MR M R RANGANATHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

This appeal is filed by the sole accused praying to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in S.C.No.473/2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court - 12, Bengaluru, whereunder, the appellant – accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-.

The factual matrix of the case is that; the appellant – accused who is married to one Smt. Jagadamba had developed intimacy with the deceased Smt. Sulatha Shetty who was deserted by her husband and member of chit business run by the appellant – accused and they started to reside as husband and wife in the II floor of House No.82/1, B.H.E.L Layout, S.R.K Garden and during their stay, there used to be frequent quarrels and the appellant - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 – accused used to abuse her with filthy words by saying that “¤Ã£ÉãÀÄ PÀnÖPÉÆAqÀªÀ¼À®è” and having fed up with such behaviour of the appellant – accused, on 28.01.2007 at about 7.15 pm., in the said house, she has committed suicide by hanging and that the appellant – accused had abetted its commission by ill-treating her and committed an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. (i) In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined twelve witnesses as PWs.1 to 12 and got marked 23 documents as Exs.P1 to P23 and the material objects as MOs.1 to 6. The statement of the appellant – accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments on both sides has formulated the points for consideration and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence. The said judgment of

conviction and order on sentence is challenged in this appeal. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011

Heard the arguments of learned senior counsel for the appellant – accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

Learned senior counsel for the appellant – accused would contend that the learned Sessions Judge only based on the death note – Exs.P5a and P5b contained in Ex.P5 – Diary has convicted the appellant – accused. The said death note has been sent to Hand Writing Expert along with the writing contained in Exs.P14 and 16 for opinion. He contends that the contents of Exs.P14 and 16 are in the hand writing of the deceased, has not been established. The Investigating Officer ie., PW12 has received Exs.P14 and 16 from the school where the deceased was working. PWs.1 and 3 who were working as Principal and co-teacher in the said school have not identified the writings in Exs.P14 and 16 as that of the deceased. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the hand writing contained in Exs.P14 and 16 are the hand writing of the deceased. PW11 – Hand Writing Expert has - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No.

2. Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628.

3. SS Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, reported in (2010)12 SCC 190.

4. Amalendu Pal vs. State of W.B., reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011

Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 595.

State of W.B. vs. Indrajit Kundu, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 188.

Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301.

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427.

V.V.Singara Velu vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.P No.3095/2022 dated:16.06.2023.

Jayaram and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.1300/2012 dated 13.02.2024.

Smt. Bhagwan Kaur vs. Shri Maharaj Krishan Sharma and others, reported in (1973) 4 SCC 46.

S. Gopal Reddy vs. State of A.P. reported in (1996) 4 SCC 596.

Chennadi Jalapati Reddy vs. Baddam Prathap Reddy, reported in (2019) 14 SCC 220.

Ravi Bharti vs. State of Haryana in CRA.S No.867/2022 dated:26.08.2022.

Santhosh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC online SC 538.” - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant – accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State would contend that the deceased who had left her husband was residing with the appellant – accused and there was intimacy between them. The appellant – accused has cheated the deceased and quarreled with her and fed up with the same, the deceased had committed suicide and she left death note which is at Exs.P5a and P5b. The Hand Writing Expert – PW11 has given certificate – Ex.P11 and opinion – Ex.P12 stating that the contents of Exs.P5a and P5b are in the hand writing of a person who wrote the contents of Exs.P14 and 16. He submits that the prosecution has established that the deceased wrote death note as per Exs.P5a and P5b and the averments in the death note states that the appellant – accused has harassed and cheated her and therefore, upset with that, she has - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 committed suicide. The Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant – accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Considering the argument advanced on both sides and the grounds urged and on perusal of the Trial Court records and the impugned judgment, the following point arises for my consideration; “Whether the Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant – accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC?”

7. My answer to the above point is in the affirmative, for the following reasons; The deceased was married to one Sri. Venkatesh and she had a daughter by name Kum. Sheetal (PW10). Sri. Venkatesh, husband of the deceased left her and the deceased was residing along with her daughter – PW10. The deceased was working as a teacher in Baldwin School. PW1 was the Principal and PW3 was co-teacher of the - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 deceased in the said School. PWs.1 and 3 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. PWs.1 and 3 have stated that the deceased was not telling anything regarding her personal life to them. PW10 is daughter of the deceased. PW10 has not stated any intimacy between her mother – deceased Smt. Sulatha Shetty and the appellant – accused. PW10 has only stated that her mother and the appellant – accused were running a Bakery business under the partnership and the same was told by her mother to her and with regard to the said business, the relation between the deceased and the appellant – accused was cordial. PW10 has also stated that her mother has not married to any other person.

8. PW4 is the elder sister of the deceased. PW4 has deposed the deceased had married to one Sri. Venkatesh and their marriage was love marriage. PW4 has deposed that daughter of her sister deceased Smt. Sulatha Shetty was telling her that her mother was - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 residing with the appellant – accused. The said evidence of PW4 to that effect is hearsay evidence. PW5 has stated in her evidence that according to her knowledge, after Sri. Venkatesh – husband of the deceased left her, she was residing with the appellant – accused. She has deposed that she has seen the death note. The said death note has not been confronted by PW5. PW6 who is a cable operator who used to visit the house of the deceased has stated that the appellant – accused is husband of the deceased and he was residing in the house of the deceased. There is no oral evidence on record to establish that the appellant – accused was harassing the deceased and he had cheated her in financial matters.

9. The Trial Court has convicted the appellant – accused only based on the death note – Exs.P5a and P5b. Ex.P5 is the diary and it contained Exs.P5a and P5b stated to be the death note left by the deceased. The said Ex.P5 - diary has been seized under mahazar as per Ex.P7 in the presence of PW6. Even there is a contradiction with - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 regard to the place where that diary was kept in the spot, in the evidence of PWs.6 and 4, but he seized that diary from the house of the deceased has been established by the evidence of PW6. Exs.P14 and 16 were sent along with Exs.P5a and P5b contained in Ex.P5 – diary to the Hand Writing Expert stating that the contents of Exs.P14 and 16 are admitted hand writing of the deceased. There is no evidence on record to establish that the contents of Exs.P14 and 16 are in the hand writing of the deceased. PW12 – Investigating Officer stated to have collected Exs.P14 and 16 from the Baldwin School, where the deceased was working as a teacher. The contents of Exs.P14 and 16 are not put to PWs.1 and 3 who are the Principal and co-teacher working in the Baldwin School where the deceased was working. Even the contents of Exs.P14 and 16 are not put to PW4 – the elder sister of the deceased or PW10 – daughter of the deceased to establish that their contents are in the hand writing of the deceased. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to establish that the contents of Exs.P14 and 16 are in the - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 hand writing of the deceased. PW11 – Hand Writing Expert has compared the hand writing in Exs.P14 and 16 with the hand writing contained in Exs.P5a and P5b and gave opinion that the hand writing in both are of the same person. When there is no material on record to indicate that Exs.P14 and 16 are hand writing of the deceased, the said opinion given by the Hand Writing Expert – PW11 as per Exs.P11 and 12 does not have any value as admitted. Hand writing has not been established.

10. Even for the sake of arguments, if the death note Exs.P5a and P5b contained in Ex.P5 – diary is said to be written by the deceased, whether the contents of it will amount to abetment by the appellant – accused to the deceased requires to be considered. As per the contents of the said death note, the appellant – accused has cheated the deceased in chit run by him where she is a member and he harassed her and abused her in filthy words and told her that she is not married to him and therefore, she has committed suicide. Another aspect - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 which is contained in the death note is that the appellant – accused at once made an attempt to kill her and she had lodged complaint against him in Tilak Nagar Police Station. What is the date of the said alleged complaint filed by the deceased in Tilak Nagar Police Station against the appellant – accused is not brought on record. If there is any such complaint, this itself would indicate that after that complaint, the appellant – accused was not residing with the deceased. The other allegation in the death note is that the appellant – accused has cheated the deceased in financial transaction (chit) and he had abused her in filthy language and upset with that, she has committed suicide. Whether the said aspect of cheating in financial transaction and he abusing her in filthy language and stating that she has not married to him, amounts to abetment?

11. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC which reads thus; - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011

107. Abetment of a thing.- A person is said abet 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. As per the aforesaid definition there should be instigation to do that thing and then it amounts to abetment. A person is said to have instigate another to an act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to act by means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement.

13. Learned senior counsel for the appellant – accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 Vs Sate of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371 wherein it is held as under: "..............Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased "to go and die", that itself does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion………."

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs Sate (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC pg 605, wherein it is observed as under: "17. Thus to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction" (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 reacts" (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).

Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.

As observed in Ramesh Kumar, where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, and "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and - 18 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge encourage deceased to commit suicide while acting the manner above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.

In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on is inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self- protection or an escapism from intolerable self. "

15. The appellant – accused said to have cheated the deceased in financial transaction (chit) and stated to her that she is not married to him. There was no intention on the part of the appellant – accused to drive the deceased - 19 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 to commit suicide. The deceased filing the complaint against the appellant – accused in Tilak Nagar Police Station would itself indicate that the appellant – accused was not residing after the said complaint, with the deceased. If the appellant – accused has cheated the deceased in the financial transaction, the option open for the deceased is to make a complaint against him. The said act of cheating in financial transaction and stating to the deceased that she is not married to him, does not amount to abetment.

How a human mind reacts has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ude Singh and Other Vs State of Haryana reported in 2019 (17) SCC 301 wherein it is observed as under: "16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or - 20 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstance. "

A person may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons such as depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment. The same has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangat Ram Vs State of Haryana reported in AIR 2014 SC 178.

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the M. Mohan Vs State reported in 2011 (3) SCC 626 has observed as under: "44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person - 21 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 in doing 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 are 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 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/she committed suicide. "

19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision also observed that "Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same situation".

20. It appears that the deceased was sensitive and as the appellant – accused has cheated her in the financial transaction (chit) and stated that she is not married to him, upset with this, the deceased might have committed suicide. Considering the said aspect, there is no abetment - 22 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 by the appellant – accused to the deceased to commit suicide. The learned Sessions Judge has erred convicting the appellant – accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The appellant – accused has made out grounds for setting-aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence. In the result, the following; ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated

23.04.2011 passed in S.C.No.473/2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-12, Bengaluru convicting the appellant – accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC is set-aside. Consequently, the appellant – accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 306 of IPC. (ii) Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant – accused is ordered to be refunded to him. (iii) In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for consideration. - 23 - NC: 2024:KHC:50251 CRL.A No. 499 of 2011 (iv) Issue intimation to the concerned jail authorities for release of the appellant – accused, if he is not required in any other case, through E-mail. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23