STATE OF KARNATAKA v. G.A. LOKESH

house Smt. Pushpa to visit their house and ask wife of the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 complainant to call the complainant. Accordingly, Pushpa visited the house and tried to call the deceased. There was no response. The same was intimated to the complainant and therefore complainant immediately rushed to the house around 12 noon. There was no response for the complainant as well and they tried to peep into the house by breaking open the walls of the window. But they could not find anything. Therefore ultimately they broke open the front door and went inside the house.

For their utter shock, they found that wife of the complainant had hung herself with the help of a vail to the iron hook found in the dining hall. With the help of the neighbors, the body was brought down from the hanging position and wife of the complainant was shifted to Cauvery hospital. The doctor who examined the wife of the complainant declared that she was no more and the complainant found a death note.

Based on the above factual aspects, he lodged the complaint with Nazarabad police station. Police after - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 registering the case investigated the matter in detail and filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC against the respondent.

Learned trial Magistrate took cognizance and committed the matter to the Sessions Court. Learned Judge in the Sessions Court summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Court, engaged the services of an advocate and filed an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge as there was no nexus between the suicidal death of the wife of the complainant and the accused. Prosecution opposed the application by filing detail written objections.

Learned Sessions Judge heard the parties in detail and based on the material found in the charge sheet and the contentions urged on behalf of the accused, by impugned order discharged the accused inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.11 and 12 as under: “11. The Death Note left by the deceased is produced at page-48 of the charge sheet. In the - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 said Death Note, the deceased has firstly apologized to her husband for taking the extreme step. Then the deceased goes on to say that, she is unable to tolerate the harassment meted to her by the accused. She still has to continue in the same office for another 2 years since, she will not get transfer nor be deputed to school and therefore, she is going to go mad. Therefore, she is unable to understand what to do. Then the deceased has stated that it is the B.E.Ο., [accused] who is responsible for her suicide, because he is issuing Memos to her for small things. Then, the Death Note deals with various other mattes wherein the deceased has informed her husband regarding where she has kept various LIC Policies, FD Receipts etc.,. Therefore, the sum and substance of the allegations against the accused in the Death Note is that, he is issuing Memos to the deceased for small things and thus harassing her. In so far as the inability of the deceased to get transfer is concerned, as already noted supra, the accused has nothing to do with it because it is in the domain of the superior officers of the BEO.

12. On the basis of the above allegations and the material produced by the prosecution, I have to determine whether there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused in the present case. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 Before adverting to the allegations against the accused, I deem It appropriate to refer to the Post Mortem Report of the deceased, which states the opinion that she died due to asphyxia. I also deem it appropriate to refer to the Medical Certificate produced by the prosecution at page-51 of the charge sheet. The said, Medical Certificate is dated

29.03.2012, i.e. almost one year prior to the suicide of the deceased. Said Medical Certificate states that the deceased was suffering from “major depressive disorder with obsessive compulsive disorder and deliberate self harm”, It is to be noted that, said depression would not occur over night and therefore, it is clear that the deceased was suffering from “major depressive disorder with obsessive compulsive disorder and deliberate self harm” much prior to the date on which the said Medical Certificate was issued. Therefore, it is clear that, even prior to the alleged harassment at the hands of the accused commenced, the deceased was already suffering from depression. Infact, even in the charge sheet and the statements recorded by the police, reference is made to the fact that the deceased was a very sensitive lady. It is in the context of these facts that, I have to determine whether there is sufficient material to frame charge against the accused for offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. It is to be noted that, the sum and substance - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 of the allegations against the accused are that, he used to issue Memos for small reasons and thus resulted in harassment of deceased and drove her to commit suicide. In particular, the learned Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the Memo dated 23.07.2012 at page-54 of the charge sheet as a manifestation of the harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused wherein the accused has issued Memo on the ground that, on 23.06.2012, the deceased has issued Report stating that she has visited Halekempaiahnahundi school. But the said Report is not signed by her, but only signed by Sri Prakash and asking her explanation for the same. The deceased has replied to the said Memo on

04.08.2012 stating that, by oversight, she has not signed the said Report, but the said Report is in her hand-writing. On 14.08.2012, the accused has issued another show-cause notice calling upon her to explain who gave her the permission to visit the said School, to which the deceased has replied on

28.08.2012 stating that, she has visited the said School as per the order of the accused himself. By referring the said correspondence, It argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that, when on 23.07.2012, the accused himself sought explanation from deceased as to why she has not signed the Report, the accused himself issues another Memo on 28.08.2012 asking the deceased - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 who gave her permission to visit the said School. Thus, it is the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that, the above correspondence shows unreasonable harassment meted out to deceased by the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor has also referred to various other Memos issued by the accused the deceased, i.e. Memo, dated

01.12.2013, seeking explanation from the deceased as to why she did not visit a particular School where a quarrel took place between the students. It is not necessary for me to consider the said Memos in detail because I am not sitting in appeal over the said Memos or the replies issued to the said Memos by the deceased. This Court is only considering, whether the accused has abetted suicide of the deceased and whether the acts of the accused comes within the scope of Section 306 of I.P.C. In my opinion, a close perusal of the Death Note and also on the allegations made by the prosecution in the charge sheet, do not reveal that the accused has done anything apart from his official duty. The only allegation against the accused in the Death Note as well as in the charge sheet is that the accused has harassed the deceased by issuing Memos. The documents produced by the prosecution along with the charge sheet itself reveals that the deceased has suitably replied to all the Memos.

It is also to be noted that, although the allegation against the - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 accused is that he was harassing the deceased for the past 1½ years prior to suicide of the deceased, the deceased has not preferred to make any representation / complaint to the superiors of BEO against the alleged acts of the BEO. Therefore, at this stage, without going into the question whether the accused was justified in issuing the said Memos or not, suffice it to say that, by issuing the said Memos, the accused was only doing his official duty as a superior officer and the issuance of said Memos do not disclose any mens rea on the part of the accused to drive the deceased to commit suicide. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750, wherein at paragraph-17, it is held as follows: “17.

Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” (Underlining by me) From the perusal of the above Ruling, it is clear that, in order to convict a person under Section 306 of I.P.C., there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

The discussions made supra reveals that, there was no mens rea on the part of the accused and his acts of issuing memos were not intended to push the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the material placed by the prosecution along with the charge sheet do not make out a case for framing charge against the accused for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, this is a fit case to discharge the accused for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. Accordingly, I answer the Point for consideration in the Affirmative, and proceed to pass the following: - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 :: ORDER :: The application for discharge filed by the accused is allowed. The accused is discharged of the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. The accused is on bail and his ball bond and that of his surety stand cancelled.”

Being aggrieved by the same, State is in revision on the following grounds. “1. That the impugned order passed by the Court below allowing the application and discharging the accused is against to law and the probabilities of the case. The learned Sessions Judge has completely misread the complaint averments and the contents mentioned in the complaint and the nature of the allegations made in the complaint which itself constitutes an offence under Section 306 of IPC, in spite the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application and discharged the accused on erroneous grounds. Hence, the same resulted in miscarriage of justice.

2. That on perusal of statements of the witnesses and the materials collected by the Investigation Officer, prima-facie which shows that - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 the accused was mentally harassing the deceased and he was also obstructing the deceased in performing her duties and he was also not sanctioning the leave to the deceased. In spite of these allegations, the Sessions Judge has allowed the application and discharged the accused, hence the order of the Sessions Judge is not in accordance with law.

3. That on perusal of the Death Note of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased has clearly narrated all the incidents in her Death Note in detail and also stated as to how the accused was harassing the deceased and the deceased has also stated that the accused is solely responsible for the death of the deceased. Hence, on perusal of the same, it is clear that the prosecution has made out a prima-facie case, therefore, discharging the accused on technicalities is not just and proper.

4. That the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the statements of prosecution witnesses namely Puttaswamy Gowda, Sudha Rani, Smt. Anitha, Eshwar Kumar, etc., who have given a categorical statement alleging that the accused was mentally harassing the deceased and due to the said harassment when the deceased was alone at home, she committed suicide. Therefore, the Accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 and hence, the accused is solely responsible for the death of the deceased and the prosecution has proved its case connecting the crime to the accused.

5. That the learned Sessions Judge has not discussed about the statements of the remaining prosecution witnesses and the materials collected by the Investigation Officer, which prima-facie proves that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the order of the Sessions Judge requires to be set-aside. Thus viewed from any angle, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not only illegal but also perverse and calls for interference of this Hon’ble Court.”

Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that the learned Sessions Judge erred in law in discharging the accused inasmuch as there was a triable issue to the effect that whether the alleged ill treatment by the accused was sufficient enough to drive the deceased to commit the suicide and whereby sufficient ingredients were found as is required under Section 109 IPC so as to convict the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Learned Sessions Judge - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 without undertaking such a measure, based on the submissions made on behalf of the accused, has passed the impugned order, resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision.

Per contra, Sri C H Jadhav, learned Senior counsel representing the accused revision petitioner contended that on bare reading of the death note which is the prime document for the investigation agency to file charge sheet against the accused would itself would go to show that hardly there could be any nexus between the accused and the incident.

He invited the attention of this Court to the death note which reads as under:

¦æÃwAiÀÄ gÀWÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ F jÃw ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉAiÀÄzÁV sorry. £À£ÀUÉ D¦søï£À°è BEO PÁlªÀ£ÀÄß vÁ¼À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀÄwÛ®è £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV §ºÀ¼À »A¸ÉAiÀiÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. E£ÀÆß JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀð EzÉà D¦søï£À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ºÀÅZÀÄÑ »rAiÀÄÄvÀÛzÉ. mÁæ£ïì¥üÀgï DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. School UÉ deputation ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ K£ÀÄ - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 ªÀiÁqÀ°. £À£Àß ¸Á«UÉ BEO £Éà PÁgÀt. aPÀÌ¥ÀÅlÖzÀÝPÉÌ®è Memo PÉÆlÄÖ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÁÝ£É. £À£ÀßzÀÄ MlÄÖ 3 LIC Policy UÀ½ªÉ. MAzÀÄ Policy AiÀÄ£ÀÄß D¦søï£À°è ©ÃgÀÄ«£À°ènÖzÉÝãÉ. JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èªÉ. MAzÀÄ RD ºÁUÀÆ PLI £ÀÄß £ÀgÀ¹Ã¥ÀÅgÀzÀ Post Office £À°è PÀlÄÖwÛzÉÝÃ£É RD book ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÉ. PLI book ¥ÀŤÃvï ºÀvÀæ EzÉ »ÃUÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀë«Ä¹ gÀWÀÄ Please. Office £À°ègÀĪÀ Policy No. 623445953. EzÀÄ aPÀ̪ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è PÉƼÉîUÁ®PÉÌ transfer UÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉ.

He further pointed out that except mentioning that there was a mental harassment by issuing memo for minor incidents, no other details are forthcoming as to what is the nature of the harassment that is meted out to the deceased by the accused. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in discharging the accused.

He further pointed out that the material on record also points out that the deceased was suffering from serious depressive disorder which has been taken note of by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order and such persons if they commit suicide and in the absence of any - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 cogent material evidence on record, proceeding against the accused and made him to stand for the trial is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the same has been rightly appreciated by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order and rightly discharged the accused and therefore sought for dismissal of the revision.

Having heard the parties in detail this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that bare reading of the contents of the death note referred to supra would not make out what is the nature of harassment that has been meted out by the accused to the deceased. The material on record also shows that the deceased was suffering from psychological issues including the major depressive disorder with obsessive/compulsive disorder and deliberate self harm. Such a person would be usually suffering from suicidal tendency. If at all the deceased had any such serious issues with regard to conduct of accused, it was always open for her to give up her job or at least the harassment if any, should have been brought to the higher - 18 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016 officials of the Education Department with specific details. No such efforts being made by the deceased. Further, even the complaint averments would also not reveal as to what is the nature of harassment that has been meted out by the accused to the deceased. Complainant being the husband should have also taken necessary steps to see that the alleged harassment if any brought to the notice of the higher officials of Education Department. More so, the complainant being the System Administrator working in Infosys, who is well educated.

In the absence of any such previous complaint to the higher officials of the accused or making any efforts to give up the job if the harassment is so imminent, coupled with the major depressive disorder suffered by the deceased, proceedings against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is thus rightly considered as abuse of process of law by the learned trial Judge and has rightly discharged the accused. - 19 - NC: 2024:KHC:44957 CRL.RP No. 1305 of 2016