AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 13/15.04.2010 in S.C.No.171/2008 wherein the accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of `1,000/-, in
default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under
Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Complaint came to be registered by the jurisdictional rural police station, Shimogga on 15.09.2007 at 10.30 P.M. for the offence punishable under
Sections 323, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 and 2.
In order to avoid confusion and overlappings, the parties hereinafter are referred to in accordance with their rankings as stood before the Trial
Court.
The proceedings under criminal law came to be initiated on the strength of complaint lodged by CW-1 â€"Kullamma, aged 50 years wife of
Ganeshappa, Hasudi village.
The substance of the complaint is that the complainant had six children consisting of five daughters and one son. Out of them Sarojamma and
Roopamma are married, Anitha, Ammu, Uma and son Murthy are yet to be married. Earlier to one year Kullamma’s husband Ganeshappa
expired, her son Murthy suffers from epilepsy. The complainant and her two daughters were working as coolie in building construction. Her daughter
Anitha was going to coolie work along with Gangadhara, S/o Beluregowda for the past one month.
Thereafter Anitha was working as cook in Javahalli Hostel. She was joined to cooking job by Prakash. But, her daughter was not coming to house,
Complainant and her daughter Sarojamma went to Lakshmamma’s house at Beeranahalli to bring Anitha, who was staying there along with
accused No.1-Gangadhar as tenants in a house belonging to Lakshmamma at Beernahalli. The complainant asked Anitha as to why she was staying
there and she was supposed to be in their house, for which Anitha told that six months back she married Gangadharappa. Being upset complainant
even slapped Anitha-accused No.2. Accused No.1 hit complainant.
Later Uma, another daughter of complainant-Kullamma, expressed her desire and went to bring her sister. On meeting her sister Anitha(A-2) and
Accused No.1, further threatened and told Uma that people like her should die and also abused her. Because of the act of accused Uma, D/o
Ganeshappa and complainant, committed suicide at 4.30 P.M. by hanging her neck with a veil killed herself. The case is charge sheeted in
C.C.No.63/2008 and tried in S.C.No.171/2008.
Learned Trial Judge considered the materials and evidence on record in the form of oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-13, documentary evidence
Exhibits P-1 to P-10, material object No.1 and found accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of
IPC and Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced both accused Nos.1 and 2 to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and to pay
fine of `1,000/- each IDSI three months and simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under section 323 read with Section 34
of IPC.
Learned Trial Judge perused the oral evidence of complainant -PW-1, her daughter Sarojamma -PW-2, PW-3-Owner of the house, PW-4-
Chaluvaraj, PW-5-Ramesha-neighbour, PW-6- Dr.S.Rudramurthy, PW-7 â€" Ravi, PW-8 â€" Jagadisha, PW-9 â€" Ravindra, PW-10-Srinivasa, PW-
11- Madappa, PW-12-Shivaprakash, PW-13- Lakshminarasimha and the documentary evidence Exhibits-P-1 to P-10.
The, learned Trial Judge found common intention between accused Nos.1 and 2 to drive Uma to commit suicide and he places reliance on the
testimony of the complainant. Learned Trial Judge finds that both the accused instigated the commission of suicide of Uma and also that accused
Nos.1 and 2 manhandled the mother of Uma. Learned Trial Judge also found that Uma questioned the marriage between Anitha and accused No.1
and when Anitha answered that marriage was her choice, and they got wild and abused and humiliated Uma only to drive her to commit suicide.
Insofar as Exhibit P-4 post mortem dated 16.09.2007 conducted on the dead body of Uma wherein the cause of death is due to Asphyxia.
Learned counsel for appellant would submit that trivial matter was blown out of proportion and learned Trial Judge erred in placing too much
reliance and inferring the guilt of the accused persons. Learned counsel for appellants would submit that unnecessary significance was attached to the
evidence of complainant and her daughters which was not totally reliable and those allegations stay beyond the realm of acceptability.
Learned HCGP would submit that complaint is lodged by aggrieved party, the mother of accused No.2 and there is all truthfulness in her version.
Learned counsel would further submit that if the matter was considered on the basis of the evidence both written and documentary invariably right
order should have been acquittal.
In the case around the substance of oral evidence of complainant-Kullamma is that she has reiterated the contents of complaint at Exhibit P-1 in
her oral evidence dated 24.02.2010. She narrates about relationship and details of her children as to five daughters and one son. The death of her
husband. She also states that they were coolie and she and her two daughters were attending coolie work in building construction. It is also stated that
in the course of attending, her daughter Anitha became acquainted with accused No.1, thereafter she did not come back to house and she went in
search of her and came to know that she was in the house of Lakshamma wherein the accused persons were residing as tenants in Beeranahalli
village.
When they reached home accused Nos.1 and 2 were present. Complainant and her daughter Sarojamma asked accused No.2 as to why she had
not come home, she states she married accused No.2-Gangadhar and complainant asked her to come back, accused No.1 hit the complainant and
later when Uma was going by road and saw accused No.1, she questioned him and he told Uma it is better that she goes and die by committing
suicide. Thus, forced Anitha to commit suicide. Thereafter further procedures were complied. The substance of oral evidence of Kullamma is
regarding relationship in her family and her daughter Sarojamma got married 20 years back, her husband is no more and Uma was aged 20 years and
matrimonial alliance came for her and complainant had asked her consent for marriage. Accused No.2 is stated to be working as a coolie and
thereafter as a cook. It is also stated that the complainant also asked why she has not come to her house and the reply was accused No.2 had married
accused No.1 further they insulted the complainant. After three days to the scene again Uma went to bring Anitha and Uma was threatened by
accused No.1 when Uma defended they told her it was better that she dies. She also states that her daughter committed suicide at 4.30 P.M.
The substance of the evidence of PW2 Sarojamma is that she is the sister of Uma who committed suicide. This witness is married and also
working as a coolie like the other sisters. Anitha was going to coolie work and thereafter she came in contact with accused No.1, thereafter their
intimacy went to the extent of marriage, which came to the knowledge of the complainant after six months of the marriage and that it triggered the
exchange of heated words between mother, daughter, son-in-law and another daughter of the complainant. It is the evidence of Sarojamma that she
had gone along with her mother on the date of confrontation. Her evidence is in alignment with that of PW1 complainant. In the second phase, it was
Uma, sister of accused No.2, who went to ask and convince accused No.2 that what she did was bad and she should go back to mother’s house
but, that was refused stoutly. The first accused said to have told Uma that he is not bothered in case the latter resorts to extreme step and this matter
was communicated by the very Uma to the complainant.
Lakshamma PW3 was working as a cook. She is a circumstantial evidence. She is the landlord of the house wherein accused Nos. 1 and 2 were
residing. She deposes that one day complainant and her daughter had visited the house of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and there was a quarrel.
There is no cross-examination against the oral evidence of this witness.
PW4-Cheluvaraj is the son-in-law of the complainant and husband of Roopa. He deposes that his mother-in-law, the complainant and her another
daughter Sarojamma (PW2) had gone to ascertain the whereabouts of Anitha and they found that she was in the company of accused No.1. Further,
Anitha (accused No.2) daughter of the complainant told that she had married accused No.1 on her own volition. The matter resulted in heated
exchanges wherein accused No.1 slapped the complainant. Subsequently, when Uma, another daughter of the complainant went to the house of
accused to ask her sister. His further evidence is that accused No.1 humiliated Uma stating that he has already married and he is not bothered even if
she commits suicide and even slapped her and this witness consoled her for better hopes. On the same day, Uma committed suicide and when she
was relieved from the noose, attempts were made to save her but they were in vain, she was dead.
Ramesh PW5 is the neighbour. His evidence is regarding the death of woman in an unnatural way. It is stated that at Hasodi village, being a
neighbour to the house of the complainant, he states that Uma had gone to her elder sister’s house to bring her and there she was humiliated and
instigated to commit suicide and she did. Attempts were made to save her but they were in vain.
Rudramurthy, PW6, Medical Officer is the Doctor working as Senior Specialist, Forensic Medicine, Mc.Gann Hospital, Shimoga deposes for
having conducted postmortem on the dead body of Uma. The postmortem report dated 16.09.2007 is at Exhibit P4. He identifies ligature around the
neck and after conducting the postmortem he gives opinion regarding cause of death as due to asphyxia as a result of hanging.
PW8 Jagadish, PW9 Ravindranath, PW10 Constable Srinivasa have given their evidence and Investigating Officer is examined as PW11. On the
contextual reading of the evidence of Investigating Officer it is found that he has spoken regarding the formalities conducted by him during
investigation.
The learned Trial Judge finds that accused No.1 caused voluntary hurt to PW1 and accused Nos. 1 and 2 have also humiliated and mentally
assaulted Uma. In the wisdom of the learned Trial Judge it was a fit case for conviction. Accordingly, accused persons were convicted under Section
235(2) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Section 323 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
The learned counsel for appellant submits that there are no circumstances that could whisper against the accused-appellant.
In the context and circumstances of the case it is seen that there is no dispute regarding the fact of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 living together and
according to the version of accused No.2, she married accused No.1 without informing her mother (complainant â€" PW1) or sisters or other family
members and there was an attempt to advise accused No.2 by the complainant and her daughter Sarojamma but accused No.2 did not heed to the
advise of the complainant (mother) and there was repercussions of heated exchanges and Uma who is the sister of accused No.2 and another
daughter of the complainant also had gone to convince her sister and asked her to come back. For that, Uma was abused and insulted that even if
Uma were to die they were not bothered and she can go and commit suicide and instigated her to commit suicide. Thus, from the oral evidence of all
the material witnesses, it is clear that the complainant (mother) had gone to her daughter’s place and was worried and in anger questioned the
attitude of accused No.2 and enraged by her reply hit her. It is in this background, Uma another daughter of the complainant had gone to the place of
accused Nos.1 and 2. In the same context, she was also humiliated. She states that when she went to the place she met accused No.1 on the way. In
the version spoken to by the complainant, Uma had gone to the house of accused. In her oral evidence she states that she met accused No.1 on the
way. Thus, regarding place of visit and the accused persons there are discrepancy between the evidence of the complainant and the contents of the
complaint. Thus, the oral evidence does not appear to be uniform.
Suicide is a process wherein a person gets dejected over his/her life and decides to bid adieu to the planet. The person who commits suicide
becomes victim of the circumstances. When hopes are shattered, no chance of seeing a better situation, gets depressed and come to a irreconcilable
conclusion that death is the only alternative and resorts’ to extreme step. It is the mental attitude that a person decides to die and it is the
instigation to commit suicide when the mental state is inducted by others in which event they would be committing instigation to commit suicide.
The maturity lies in controlling emotions and when a person gets defeated by emotions, becomes distressed, enters the state of thoughtless mind
and in that depressing mood he/she commit suicide.
In this connection, the reasons for instigation to commit suicide cannot be judged exclusively from the point of a person who commits suicide or the
person against whom instigation is alleged, the accused in this case. The personality of the victim may be very hard, may not get bogged down to any
kind of pressure, disturbance or annoying situations.
On the other hand, a person may be hyper sensitive to get confused and depressed and in that desperate state may commit suicide and in so far as
the person who instigates may be unmindful of his act and the impossible impact on the person and the chances of the later taking extreme step. Thus,
in case of offence relating to instigation to commit suicide an independent assessment only would tell whether that act of the accused really instigated
the victim to commit suicide. In the instant case the very words or act of the accused towards the victim do not possess the effect of throwing the
victim to spot centre of suicide.
In the present case, complainant had filed complaint that her two daughters were married and three were at home, they lived below the poverty
line and go for coolie work (construction). In the meanwhile, accused No.1, getting opportunity to meet accused No.2, intimacy gets developed and
thereafter accused No.2 abandons the house and after not seeing the daughter for quite some time, complainant goes to the place at Javalli village and
on questioning her daughter, accused No.2 said that she has married accused No.1 and she has no idea of coming back, because of which heat
exchanges developed and even assaulted accused No.2 as well and it is also stated that accused No.1 assaulted the complainant. With this, Uma, the
unfortunate girl goes to the place of accuse Nos. 1 and 2 subsequently and questions the decision taken by accused No.2 to marry accused No.1 and
matter reaches to heated exchanges of words and accused Nos. 1 and 2 stated that accused No.2 cannot come back as she has already married
accused No.1 and if Uma finds that pride and prestige of the family is gone, she may commit suicide and even the former slapped Uma.
The case of the prosecution is that accused abetted the commission of suicide. In the normal circumstances, in any family, when an incident like
the marriage of a member with a person who is not agreeable to family or who is already husband of another lady or when the bridegroom is
unreasonably of higher age. There were even exchange of heated words and passing abuses, they cannot be treated as those who pushed the victim
to commit suicide unless the accused carried out dreaded acts and torture the victim. Thus, the instigation should be of such kind wherein the victim is
put into such a platform wherein he/she will not have any option but to commit suicide. Emotional, sentimental, or ego factor or any ironical words
cannot be termed as cause for committing suicide.
The hyper sensitive nature of the victim for resorting to extreme step as in the circumstances of failing in examinations, failed love affair, lack of
employment and apprehending risk, committing suicide. They cannot be regarded as the said offence. The tendencies of suicide as downloaded from
google is as under:
“Suicidal tendency is the propensity for a person to have suicidal ideation or to make suicide attempts. It may also refer to:
• Suicidal Tendencies, a band that was founded in Venice, Los Angeles, California, in 1981 by the leader and only permanent member, singer Mike
Muir
 • Suicide, the act of a human being intentionally causing his or her own death
• Suicidal person, a person who is experiencing a suicide crisis, and is contemplating, attempting or seeking a means to commit suicide
• Suicide crisis, a situation in which a person is attempting to kill him or herself or is seriously contemplating or planning to do so
• Suicidal ideation, a common medical term for thoughts about suicide, which may be as detailed as a formulated plan, without the suicidal act itself
• Failed suicide attempt, an attempt at suicide that failed either by chance, ineffective means or by design, indicator for a successful future suicide
Germ cell defects and hematopoietic hypersensitivity to gamma-interferon in mice with a targeted disruption of the Fanconi anemia C gene
 The suicide attitude vignette experience (save): A search for sexual stereotypes in the perception of suicidal behavior.â€
 [emphasis supplied by me]
There is an old saying in rural side that “if a person secures a rope with an intention of committing suicide some how the rope does not allow
that person to come out of his decision dieâ€. Incidentally it also refer to a situation that when a person develops suicidal tendency it will be difficult to
come out of the same.
In the circumstances, I am of the firm finding that the learned Trial Judge has erred in holding that act of accused Nos. 1 and 2 led for committing
suicide of Uma, daughter of the complainant. Similarly, there is no acceptable evidence to the effect that accused Nos. 1 and 2 committed hurt to
Uma. In the overall circumstances of the facts, the learned Trial Judge appears to have given unwarranted emphasis emotional and sentimental
aspects, which I find not proper.
Further even for the charge for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC there is no evidence by the prosecution to hold beyond
reasonable doubt that accused No.1 assaulted or caused hurt to Uma.
In the circumstances, I find that the judgment convicting accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 323 r/w. Section 34 of IPC is
liable to be set aside and the sentence of imprisonment imposed and payment of fine are liable to be set aside. Appeal deserves to be allowed.
 Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
 The judgment convicting accused Nos.1 and 2 dated 13/15.04.2010 passed in S.C.No.171/2008 and sentencing them to undergo SI for five years
each for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default, to undergo SI for
three months each and for the offence under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC the accused Nos.1 and 2 each shall undergo SI for three months are
hereby set aside.
 The fine amount, if collected, shall be refunded to the appellants.
 They are set at liberty forthwith. Bail bond stands canceled.
 Registry is directed to send back the records.