Karnataka High Court
Smt Lolamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
R
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 265 OF 2012 (C)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LOLAMMA
W/O KADHREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O KADAKOLA VILLAGE
MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT
2. CHANDRA
S/O KADHREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O KADAKOLA VILLAGE
MYSORE TALUKA AND DISTRICT
3. RAVI
S/O KADHREGOWDA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
by ANJALI M OCC: AGRICULTURE
Location: High
Court of R/O KADAKOLA VILLAGE
Karnataka MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PARASHURAM AJJAMPUR LAKSHMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MYSORE SOUTH POLICE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
2. ANAND
S/O GURURAJ
MAJOR
R/O KADAKOLA VILLAGE
VARUNA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT 570 010
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET-ASIDE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 08/10.2.2012
PASSED BY THE VI - ADDL. SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE
UNDER SC AND ST (POA) ACT,1989, MYSORE IN SPL. CASE
NO.41/2011 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1
TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.323, 324, 354, 306 R/W. 34 OF
IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)(x) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT,
1989
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
Appellant Nos.1 to 3 being aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction dated 08.02.2012 and order on
sentence dated 10.02.2012 passed in Special Case
No.41/2011 by the VI Additional District and Sessions
Judge and Special Judge under SC & ST(POA) Act 1989,
Mysore, has preferred this appeal.
2. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per
their rank before the Trial Court for convenience.
Factual matrix:
3. The accused Nos.1 to 3 were charge-sheeted by
the Dy.S.P., Mysore Rural Sub-division for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 306 read with
Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi)
of SC & ST(POA) Act, 1989, alleging that, on 07.04.2011
at about 01.00 p.m., at Kadakola Village, all these three
accused in furtherance of their common intention to
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
assault deceased Anitha, accused No. 1 assaulted her with
hand, while she was drawing water from the tap and
accused No. 2 assaulted her with hand stating as to why
she assaulted his mother and accused No. 3 assaulted
PW2 when he went to rescue deceased Anitha, with hand
and caused simple injuries. So also, this accused No. 3
assaulted deceased Anitha with a brick piece on her head
and caused her simple injuries. All the accused persons
abused deceased Anitha knowingly fully well that Anitha
belongs to the ‘Soliga’ community and tried to outrage
the modesty of deceased Anitha and all these accused
persons in furtherance of their common intention, abetted
deceased Anitha to commit suicide, stating, that she
should better die and as a result of the same, Anitha went
inside the house and closed the door and poured kerosene
on herself and set her ablaze and subsequently she died
because of these burn injuries. With these allegations, a
complaint came to be filed as per Ex. P1 by the
complainant, father of the deceased by name Ananda on
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
07.04.2011 itself, which was registered in Crime
No. 131/2011 and the criminal law was set in motion.
4. The Investigation Officer, on completion of
investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused
persons for the aforesaid offences. The Jurisdictional
Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence, as the
offence is trialed by the Sessions Court, the case stood
committed to the Sessions Court for trial.
5. The learned Trial Court framed the charges
against the accused for the aforesaid offences for which all
the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution in
all examined 13 witnesses from PW1 to PW13 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P21 with respective signatures and also
M.O. Nos. 1 to 5 and closed persecution evidence. On
closure of the prosecution evidence, all the accused
persons were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C so
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
as to enable them to answer the incriminating
circumstances appearing in the evidence of the
prosecution. They denied their complicity in the crime and
did not lead any defence evidence on their behalf.
7. On hearing the arguments and on evaluation of
the evidence, the learned Trial Court found the accused
guilty of committing the offences under Sections 323, 324,
354, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and 3(1)(xi) of SC &
ST(POA) Act, 1989 and acquitted the accused persons for
the offences under 3(1)(x) of SC & ST(POA) Act, 1989 and
sentenced accused Nos. 1 to 3 as under:
“Accused No.1 to 3 are directed to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under
Section 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC or in default, they
should undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.
Accused No.1 to 3 are directed to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under
Section 324 r/w Section of IPC or in default, they
should undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months.
Accused No.1 to 3 are directed to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under
Section 354 r/w Section of IPC or in default, they
should undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months.
Accused No.1 to 3 are directed to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012HC-KAR
Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under
Section 306 F/W Section 34 of IPC and in default of
payment of fine, they are directed to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for two months.
Accused No.1 to 3 are directed to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for six months and pay fine of
Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under
Section 3(1)(xi) of SC&ST (POA) Act, 1989 and in
default of payment of fine, they are directed to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days.
The sentences awarded shall consecutively. run
concurrently.”
8. Being aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused
under the provisions of the SC & ST(POA) Act, 1989, the
State has not preferred any appeal. Thus, the order of
acquittal of the accused for the aforesaid offences has
attained finality.
9. Sri. Parashuram Ajjampura Lakshman, learned
counsel for the appellants/accused persons would submit
before the Court that, in this case except the evidence of
PW.2 there is no other evidence placed on record by the
prosecution. The other eye witnesses so stated in the
complaint as well as in the statements of the witnesses
have been turned hostile.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
10. He submits that, only basing the evidence of
PW.2, the learned Trial Court has committed a serious
error in convicting the appellants. PW.2 being the fiancé
of the deceased was highly interested witness and his
evidence is full of contradictions and omissions. The
prosecution has suppressed the material evidence and has
not led any proper evidence to prove the guilt of the
accused. The learned Trial Court ought to have acquitted
the accused persons. There is delay in filing the
complaint, it is not properly considered. The Trial Court
has committed serious error in coming to the conclusion
that the accused are guilty of the offences under Section
306 of IPC. No ingredients of the offence have been made
out by the prosecution. PW2 a sole eye witness is an
interested witness, who was engaged with deceased
Anitha and his evidence is full of omissions and material
contradictions. These factors have not been properly
considered by the Trial Court.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
11. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
for the appellants that, there was an ill-will between the
appellants and the complainant family and taking
advantage of the same, the appellants have been falsely
prosecuted by the complainant. There is no evidence that
the appellants have encouraged or abetted Anitha to
commit suicide.
12. In addition to the grounds urged in the appeal
memo and also pointing out the contradictions and
omissions in the evidence brought on record by the
prosecution, he submits that, the Trial Court has
committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. In
support of his submission, he relied upon the following
judgments:
“1. Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India dated 29.01.2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 6367
of 2023 – Dashrath Sahu v. State of
Chhattisgarh.
2. Prakash & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra &
Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3835.
3. Vegulla Leela Krishna v. State of Andhra
Pradesh 2022 SCC Online AP 393.
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012HC-KAR
4. Awadhesh & Anr. State of Madhya Pradesh
(1998) 2 SCC 557.
5. Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing
Chamansing (2001) 6 SCC 145.”
13. As against this submission, Sri. M.R.Patil,
learned High Court Government Pleader, with all
vehemence submits that, there is no rule as such that
number of witnesses has to support the case of
prosecution. As PW2 sole eye witness has supported the
case of prosecution and though there are some minor
contradictions and omissions in his evidence, they will not
go to the root of the case to disbelieve the version of
prosecution. He further submits that, the deceased has
committed suicide is an admitted fact. These accused
persons are innocent persons and have not committed any
offence. The so-called delay is explained by the
complainant and PW2 in their evidence.
14. Learned HCGP submits that, the Trial Court has
considered the evidence of all the witnesses and believed
the evidence of PW.2 – the sole eyewitness and has rightly
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
convicted the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
Relying upon the observations and findings of the learned
Trial Court, he submits that there is no merit in this appeal
and appeal is to be rejected.
15. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel
for the appellants as well as learned HCGP and on perusal
of the material placed on record, the only point that arise
for consideration is:
“Whether the Trial Court has committed
any factual or legal error in convicting and
sentencing accused persons?”
16. So far as death of the deceased, suffered
suicidal death is concerned, it is an admitted fact between
both the sides. To prove the said fact the prosecution has
relied upon Ex. P1, the complaint averments. It shows
that deceased Anitha suffered a suicidal death by setting
her ablaze, by pouring kerosene on her. Ex.P2 is the spot
panchanama to show that where exactly the said offence
has taken place. Ex.P6 is the inquest panchanama,
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
wherein the number of burn injuries sustained by the
deceased has been mentioned along with a photograph.
Exs.P3 to P5 are the photographs of the deceased, who
had suffered the burn injuries on her person. Coupled
with that, Ex.P9 is post-mortem report; it shows that the
deceased has suffered superficial deep burnt injuries on
her person over head, neck, face, foot and chest etc. It is
stated in the PM report that, deceased has suffered 98-
99% of burn injuries on her person. The cause of death is
due to shock as a result of burn injuries. These contents
are not denied by the defence.
17. Further, PW1 – father of the deceased, PW2 –
the fiancé of the deceased, the so called eye witness, PW4
– The mother of the deceased have spoken before the
Court in their respective evidence that, deceased died
because of burn injuries on her person. There is no
effective cross-examination to that effect by the defence.
When the suicidal death of the deceased Anitha is not
disputed because of pouring kerosene on her and the
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
documentary evidence supports the same, the prosecution
is able to establish that deceased Anitha suffered suicidal
death. Merely because the prosecution is able to establish
the suicidal death of the deceased that does not mean that
because of abetment to commit suicide she died.
18. To substantiate the said fact, prosecution relies
upon the oral evidence adduced by it. Amongst them,
PW1, the complainant by name Ananda, father of the
deceased. According to his evidence, there was a talk with
regard to the performance of marriage of deceased Anitha
with PW2. Accused persons are the neighbors, so also
CW10 and CW11. He belongs to Soliga Caste. Accused
Nos. 2 and 3 are the children of accused No. 1. They
belong to Ediga Caste.
19. He deposes before the Court that, on
07.04.2011 himself and his wife went to Yennehole for the
purpose of cleaning the clothes, as the Ugadi festival was
approaching. At that time his daughter Anitha and PW2
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
were in the house and PW2 came from Hunasuru. They
went to Yennehole at about 10 a.m. on that day. He
deposes that, in between 02.00 and 2.15 p.m on that day,
PW.2 was bombarding himself, came to the said Yennehole
and told the story of said death of the deceased Anitha.
He has stated that, there was a quarrel in between the
accused persons and deceased with regard to the taking of
the tap water. At about 11.30 a.m., on that day, when
deceased was taking the water, he told that accused Nos.
1 to 3 came there and did a galata with the deceased.
Accused No. 1 removed the pot of the deceased and when
she went to take the water, there was a quarrel. Even
accused No. 1 pushed deceased from the said place and
when he was enquired, forcibly she was pushed by
accused No. 1. Even accused No. 2 – Chandra assaulted
Anitha and accused No. 3 came there and assaulted her.
When the women folk gathered went to rescue, the
accused abused them. Thereafter, the deceased Anitha
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
went inside the house and poured kerosene on her and set
her ablaze.
20. On narration of these facts by PW2, this PW1
rushed to the house and noticed the dead body and
thereafter went to the police station and lodged a
complaint as per Ex.P1. On the same day itself, according
to this evidence, police came there at 04.30 p.m.,
conducted the inquest panchanama, so also spot
panchanama as per Ex. P2. It is his allegation that,
because of the abetment to commit suicide by the
deceased by these accused persons she died and suffered
a suicidal death. He says that after post-mortem the dead
body was given to him and he performed the last rights of
the deceased.
21. On reading the entire evidence of PW1 as
spoken to in examination-in-chief, he is a hearsay witness.
He has narrated the story of quarrel and death of the
deceased as heard from PW2. That means PW2 is the
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
person who has conveyed all this story of death of the
deceased in the manner he has seen according to his
evidence. As PW1 is a hearsay witness, unless there is
corroboration to the evidence of this PW1, the evidence of
this PW1 pale into insignificance.
22. This PW1 has been cross-examined by the
defence at length. According to the cross-examination of
this PW1, when PW2 – Srinivasa informed about the death
of the deceased in between 2.00 and 2.15 p.m., he came
to know about the said fact. He states that, he has not
stated before the police that he got knowledge about the
death of the deceased at 01.30 p.m. on that day. He
returned to the house at 03.00 p.m. on that day and
enquired Siddappa, Guddappa, Shivanagamma, Tahasin
and Puttama. But the names of these persons are not
stated in the complaint. There is no difficulty for him to
state the names of these persons with whom he enquired
about the death of the deceased. According to his
evidence, at 03.30 p.m. on that day he left for Kadakola
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
Police Station and initially he went to Kadakola Police
Station and thereafter to the South Police Station, Mysore.
He went to Mysore South Police Station at 03.45 p.m
along with CW2 and CW6. According to him, Siddappa
wrote the complaint as per his saying. He has not
discussed about the contents of the complaint with
Siddappa. Further he states that, he met PSI there and
lodged a complaint at 04.30 p.m. But the complaint
averment shows that, it was filed on 07.04.2011 and the
time is not mentioned.
23. In the further cross-examination, he is
categorical that it was PW2 – Srinivasa, who informed
about the quarrel in between the deceased and the
accused persons. Though the complaint is silent about the
assault of the deceased by holding her hairs, but PW1
states that accused No.1 by catching hold her hairs
assaulted the deceased. Even he has not stated in his
complaint that, one Shivamma, Puttamma and
Shivanagamma came to rescue his daughter. It was PW2
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
informed that accused abused the deceased with filthy
language so as to insult her. Thus, the entire evidence of
PW1 is full of contradictions and omissions and there is so
much of improvement in his evidence. As he is a hearsay
witness, much value cannot be attached to the evidence of
this PW1.
24. It is brought on record that in front of the
house of accused No. 1, there is a tap and, on that day,
there was no flow of tap water in the tap belonging to the
accused No. 1. Therefore, they came to the tap of the
complainant. For the first time this PW1 has spoken about
this fact in his cross-examination. A thorough and lengthy
cross-examination directed to this PW1 and he is
consistent that as per the say of PW2 only he is deposing
before the Court. He denied a suggestion that, because of
some ill-will between his family and accused family a false
complaint has been filed. He has denied all the
suggestions so directed to him. According to him, the
incident took place at 01.00 p.m. on that day. But the
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
complaint averment shows that, the incident took place at
11.30 a.m. on that day. He states that, near the said tap
where the incident took place there was a blood stain on
the brick at its corner. But this fact is not stated by any of
the witnesses in their respective evidence. As evidence of
PW1 is hearsay evidence, unless there is corroborative
evidence, much value cannot be attached to the evidence
of this PW1.
25. PW4 is none else than the wife of the PW1. She
too is the hearsay witness and she rushed along with PW1
to the spot and noticed the dead body of her daughter.
According to PW4’s evidence, it was PW2 informed them
about the incident. She too has been cross-examined at
length and there are so many contradictions, omissions
brought on record in the cross-examination.
26. The defence version is that, as this PW1 and
PW2 used to do some illegal activities and there are so
many cases foisted against them, therefore a false case is
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
been registered against these accused persons by the
complainant. But the suggestions are denied. This PW4
states that, there was a galata in between the family of
the complainant and accused persons with regard to the
dust to be sent out. Thus, there was some animosity as
per the evidence of PW4 in between family of the
complainant and accused persons. In view of the
contradictions, omissions and PW4 being the hearsay
witness, unless there is some corroborative evidence, the
evidence of PW4 also becomes formal in nature and
cannot be given any weightage.
27. Then remains the evidence of PW.2, the sole
eyewitness. This PW.2 – Srinivasa has come before the
Trial Court and deposed that, he too belongs to Soliga
Caste. On 06.04.2011 in the morning hours, he went to
the house of PW.1 for the purpose of marriage talks. On
07.04.2011 at about 8.00 a.m., PW.1 and PW.4 went to
Yennehole for the purpose of cleaning the clothes. But
PWs.1 and 4 states that, they went to Yennehole at 10
– 21 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
a.m. At that time, himself and deceased were only in the
house. At about 1 p.m. deceased Anitha went for taking
the water from the tap. At that time, accused No. 1 came
there and removed the pot of the deceased and started
quarreling and assaulted the deceased by her hands. By
that time accused No. 2, who was behind the house came
and abused the deceased in a filthy language and took out
the brick piece and assaulted on her forehead. Even
accused No. 3 assaulted this PW.2 on his back and cheek.
It deposed by PW2 that, accused No. 1 and accused No. 2
told the deceased to die by hanging herself. Accused No.
3 also assaulted the deceased. They dragged her.
Thereafter the deceased went inside and closed the door.
According to the evidence of PW1 and PW4, whatever PW2
has seen, he narrated to them. But PW2 speaks different
evidence in his examination-in-chief.
28. Further he deposed that, after going inside the
house and after closing the door, he noticed a smoke
coming from the window. Thereafter Siddappa came there
– 22 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
and opened the door. They noticed that, deceased Anitha
fell near the door. Because of burn injuries she died. A
cloth worn by the deceased were burnt. It is the evidence
of PW2 that, when the quarrel took place in between
deceased and the accused persons, one Shivanagakka,
Chandrakka, Sundari were present and they tried to
rescue. But these witnesses have been turned hostile.
29. It is the further evidence of PW2 that, after
filing the complaint by PW1, police came to the spot and
noticed the dead body of the deceased who suffered the
burn injuries. There the police conducted the inquest
panchanama, spot panchanama as per Ex.P2 and P7
respectively. According to the evidence of this PW2,
because of hanging she died and for that reason the
accused are responsible. Altogether different evidence has
been spoken to in the examination-in-chief at page-3.
This PW2 is thoroughly cross-examined by the defence.
– 23 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
30. According to his cross-examination, one day
prior to the incident he came to Kadakola Village. He
came to know about the names of the accused persons as
they attended the engagement ceremony in between
himself and the deceased. There were talks of marriage
about 4 months back prior to the said incident. He states
that, the Yennehole is about 1 kilometer away from the
house of PW1. According to him, after the incident he
went running to Yennehole to inform PW1. He took about
half an hour to reach the said Yennehole. According to
him, police station is very much near to the house of PW1.
When the incident took place, it was about 01.00 p.m. on
that day. He informed the said fact to PW1 at about 01.30
p.m. According to him, he has not stated to PW1 that, the
incident took place at about 11 a.m. on that day. He did
not inform the said fact to PW1 and PW4 in between 02.00
and 02.15 p.m. According to him, he informed PW1 that,
the incident took place at about 01.00 p.m. on that day.
– 24 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
Because of fear he did not go to the police station on that
day.
31. Further he states that, accused No. 2 assaulted
deceased by using the brick. According to him by standing
3-4 feet away, accused No. 2 assaulted deceased. When
accused No. 2 assaulted deceased, this PW2 was standing
by the side of the deceased. He did not try to rescue her.
There was no time at all. For the first time he states that,
because of assault by using the brick by the accused No. 2
on the forehead of the deceased there was swelling and
there was no bleeding at all. For the first time without any
assertions in the complaint or in his statement, he has
stated so many things in his cross-examination. By using
the same brick accused No. 3 assaulted deceased and to
that effect he has stated before the police according to his
evidence. He has not sustained about any bleeding
injuries on her back. When he enquired that, why they are
assaulting, at that time, accused No. 3 assaulted him by
using his hands. He has stated about the assault on him
– 25 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
to the police. He has not kept any special mark to identify
M.O. No. 1. According to him, himself and PW4 dictated
the contents of the complaint at Kadakola police station.
But PW1 states that, one Siddappa wrote the complaint.
PW1 put the signature on the complaint. According to
him, before his engagement with the deceased, deceased
was studying at 10th Standard and when incident took
place she was studying in first year PUC. This fact is not
informed to the police according to him. It is the defence
of the accused that, one Rajesh was the person who used
to visit the house of the complainant. There was a talk of
a marriage of a deceased with Rajesh and because of
some reasons it was dropped, etc. But the suggestions so
directed to PW1, PW2 and PW4 have been denied by these
witnesses. This PW2 is quite ignorant about the contents
of the panchanama, which was written in his presence.
32. On scrupulous reading of the entire cross-
examination so directed to him and compared to the
evidence of PW1 and PW4, the evidence of this PW2 is full
– 26 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
of contradictions, omissions and discrepancies. The very
time of the incident is differently spoken by this PW2 than
PW1 and PW4. Such inconsistent evidence if led by the
prosecution, it creates some doubt with regard to the very
genesis of the case of the prosecution.
33. PW3 – Sahadeva is the inquest pancha, who
was present when the inquest panchanama was conducted
by the police on 07.04.2011 in between 04.00 p.m and
06.00 p.m on that day and police have recovered MO Nos.
2 to 5. This fact is not denied by the defence. No effective
cross-examination is directed to him. He was also present
when the panchanama Ex.P8 was written but he does not
know the contents of Ex.P8. To the extent of his presence
when the inquest panchanama was conducted, the
evidence of PW3 has to be accepted. Accordingly, it is
accepted.
34. PW5 – Shivappa Javaranayak, an autorickshaw
driver, is a hearsay witness and went to the scene of
– 27 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
offence on getting information with regard to the death of
the deceased because of burn injuries. So much value
cannot be attached to the evidence of this PW5 that, he
has not witnessed the said incident in the manner stated
by him. He too has been cross-examined by the defence.
According to him, police came to the spot at about 04.00
p.m. on that day and he noticed the dead body of the
deceased in a hall and she died because of burn injuries.
Even he does not know that, who has showed the scene of
offence to the police. Thus, the evidence of PW5 would
not help the case of the prosecution in any manner so as
to connect the accused persons in the commission of the
crime.
35. PW6 – Nagaraju is the Pancha to Ex.P7 in whose
presence the scene of panchanama was conducted.
Though he has been cross-examined by the defence, but
he is consistent that, he was very much present when the
scene of offence panchanama was conducted. To that
extent, I believe the evidence of this PW6.
– 28 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
36. PW7 – Dr. Ravi, the Assistant Professor of
Mysore Medical College, conducted the post-mortem on
the dead body of the deceased Anitha. He has noticed cold
rigors on the dead body. Noticed so many injuries on her
head, neck, face, chest, behind the chest, back, stomach,
both the hands, both the legs and private part and even
her hairs were also burned. She had sustained 98 – 99%
burn injuries as per the PM report and accordingly has
issued Ex.P9 the P.M. report. There is no effective cross-
examination directed to this witness by the defence.
When suicidal death of the deceased is admitted by the
defence and when she is died because of burn injuries, the
evidence of PW.7 has to be accepted to the extent that he
conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the
deceased and noticed the burn injuries on her person as
noticed in Ex.P9.
37. PW8 – Kumudha M.C. was the woman police
constable who took the FIR to Court and reached the same
to the Judicial Magistrate. She identified Ex.P1 –
– 29 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
complaint, Ex.P10 – the First Information Report. No
cross-examination is directed to this PW.8 by the defence.
That means defence admits the evidence of PW8 in
material particulars.
38. PW9 – C.D. Jagadish, the then A.C.P, N.R.Sub-
division, Mysore, has conducted the inquest panchanama,
recorded the statement of the witnesses, spot
panchanama was conducted by him. As a Investigation
Officer he has recovered the MO’s, so also arrested the
accused persons etc. He has spoken before the Court
about filing of a charge sheet against the accused persons
and collecting of FSL report. He has been thoroughly
cross-examined by the defence, but nothing worth is
elicited. In all criminal cases, investigation officers are the
supervisors of the investigation. Unless there is
corroborative evidence, the evidence of these IO’s
becomes formal in nature.
– 30 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
39. PW10 – Jayamma is the so-called eye witness of
the said incident, but she has completely turned hostile.
Though she has been cross-examined at length, but
nothing worth is elicited. Therefore, her evidence would
not help the case of prosecution.
40. PW11 – M. Sunitha is the spot pancha to Ex. P7
and also inquest pancha. In her presence the MOs are
seized and panchanama was conducted. To that extent
the evidence of this PW11 is to be accepted.
41. PW12 – H.P. Venkateshaiah, the then PSI, who
has received the complaint, registered the same in Crime
No. 131/2011 and set the criminal law in motion.
According to him, at about 03.00 p.m., the complainant
appeared before him in the police station and lodged a
written complaint as per Ex.P1. He prepared the FIR as
per Ex.P10 and sent the same to the Court. Thereafter, at
about 07.00 p.m., he arrested accused No. 1 and
produced him before PW9. At that time, WPC No. 20 was
– 31 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
on duty. To the extent of registering the crime and setting
criminal law in motion, his evidence is to be accepted.
42. PW.13 – Surayabhanu is an eyewitness of said
incident but has been turned hostile. Nothing worth is
elicited from the mouth of this witness so as to disbelieve
her version given in the examination-in-chief.
43. In a case of present nature, it is bounden duty
of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences.
On going through the FIR and the evidence of the
complainant as well as evidence of PW2, the case as
projected in the FIR is that, because of the sudden quarrel
in between the accused person and the deceased, they
asked her to go and die and because of the same she went
inside and poured the kerosene on her and set her ablaze.
As stated supra, in an offence of present nature it must be
proved by the prosecution that, it is accused and accused
only have abetted to commit suicide. Even no immediate
– 32 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
threat is sufficient. Abetment of suicide is defined under
Section 306 of IPC and the Section reads as under:
“306. Abetment of suicide.–
If any person commits suicide, whoever abets
the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
44. Section 306 of IPC has to be read along with
Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which speaks of
abetment of a thing. It reads as under.
“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.
Explanation 1.– A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of
a material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
– 33 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.”
45. Thus, when Section 306 read with 107 of IPC
are attributed, time and again the Hon’ble Apex Court has
interpreted these Sections that, to attract the offence of
abetment to commit suicide, it is important to establish
proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement
of a suicide by the accused, which must be in close
proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased.
That means such instigation or incitement should reveal a
clear mens rea to abet the commission of a suicide and
should put the victim in such a position that, she would
have no other option but to commit suicide. In this case
it is not at all made out about the proximity to the
commission of the suicide because of direct or indirect acts
of instigation by the accused persons.
46. The learned counsel for the accused/appellants
places reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in
PRAKASH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
– 34 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
AND ANOTHERS reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3835.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in para-16 of the Judgment have
observed as under:
“16. The word in the case of S.S. Chheena
v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, had an occasion to
consider the scope of Section 306 of the IPC
and the ingredients which are essential for
abetment, as set out in Section 107 of the
IPC. It observed as follows:
16. The word “suicide” in itself is
nowhere defined in the Penal Code,
however its meaning and import is well
known and requires no explanation.
“Sui” means “self” and “cide” means
“killing”, thus implying an act of self-
killing. In short, a person committing
suicide must commit it by himself,
irrespective of the means employed by
him in achieving his object of killing
himself.”
47. These observations so made by the Hon’ble
Apex Court fit in with regard to the allegations made
against the accused persons. As stated supra, it is a well
established legal principle that, the presence of a clear
mens rea that is the intention to abide by the Act is
essential to prove the offence under Section 306 of IPC.
Mere harassment by itself is not sufficient to find an
– 35 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
accused guilty of abetting suicide. In this case there was
a quarrel with regard to the taking of the tap water. That
means the prosecution must demonstrate an active or
direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take
her own life. No such evidence is placed on record by the
prosecution. The element of mens rea cannot simply be
presumed or inferred, it must be evident and explicitly
discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for
establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied,
underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous
intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide.
48. For the purpose of finding out that, these
accused persons really abetted the commission of suicide
by the deceased, the consideration would be, the accused
is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As
explained and reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
various in catena Judgments, instigation means to goad,
urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If
the person who committed suicide had been
– 36 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise
not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the
accused guilty of abetment of suicide. If these principles
are applied to the present facts of the case, as observed
above, the very instigation or provoking of the deceased
to commit suicide is missing in this case. Except for the
quarrel between deceased and accused persons, no such
incident has taken place. Except for the evidence of PW2
there is no evidence at all. The other women so named in
the examination-in-chief of PW1, have not supported the
case of prosecution.
49. Considering the charge framed and the
commission of her offence based upon the sole evidence of
PW2, it cannot be stated that he has spoken truth before
the Court. It is the established principle of law that a word
uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation. If it transpires to the Court that a victim who
– 37 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
committed suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary
petulance, it cannot be stated that such an offence is
complete. It is stated by PW2 that, it was accused No. 1
who told the deceased to go and die by hanging herself.
Even if we accept the prosecution’s story that these
appellants did tell the deceased to go and die, that itself
does not constitute the ingredient of instigation.
50. The word instigate denotes incitement or urging
to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or
incite. That means presence of mens rea is necessary
concomitant of instigation, that is missing in this case.
The prosecution story if believed shows that, there was a
quarrel in between the deceased and accused persons to
take the water. Deceased raised voice and started
quarrelling. The very ingredients of the offence committed
by the accused persons are missing in this case. The
principles laid down in the Judgments, relied by the
learned counsel for the accused can very well be made
applicable to the present facts of the case. That means as
– 38 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
can be seen from the facts of the case, prima facie there is
absolutely no allegation that, the accused persons really
have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is well
settled that, in order to constitute an offence punishable
under Section 306 of IPC, the necessary ingredients
contemplated under Section 107 of IPC stated above
regarding intentional instigation said to have been given
by the accused persons to the deceased to commit suicide
or intentional aid said to have been given by the accused
persons to the deceased to commit suicide shall be
established.
51. In this case, there is absolutely no allegation as
can be seen from the facts of the prosecution case that, it
was accused have instigated or aided the deceased to
commit suicide. Therefore, as the ingredients of offence
are missing in this case, except the evidence of PW2, there
is no other evidence placed on record to prove that, really
these accused persons are involved in the commission of
the crime in the manner stated by this PW2. Therefore, in
– 39 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
the absence of acceptable evidence led by the prosecution,
there arises a doubt in the case of prosecution. The
prosecution evidence is full of contradictions, omissions
and discrepancies and especially evidence of PW2 is quite
contradictory to the evidence of PW1 and PW4.
52. PW1 and PW4 are the hearsay witnesses. Only
based upon the sole evidence of PW2, it cannot be stated
that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the
accused. When three women were very much present
named in the examination-in-chief of PW1 and when two
of them have been turned hostile, unless there is
corroboration, the evidence of PW2 cannot be accepted as
truthful evidence. If all these factual features are put
together, it cannot be stated that, the prosecution is able
to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt. Therefore, a doubt arises in the case of the
prosecution and that benefit of doubt has to be extended
to the accused.
– 40 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
53. Accordingly, the above point is answered
against the prosecution and in favour of the appellants. In
view of the discussions made above, the appeal deserves
to be allowed and accused Nos. 1 to 3 being the appellants
are entitled for acquittal by giving the benefit of doubt.
54. Resultantly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The Judgment of conviction dated
08.02.2012 and order of sentence dated
10.02.2012 passed in Special Case No.
41/2011 by the VI Additional District and
Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Mysuru, is hereby set aside.
(iii) Consequentially, accused no. 1 to 3 being
the appellants are acquitted of the charges
under Section 323, 324, 354, 306 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xi)
of SC&ST (POA) Act, 1989, by giving
benefit of doubt.
– 41 –
NC: 2025:KHC:25507
CRL.A No. 265 of 2012
HC-KAR
(iv) Their bail bond stands cancelled and they
set at liberty.
(v) Send back the Trial Court records along
with copy of this judgment forthwith.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
AM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2
[ad_1]
Source link