Karnataka High Court
Kavya @ Geeta W/O. Sannatammappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2022
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100133 OF 2018 (C-)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100111 OF 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100133 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
MANJAPPA S/O NAGENDRAPPA KAMMAR
AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MELLAGATTI,
TQ: SAVANUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUNIL S DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SAVANUR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
HIGH COURT PREMISES,
DHARWAD.
2. GADIGEPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA HOSMANI
AGE.34 YEARS,
-2-
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018
OCC.COOLIE,
R/O MELLAGATTI VILLAGE,
TQ.SAVANUR, DIST.HAVERI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP, ADVOCATE
NOTICE R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE, THE JUDGMENT
OF THE CONVICTION 23.02.2018 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE
DATED 06.03.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI IN SPECIAL
(SC/ST)C.NO.45/2015 THEREBY CONVICTING APPELLANT FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.109, 306 R/W 34 OF IPC
AND ALSO FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (P.A.) ACT; CONSEQUENTIALLY ACQUIT THE
APPELLANT HEREIN OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST
HIM.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100111 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
KAVYA @ GEETA W/O. SANNATAMMAPPA HOSMANI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MELLAGATTI,
TQ:SAVANUR,
DISTRICT:HAVERI. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.ARAVIND KULKARNI, ADV. FOR
SRI SANTHOSH S GOGI)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SAVANUR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
-3-
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018
C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018
ADVOCATE GENERALS OFFICE,
HIGH COURT PREMISES,
DHARWAD.
2 . GADIGEPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA HOSMANI
AGE.34 YEARS,
OCC.COOLIE,
R/O MELLAGATTI VILLAGE,
TQ.SAVANUR,
DIST.HAVERI. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.374(2) OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CONVICTION 23.02.2018 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED
06.03.2018 PASSED BY THE PEINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI IN SPECIAL
(SC/ST) C. NO.45/2015 THEREBY CONVICTING APPELLANT FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 109, 306 R/W
34 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTIALLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT
HEREIN OF ALL THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HER.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed against them, accused Nos.1 and 2 in Spl.(SC/ST) C.No.45/2015 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Haveri, have preferred Crl.A.Nos.100011/2018 and 100133/2018 respectively. -4- CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018
2. The appellants were prosecuted in Spl.(SC/ST) C.No.45/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 306 read with Section 34 Indian Penal code (for short 'the IPC') and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST (PA) Act') on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Savanur police, in Crime No.177/2015 of their police station. The said case was registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint as per Ex.P1 filed by PW1 Gadigeppa Hosamani. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the trial Court.
3. Accused No.1 Kavya was married to Sannatammappa Hosamani about 8-10 years prior to 11.09.2015 and the couple were blessed with two daughters aged six years and two years and one son aged four years. Accused No.1, Sannatammppa and their children were residing separately from his parental family in Mellagatti village. PW1 complainant is the younger brother of Sannatammappa. Due to some differences between the couple, along with her -5- CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 children, accused No.1 had returned to her parental house at Katenahalli. During the intervening night of 11/12.09.2015 Sannatammappa committed suicide by hanging himself in his house in Mellagatti village. The deceased belongs to Schedule tribe. Accused No.2 belongs to non scheduled caste/ scheduled tribe.
4. On the basis of the complaint-Ex.P1, CW1 the Police Sub Inspector of Savanur police station registered FIR against accused Nos.1 and 2 and handed over the further investigation to PW12. PW12 on conducting investigation filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
Accused No.2 developed illicit relationship with accused No.1. Despite the advise of the victim, the relatives and the elders of the village, accused Nos.1 and 2 did not stop their illicit relationship. Due to that, the victim had suffered mental trauma. Ultimately, accused No.1 along with her children went to her parents house. On 07.09.2015 at 4.00 pm, when the victim had been to the parental house of accused No.1 to get -6- CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 back her and her children, she abused him saying that she will not join him for leading marital life and their relationship is no more surviving. Further she told the victim that accused No.2 takes care of her, he shall give divorce to her, go and die somewhere. Due to such abetment, during the intervening night of 11/12.19.2015, Sannatammappa committed suicide by hanging himself in his house at Mellagatti. Thereby accused Nos.1 and 2 committed offences under Sections 306, 109 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Accused No.2 committed the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act.
5. The trial Court on taking cognizance of the offences framed charges against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act. Since the accused denied the charges and claimed trial, trail was conducted. In support of the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 and 13 were examined, Exs.P1 to 15 were marked. On their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused neither filed defence statement nor adduced the defence evidence.
-7-CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018
6. The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order convicted the appellants- accused for the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act. Further the trial Court sentenced accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC to R.I. for five years and fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 109 r/w 34 of IPC, the trial Court sentenced accused Nos.1 and 2 simple imprisonment of six months.
For the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, the trial Court sentenced accused No.2 to simple imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to pay fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
The trial Court held that the fact of accused Nos.1 and 2 having illicit relationship, the abetment of accused to the -8- CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 deceased to commit suicide was proved by the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The trial Court further held that such act of the accused amounts to abetment to commit suicide and the act of accused No.2 amounts to atrocity under SC/ST PA Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order accused have preferred above appeals.
7. Submission of Sri Neelendra D.Gunde and Sri. Aravind Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellants:
The impugned order of conviction and sentence is contrary to the evidence on record and settled position of law. Absolutely, there was no material to show that there was illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2. The evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to alleged illicit relationship was hearsay evidence. The material and independent witnesses examined to prove the illicit relationship and the panchayats held in that regard did not support the prosecution case. The trial Court relying on the hearsay evidence of the interested witnesses proceeded to convict and sentence the accused. Even if the prosecution material is appreciated, the -9- CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 alleged abetment was by accused No.1 and not by accused No.2. Absolutely, there was no evidence that accused No.2 was called and advised. The petty quarrel or matrimonial discord cannot called as abetment. The impugned judgment and order are totally unsustainable in law.
In support of their submissions, they relied on the following judgments:
i) Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab1
ii) M.Arjunan Vs. State of Rep. by Its Inspector of
Police2
iii) Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.3
iv) K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka4
v) Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another5
8. The submission of Sri.V.M.Banakar, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor:- 1
(2017) 1 SCC 433 2 (2019) 3 SCC 315 3 (2002) 5 SCC 371 4 AIR 2016 SC 5430 5 AIR 2021 SC 4313
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018
The family members of the deceased have consistently spoken about the overtacts of accused Nos.1 and 2. That was further supported by the evidence of elders who conciliated in the matter. The fact of deceased committing the suicide is not disputed. It is also not disputed that at the time of offence, accused No.1 was in her parental house. There is sufficient material to show that betrayal of accused No.1 and she colluding with accused No.2 driving the victim to commit the suicide. Therefore, the impugned order of conviction and sentence do not call for any interference. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable.
9. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on record, the point that arises for consideration of the Court are:
"i) Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the charge against the accused that they abetted the victim to commit suicide was proved beyond reasonable doubt?
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018
ii) Whether the trial Court was justified in convicting accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?"
Analysis
10. The prime charge against the accused is the one under Sections 109 and 306 of IPC. The substance of the said charge is that accused Nos.1 and 2 since one year prior to 07.09.2015 were in illicit relationship despite the advise of the deceased and the elders, on 07.09.2015 and 11.09.2015 in the parental house of accused No.1, victim advised her to give up such relationship and return to the matrimonial home, she rebuked him saying that accused No.2 will look after her and he shall give divorce to her, he should die. According to the prosecution such statement of accused No.1 amounted to abetment which led to her husband committing suicide. Therefore, the prosecution has to establish such conduct and statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 and that amount to abetment to commit suicide. Then only third charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST PA Act sustains.
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 Reg: Charge under Sections 306 and 109 read with Section 34 IPC
11. To invoke Section 306 of IPC, there must be an act of abetment to commit suicide. Section 107 defines what is abetment. The provisions relevant for the purpose of this case in Section 107 of IPC read as follows:-
"107. Abetment of a thing--A person abets the doing of a thing, who--
First -- 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, the doing of that thing."
12. The above provisions go to show that to call an act as abetment there must be an instigation to any person to
- 13 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 commit an act or there must be an intentional aid for any act or omission to commit such act.
13. Whether extra marital relationship of a spouse amounts to abetment or the employment of the words by the accused to the effect "go and die" themselves amount to abetment was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment relied by the appellants. In para 21 of the judgment in Gurcharan Singh's case referred to supra it was held as follows:
"21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of this constituents would militate
- 14 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide. "
(Emphasis supplied)
14. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment in Randhir Sing Vs. State of Panjab6 while dealing with the question as to whether the response of a hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life amounts to abetment. It was held as follows:-
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of 6 (2004) 13 SCC 129
- 15 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018
a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.
13. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal7, this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and differences were not 7 AIR (1994) SC 1418
- 16 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given', society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. In para 7 of the judgment in M.Arjunan's case referred to supra it was held that insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. It was held that there should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
16. In Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar's case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to its earlier judgments in paragraph Nos.8 to 12 of the judgment held that the mere remarks during the quarrel to the deceased "to go and die" were not even prima facie enough to instigate
- 17 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 the deceased to commit suicide. It was further held that the dying declaration of the deceased to the effect that her husband has illicit connection with his sister-in-law so she wants to die by burning does not amount to abetment to sustain charge under Section 306 of IPC.
17. In K.V. Prakash Babu's case referred to supra while dealing with the question whether extra marital affair invites conviction under Section 306 of IPC in para 19 of the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
"19. Having said that we intend to make it clear that if the husband gets involved in an extra-marital affair that may not in all circumstances invite conviction under Section 306 of the IPC but definitely that can be a ground for divorce or other reliefs in a matrimonial dispute under other enactments. And we so clarify."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 18 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018
18. In Kanchan Sharma's case referred to supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 of the judgment held that to proceed against any person for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, it requires an active or direct act intended to push the deceased into such a position that he commits suicide seeing no other option than to commit suicide. It was further held that the suicidability pattern is different from other and held each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self- respect and it is impossible to lay down any straight jacket formula.
19. Referring to its earlier judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal8 held that to hold an accused guilty of offence under Section 306 of IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case, assess the evidence to find out whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It was held that in such cases there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of 8 (2020) 1 SCC 707
- 19 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 suicide and such act must be positive and proximate to the time of the suicide. It was held that the accused must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
20. In the light of the above principles, this Court has to examine whether the alleged acts of the accused amount to the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 306 of IPC and whether they had committed such acts. Firstly, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 and 2 had extra marital relationship and that drove the deceased to commit suicide.
21. Admittedly accused No.1 and the victim had married about 8 to 10 years prior to the victim committing suicide and they had three children out of the said marriage. As per the prosecution itself, the alleged illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 started one year prior to commission of suicide. According to the prosecution, the denial of accused No.1 on 07.09.2015 and 11.09.2015 to join matrimonial fold of the deceased drove him to commit suicide.
- 20 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018
22. First of all, as per the ratio of the judgments discussed above, extra marital relationship of a spouse can be a ground for divorce or other reliefs in a matrimonial dispute under other enactments and not an abetment to commit suicide. Needles to say that accused Nos.1 and 2 seriously disputed the story of the alleged extra marital relationship between them. Furhter, if after having three children accused No.1 indulged in the alleged extra marital relationship, that damages her self-esteem and reputation more than that of the deceased. Moreover, nothing was brought out either in the complaint or in the evidence that the alleged act of accused Nos.1 and 2 had brought down the self- esteem or reputation of the deceased so as to drive him to commit the suicide.
23. So far as the proximity between the alleged act of abetment and the death, as per the complaint and the prosecution evidence, the alleged extra marital relationship was since one year prior to the suicide. As per the complaint, last visit of the deceased to the parental house of accused No.1 was on 07.09.2015 and during such visit, accused No.1 abused the
- 21 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 victim saying that she will not join him, he should give divorce and go somewhere and die. Thereafter, he committed suicide during the intervening night of 11/12.9.2015.
24. So far as the incident of 11.09.2015 in the compliant, first it is written that the complainant, his the parents and elders of the village went to Katenahalli to bring back accused No.1. Later in the complaint, the words "my elder brother" that means victim are interpolated to project that he too had gone with them. But in the compliant there were no allegations that on 11.09.2015, accused No.1 said anything. It is only said that her parents told the complainant and others that they will not send their daughter to the matrimonial home. Absolutely, there are no allegations in the complaint imputing any abetment on 11.09.2015 to accused No.1. Therefore, the alleged incitement or instigation dated 07.09.2015 are the extra marital relationship since one year were not proximate to the date of the commission of the suicide.
- 22 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018
25. So far as accused No.2 neither in the compliant nor in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there are any allegations or whisper that accused No.2 at any time abused or insulted the deceased in the back ground of his alleged relationship with accused No.1. Further to prove the alleged illicit relationship which is motive as well as an act of abetment, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1-the complainant PW2-the inquest mahazar witness/the alleged elder of the village who participated in the panchayat, PW3 the father of the deceased, PW4-the mother of the deceased, PWs.7 and 11- the other elders who allegedly participated in the panchayat.
26. PW1 in his chief examination itself states that he learnt about the illicit relationship of accused Nos.1 and 2 through others. Therefore, his evidence was hearsay one. In his chief examination, he did not speak anything about the incident dated 07.09.2015 and 11.09.2015. Only on treating him hostile, the public prosecutor elicited the same by way of cross examination. In the cross examination by the defence counsel PW1 admits that his brother Sannatammappa was living separately with his children in the old house. He further
- 23 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 admits that after accused No.1 going to her parental house, deceased lived with her in her parental house for 15 days.
27. The evidence of PW2 shows that he had no personal knowledge of the alleged illicit relationship between the accused. He says that because that was known to all the villagers, he knows that and accused No.1 had revealed that before him. Accused No.1 deny any such relation or revelation. PW2 did not reveal the particulars when and before whom she revealed that before him.
28. PW3 in his chief-examination itself states that himself and deceased came to know about the illicit relationship of the accused only when they heard that from their villagers and the residents of his lane. Therefore, his evidence is also hearsay one. In his cross examination by the counsel for accused No.2, he admitted that Sannatammappa was consuming alcohol which was suppressed by the other witnesses. PW4 also in her chief-examination states that she was not aware of the illicit relationship initially and later she
- 24 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 came to know about the same. She also admits that her son was consuming alcohol.
29. PW.6 is the mother of accused No.1. She did not support the case of the prosecution regarding alleged illicit relationship or abetment of the accused to commit suicide. PW7 who allegedly participated in the Panchayat and witness to the abetment did not support the prosecution case.
30. PW11 in his chief-examination itself states that he came to know about the illicit relationship of the accused as all villagers knew that through deceased Sannatammappa. Therefore, his evidence with regard to the illicit relationship is hearsay. He admits in his cross examination that he is an activist in the village. His evidence further shows that he belongs to the scheduled caste, his wife filed a complaint against the family members of one Giddabasanagoudar alleging the offences under the SC/ST (PA) Act. He admits that deceased Sannatammappa was doing painting work in Haveri.
31. In the evidence of all the above said witnesses, it is suggested that deceased Sannatammappa was living in a old
- 25 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 house with his family and his parents and brother had not acceded to his request to give due share in the family properties and more particularly in the house, therefore, deceased was forced to live in the house of his parents in law in Katenahalli. Though the witnesses denied the theory of demand of share, they admitted that the deceased and his family were living in the old house and later, accused No.1 and her children were living in her parental house. As already noted, PW1 admitted the deceased living with his wife and children in the house of his parents-in-law for sometime.
32. The evidence on record shows that couple were married 8 to 10 years prior to the death of Sannatammappa, had three children out of such marriage, he was in the habit of consuming alcohol and lived for sometime with his wife and children in his parents-in-law's house. The evidence on record further shows that prior to the present complaint, Sannatammappa had not initiated any proceedings against the accused under the marital laws or under the criminal laws. PWs.1, 3 and 4 being the brother and parents of the deceased and PW2 and PW11 being the villagers of the deceased were
- 26 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 interested witnesses. Having regard to the said fact, the circumstances and the quality of their evidence as discussed above, their evidence was not sufficient to hold that there was illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 and at any rate that amounted to abetment to Sannatammappa to commit suicide or they abetted him to commit suicide. Reg: offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act
33. So far as the offences under the SC/ST (PA) Act, first of all the alleged illicit relationship of accused Nos.1 and 2 was not proved. Secondly, neither in the complaint it was alleged that accused No.2 developed the illicit relationship with accused No.1 to commit caste based atrocity against her or her husband nor the same was proved during the evidence. Therefore, the said charge is also not sustainable. Conclusion
34. The aforesaid discussion shows that trial Court without appreciating the fact that the witnesses who spoke about the illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2 were all interested witnesses, even their evidence was not cogent
- 27 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018 and consistent to prove the charges and the ratio laid down by the Honb'le Supreme Court regarding the abetment to commit suicide in the context of the case on hand, by the impugned judgment and order proceeded to convict and sentence the accused. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
35. Hence the following:-
ORDER The appeals are allowed.
The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence against accused Nos.1 and 2/appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 306 read with Section 34 IPC and the order of conviction and sentence against appellant/accused No.2 for the offence under Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are hereby set aside.
Appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 306 read with Section 34 IPC and appellant/accused No.2 is acquitted of the charge for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of
- 28 -
CRL.A No. 100133 of 2018 C/W CRL.A No. 100111 of 2018
the Act. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused Nos.1 and 2 and their sureties shall stand discharged.
The order with regard to the disposal of the properties is maintained.
The fine amount deposited, if any, by the accused shall be refunded to them.
Acting under Section 357A Cr.P.C., the matter is referred to the District Legal Services Authority, Haveri, for determination of amount of compensation payable to PW4-the mother of the deceased and the children of the deceased.
(Sd/-) JUDGE (Sd/-) JUDGE Vmb