.W's 8 and 9 have deposed evidence against the case of the prosecution. Therefore it is clear that the 17 S.C.839/2016 evidence of P.W's 8 and 9 is not reliable in support of the case of the prosecution. Evidence of P.W.10 the panch witness mahazar marked at Ex.P.12 is not supported that the P.W.6 Smt.Radha has recovered Ex.P.13 document from the underwear of the dead body of J.Gopal by way of drawing mahazar as per Ex.P.12. This Court has treated P.W,10 as hostile witness at the request of the prosecution. He is subjected to a cross examination for prosecution with permission of the Court. But nothing is elicited in the cross examination of P.W.10 in support of the case of the prosecution that the P.W.6 Smt.Radha has recovered Ex.P.13 in the residential house of the deceased by way of preparing mahazar as per Ex.P.12. Nothing is elicited as to why P.W.10 has deposed evidence against the case of the prosecution. Therefore it is clear that the evidence of P.W.10 is not reliable in support of the case of the prosecution.
15. Ex's.P.13 and 24 and the evidence of P.W.11 is only the available evidence in support of the case of the prosecution. P.W.11 is an expert evidence. Ex.P.24 is the FSL report that submitted by P.W.11. As stated supra evidence of P.W.11 Dr. Aravindan supports that the contents of Ex.P.13 as well Ex's.P.21 to 23 are all written by one person. Therefore, he had submitted the report as per Ex.P.24.
18 S.C.839/201616. Sec.306 of IPC provides that if any person commit suicide, whoever abate the commission of such suicide , shall be punished with imprisonment for either discretion for term which may extent to 10 years and also be liable to fine.Sec.45 of the Evidence Act provides that when the court has to form an opinion upon a foreign law or of science or art, or has to identity of hand writing (or finger impressions), the opinion upon that part of a persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art ( or in questions as to identity of the hand writing) (or finger impressions) or relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.
17. In a case reported in AIR 2012 SC 3046 Dayalsingh V/s State of Uttaranchal, the Hon'ble Apex court has held that, the purpose of an expert opinion is primarily to assist the Court in arriving at a final conclusion. Such report is not binding upon the Court. In eye witnesses evidence and other prosecution evidences are trust worthy, has credence and are consistent with the eye version given by the eye witnesses, the Court will be well within its jurisdiction to discard the experts opinion. In the case law reported in 1977(2) SCC 210 Magan Bihari Lal V/s The State of Punjab, the Hon'ble Apex court has held that, Expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution 19 S.C.839/2016 than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of presidential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. This type of evidence being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form and the basis for a conviction. In a case law reported in 2019(3) SCC 315 M.Arjunan V/s State, The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, The essential ingredients of the offence under Sec.306 I.P.C. are: abatement and intention of accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide - However, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abatement of suicide - There should be evidence capable of suggesting that accused intended by such act(s) to instigate deceased to commit suicide - Unless ingredients of instigation/ abatement to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Sec. 306 of I.P.C. In a case law reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 743 Shabbir Hussain V/s State of Madhya Pradesh and others, The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, In order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 of 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 20 S.C.839/2016 suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC. Abatement by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide. In a case law reported in 2002(5) SCC 371 Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar V/s State of M.P. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite - Presence of mens rea, is the necessary concomitant of instigation - Words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment, such as "to go and die", cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. In a case law reported in 2014 SCC Online KAR 12832 :
(2015) 1 KCCR 868: (2015) 2 AIR Kant R 264 Gopalkrishna V/s Sharad Kumar Shirali and another, The Hon'ble High court of Karnataka has held that, A mere say that accused is responsible for death without explaining, the conduct of accused, overt act of accused, nature of instigation done by accused or the intentional aiding of 21 S.C.839/2016 accused to the deceased, is not a sufficient material to constitute an offence under Sec.306 of IPC.
18. On careful perusal of the evidence placed before the Court with reference to the aforesaid sections and case laws, it is clear that the evidence of P.W's 1 to 3 is not supported the case of prosecution that the A.1 to 3 have abated the deceased to commit suicide by way of quarreling with him and not providing meal to him. The evidence of P.W.8 to 10 is not supported the case of the prosecution about recovery of Ex's.P.9, 10 and 13 documents from the residential house of the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.11 and contents of Ex.P.24 that the question writings on Ex's.P.9, 10 and 13 and admitted writings on Ex.P.20 to 22 are written by one person cannot be accepted because the evidence of P.W's 1 to 3 and 8 to 10 is not corroborated the evidence of P.W's 5 to 7 and 12. The evidence placed before the court is not substantiated the ingredients of the offence under Sec.306 of IPC. Therefore, allegation that the A.1 to 3 have abated the deceased to commit suicide cannot be accepted. Therefore, it is clear that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case as alleged against A.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, Point No.1 is answered as in the Negative.
22 S.C.839/201619. Point No.2: In view of the discussion made above and the findings given on point No.1, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.235 of Cr.P.C., the aforesaid A.1 to 3 are acquitted of the offence punishable U/Secs.306 r/w 34 of the IPC.
Their bail and surety bonds stands cancelled.
MO's.1 to 5 are worth less. Destroy, MO's 1 to 5 after expiry of appeal time.
(Typed directly by the stenographer on my dictation, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this Friday the 4th day of February 2022) (B.VENKATESHA) LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-64), BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 Prakash H.R.
PW.2 Ratna
PW.3 V.K.Gowda
23 S.C.839/2016
PW.4 Parashuram
PW.5 Venkateshmurthy
PW.6 S.Radha
PW.7 Ravikumar
PW.8 Pramod
PW.9 Soumyashri
P.W.10 Adharsh
P.W.11 Dr.V.Aravindan
P.W.12 Girish Kumar K.H.
2. List of witnesses examined for the accused:
- NIL-
3. List of documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.3 Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.4 Postmortem report Ex.P.5 UDR Copy of complaint Ex.P.6 UDR FIR Ex.P.7 Report of P.W.7 Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.7(b) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.8 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.8(b) Signature of P.W.9 24 S.C.839/2016 Ex.P.8(c) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.9 Canara Bank dairy Ex.P.10 Rent agreement Ex.P.11 Postmortem report Ex.P.12 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.13 Death note Ex.P.14 Requisition letter for postmortem Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.15 Postmortem report Ex.P.15(a) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.16 Report Ex.P.16(a) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.17 FIR Ex.P.17(a) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.18 PF report Ex.P.18(a) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.19 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.19(a) Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.20 Savings bank account of deceased Ex.P.21 Application to open SB account Ex.P.22 Customers profile Ex.P.23 List of documents for opening the bank account Ex.P.24 Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.P.25 Reasons for opinion Ex.P.25(a) Signature of P.W.11 Ex.P.26 to 30 Deceased handwritings 25 S.C.839/2016
4. List of documents marked for the Accused:
- NIL-
5. Material object marked in this case:
MO.1 Black pant
MO.2 Synthetic wire
MO.3 T-shirt
MO.4 Underwear
M.O.5 Black thread (girdle)
(B.VENKATESHA)
LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, (CCH-64), BENGALURU CITY
26 S.C.839/2016
04.02.2022.
State by PP
Case called. A.1 to 3 pre/abs. Presence A.1 to 3 by of A.1 to 3 not mandatory in view of SOP.
V.V. Adv Judgment pronounced in the open For judgment court vide separate judgment kept in file :-
Acting U/Sec.235 of Cr.P.C., the aforesaid A.1 to 3 are acquitted of the offence punishable U/Secs.306 r/w 34 of the IPC. Their bail and surety bonds stands cancelled.
MO's.1 to 5 are worth less. Destroy, MO's 1 to 5 after expiry of appeal time.
(B.VENKATESHA) 27 S.C.839/2016 LXIII ADDL. CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-64), BENGALURU CITY