Court: Karnataka High Court
Bench: JUSTICE N.K.Sudhindrarao
Jadeppa S/O Late Hanumanthappa Vs. The State Of Karnataka On 16 January 2018
Law Point:
Abetment of suicide – Reason for committing suicide always has to be assessed from an independent angel and not from angle of victim or from a person who is cause for it.
JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence, wherein the appellant was convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973 for the offence punishable 306 of IPC and after hearing the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ballari, the accused is sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and shall pay fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo three months simple imprisonment.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that one Mallayya S/o. Gadilingappa gave statement before PW12-SHO of Brucepet P.S. stating that about three months prior he had married to Smt.Laxmi, the daughter of the accused. The complainant was doing Hamali work and used to consume alcohol, when he was tired of work all most daily. It is alleged that some days after the marriage, the appellant took his daughter and since then she was residing in her parents house. The deceased Mallayya used to go to the house of the appellant and requesting him to send his wife back, for which the appellant was telling the deceased that he was unable to maintain himself and he cannot maintain his wife as he was addicted to alcohol. When a similar incident was happened on 10.08.2014 at about 6:30 p.m., the complainant went to the house of the accused and asked him to send back his wife, then the accused told the complainant that the latter had no capacity to maintain his daughter. Further abused and told him to go and die anywhere. Thereafter the accused assaulted the complainant with hands. After the said incident, the complainant took the kerosene container from the house of the accused and on the way he poured the kerosene on his body and set ablaze.
3. In the said incident, his chest portion, both hands, legs and other parts of the body ware burnt. Immediately, the complainant’s mother-PW7 and his elder sister shifted him to the VIMS Hospital for treatment. After regaining the conscious, the complainant gave statement before PW12 on 11.08.2014 at about 5:30 p.m. at Hospital PW12 after recording the statement, registered case in N.C.No.16/2014 under Section 323 and 504 of IPC. Being unable to recover from the burn injuries, succumbed to them and the case came to be transformed into one for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
4. After investigation, laid the charge sheet against the accused and the accused is on bail. After securing the presence of the accused and on presentation of the case by the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Judge after complying the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. by furnishing the copy of charge sheet to the accused has committed the case to the Court. After securing the presence of the accused the charge was framed under Sections 323, 504, 306 of IPC but the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in order to establish its case, examined as many as 14 witnesses as PWs.1 to 14, and got marked 15 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.15 and produced material object as M.O.1. The accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and the accused did not adduce any defence evidence. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and also after examination of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused for the above said offence.
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
7. Sri.J.Basavaraj, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused would submit that the judgment and order of sentence is contrary to the materials on records and the trial Court has not at all taken into consideration the materials on records and the contradictions, omissions made by the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that PWs.1 and 2 who are the panch witnesses to Ex.P1-Spot and Ex.P2-seizure of MO1 have turned hostile. PW.3 is the neighbour of the accused has turned hostile. This witness stated that he does not know the accused, deceased and his wife-Laxmi. PW3 has said go by to the entire case of the prosecution denying Ex.P3 statement and Ex.P4 additional statement recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW4 is another neighbour of the accused stated that deceased Mallaiah had married to PW5-Laxmi, daughter of the accused about three months prior to the death and has not supported the case of prosecution stating that for which reason the deceased was died and who is responsible for his death. PW5-Laxmi is the wife of the deceased and daughter of the accused. In her evidence she deposed that she stayed few days in her husband’s house and thereafter she was residing in her father’s house. PW6 and PW9 are mahazar witnesses to Ex.P8, inquest mahazar, but both of them have not supported the case of prosecution. PW10 is the brother of the deceased, on hearing the news of incident, he rushed to the hospital and saw burn injuries on the body of his brother. PW11 is the Professor working in VIMS Hospital, Ballari, after receiving requisition from Brucepet Police conducted Ex.P11-Post mortem examination of the body Mallaiah on 15.08.2014 in between 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. On examination, PW11 found 75% burn injuries on the deceased body sparing the lower half of the trunk, genitals and thigh. On internal examination, all the internal organs were intact, congested and slightly enlarged.
8. According to PW1, the death of the deceased is due to septicemia as a result of burn injuries. PW12 is the Head Constable at Brucepet Police Station. On 10.08.2014 at 9:15 p.m., when he was on duty he received phone call from VIMS Hospital stating that one Mallaiah is admitted for treatment of burn injuries. Immediately he gave visit to the Hospital and made efforts to talk with the injured. On 11.08.2014 at about 5:00 p.m. he recorded the statement of the injured at Ex.P12 in the presence of PW14, Medial Officer. On these grounds, the impugned judgment and order of sentence is liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra, the Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the prosecution has discharged its burden by the evidence of direct witnesses, though the mahazar witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution but that is not fatal to the case of prosecution. He further submits that on detail examination of the oral and documentary evidence and the trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its case against accused and accordingly convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused.
10. He further submits that this court may not interfere with the judgment and judgment and sentence passed by the trial Court. He would further submit that the prosecution case stands on Ex.P12-statement of the deceased. PW14, Medical Officer endorsed on Ex.P12, which was recorded before them. PW14 deposed that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give his statement. PWs.4, 7, 10, 11 and 14 have supported the case of prosecution. The statement of the deceased indicates that the accused is responsible for his death, as he abated for suicide.
11. Counter to the said arguments, the learned counsel for the accused submits that PW7, the mother of the deceased has not supported the case of prosecution as she was living separately from her deceased son. PW10- brother of the deceased is hearsay witness.
12. PW7 is the mother of the deceased. In her evidence, she deposed that after the marriage, her son and daughter-in-law stayed together in her house for 15 days. The deceased after attending work used take brandy. He used to spend some money to maintain family and remaining amount for his drinking habits. After 15 days, the accused came to her house and took his daughter to his house saying that her son could not look after his daughter well. The deceased went to the house of the accused about 4 to 5 times to call his wife, but the accused sent her son back by assaulting him and saying that he is unable to maintain his daughter. She further stated that one year back her son went to the house of the accused to call his wife then the accused assaulted her son. Unable to bear the torture, her son poured kerosene on his body in the house of accused and PW5-Laxmi daughter in law came to the house at 6:00 p.m. and told that the deceased poured kerosene. At that time she went to the house of accused and found that the body of her son burnt. Neighbours told that without bearing assault and abuse of the accused, her son lit fire. PW7 deposed with regard to shifting of her son by her daughter Nagarathna to Hospital. Except head and foot, rest of the body of her son was burnt. PW7 in cross- examination of accused stated that her son and daughter in law were living separately from her and she denied that due to huge consumption of alcohol, her son voluntarily set fire.
13. In the context and circumstances of the case and the perusal of the evidence iyt goes to show that the respondent herein registered a case against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.
14. The prosecution has examined in all 14
witnesses for establishing the guilt of the
petitioners/accused, wherein the trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and the accused is sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and shall pay fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo three months simple imprisonment. Out of fine amount, a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid as compensation to PW7, the mother of the deceased.
15. On perusing the entire evidence on record, PWs.1, 2, 3 and 4 who are stated to be eyewitness to the incident, have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. No doubt, the evidence of PW.7 appears to be exaggerated. The evidence on record shows that being unable to bear the torture and harassment of the accused, the complainant committed suicide.
16. In this connection, the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC provides for an action against the instigation to commit the suicide.
17. The reason for committing suicide always has to be assessed from an independent angel, but neither from the angle of the victim nor from a person, who is cause for it.
18. No doubt, according to the deceased, during his life time, his father-in-law shouted and not cared about the accused, when the accused had gone to the house of the accused, he also abused and conveyed him the decision that he cannot allow his daughter to go along with the accused. In the instant case, the refusal of sending his daughter along with Mallaiah, caused him to commit suicide. According to the complainant, when the complainant came to the house of the accused, his father- in-law shouted and assaulted on him. Thus, the step taken by the deceased is nothing but foolish. On the other hand, it was sufficient enough to drive him to commit suicide. If he survives, there are other alternative remedies are there to come out from the dispute. The complainant also states regarding the assault by the accused, which is not established. From the angle of person who commits suicide it becomes necessary nonsense. The apprehension of failure and imagining condemn future contribute us the reason for a person to commit suicide. Thus when a person commits suicide the magnitude or impact cannot be concluded from the angle of the person who commits suicide nor from the angle of the claim of the person who is accused of instigating the victim to commit suicide as they will have their own version in many cases. The complaint appears to have been under emotional and sentimental circumstances.
19. On contextual reading of the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the firm finding that there are no materials to hold the petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 306 of IPC. Hence, the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 27th January 2016 passed by the learned Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ballari in S.C.No.11/2015 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is hereby set aside. The Appellant is set at liberty. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment