R.P.RAMAIAH vs V.SURENDRA KUMAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1125 OF 2015 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 682 OF 2015 (C)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 721 OF 2015 (C)
IN CRL.A NO.1125/2015
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NEW EXTENSION POLICE
STATION … APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH., HCGP)
AND:
V.SURENDRA KUMAR
S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
SRI SADANA
NEAR CHETHANA SCHOOL
SHIVAGANGA EXTENSION
KOTHITOPU
TUMKUR …RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. C. V. NAGESH, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI B
S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 377
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER OF SENTENCE
IMPOSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J. TUMKUR DATED
04.06.2015 IN S.C.NO.110/2013 AND IMPOSE APPROPRIATE
AND ADEQUATE SENTENCE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT/
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
498-A, 306 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A NO 682 OF 2015
BETWEEN
1 . SRI V SURENDRA KUMAR, M.Sc.,
ASSISTANT HORTICULTURAL OFFICER,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA,
"SRISADHANA"
NEAR CHETHANA SCHOOL,
SHIVANAGANGA EXTENSION,
KOTHI THOPPU,
TUMKUR
...APPELLANT
(By SRI. C.V.NAGESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
NEW EXTENSION POLICE STATION,
TUMKUR
..RESPONDENT
(By SMT. B. PUSHPALATHA, ADDL. SPP)
----
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED:4.6.2015, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. &
SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, IN S.C.NO.110/2013-
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A AND 306 OF IPC.
IN CRL.A NO 721 OF 2015
BETWEEN
1 . R.P.RAMAIAH
SON OF LATE B PAPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.222,
SRI SADHANA, 5TH CROSS, GANGOTHRI ROAD,
TUMKUR 573403
...APPELLANT
(By Sri. S SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . V.SURENDRA KUMAR
SON OF LATE VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
RESIDING AT SRI SADANA,
NEAR CHETHANA SCHOOL,
SHIVAGANGA EXTENSION,
KOTHITOPU,
TUMKUR 573403
2 . STATE BY NEW EXTENSION
POLICE STATION 573403
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560001
RESPONDENT
(By Sri. C.V. NAGESH, SERNIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K, ADVOCATE FOR R1; &
SMT. B.PUSHPALATHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R2)
----
CRL.A. FILED U/S.372 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
THE APPELLANT PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE SENTENCE OF
CONVICTION UPTO MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498(A) AND 306 OF IPC IN S.C.NO.110/2013 ON DATED
04.06.2015 PENDING DISPOSAL ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.
DIST. AND S.J., TUMKUR.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These Criminal appeals are connected and arising out of
judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated
04/06/2015 passed in S.C. No.110/2013 on the file of the
II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur.
2. Criminal Appeal No.682/2015 is filed by the accused -
wherein the appellant has been convicted for the offences
under Sections 498A, 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short,
‘IPC’).
3. Criminal Appeal No.721/2015 is filed by the de facto
complainant for enhancement of punishment.
4. Criminal Appeal No.1125/2015 is filed by the Government
to modify the order and impose appropriate and adequate
sentence for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of
IPC.
5. All these matters are taken up together for disposal.
6. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as
per their rankings before the Trial Court.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
Brief facts of the case:
7. The complainant is the father of the deceased Smt.
Anitha, who was his second daughter. The marriage of
the deceased Anitha and the accused was performed in
the year 1997. At the time of marriage, the accused was
unemployed. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, a
two-wheeler vehicle and gold ornaments were given as
dowry to the accused. As the accused was unemployed,
he started residing in the house of the complainant.
During the said period, he used to demand money. After
some time, he obtained a job as Assistant Horticulture
Officer. The accused, after getting a job, changed his
behavior and he started humiliating his wife Anitha.
Anitha, who failed in PUC, decided to continue her
education and continued her studies. She got a seat in
Bangalore Government Ayurvedic College and completed
her degree. During that period, she gave birth to a male
child. Further, she completed her post-graduation degree
in Ayurveda and worked as a doctor at a hospital in
Tumkur. Later, she established her own hospital at
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
Tumkur, and she was earning not only good money, but
also earned a good name and fame in the locality.
8. On the other hand, the accused, who was working, had
committed misappropriation of the funds, and he had
been suspended from service. The accused used to abuse
his wife, Dr. Anitha, in public and used to assault her in
the hospital by demanding her to pay money. Despite
much advice given, the accused did not mend his ways.
The accused used to assault the deceased Anitha in the
presence of the complainant and his wife. In the year
2006, a house was purchased in the joint names of the
accused and his wife at Shivaganga Nagar. In the year
2010, the accused and his wife shifted their residence to
the said house. The accused used to assault the deceased
Anitha and abuse her in filthy language often.
9. In the year 2011, the accused demanded a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- to perform the marriage of his sister. The
complainant did not pay the amount. Later, the accused
and his wife, Anitha, visited Somavarpet to celebrate the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
second marriage of his sister. In the marriage, the
accused assaulted Dr. Anitha in the presence of the public
and humiliated her. As a result of the said assault and
also torture, she has undergone depression and she used
to take anti-depression tablets. In the meantime, the
accused was having an illicit relationship with a lady at
Sira. He used to engage over the cell phone and used to
talk with her often. Whenever the deceased Anitha
objected to the said attitude, he used to assault her. On
02/06/2012, Dr. Anitha injected Succinylcholine injection
to her son and to herself and committed suicide at her
residence at Shivaganga Nagar.
10. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered before the
respondent - police. The respondent - police have
registered a case in Crime No.173/2012 for the offences
under Sections 498A, 306 and 302 of IPC. After
conducting investigation, submitted the charge sheet.
11. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PWs.1 to 13
and got marked 26 documents as Exhibits P1 to P26 and
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
identified five material objects as MOs.1 to 5. On the
contrary, the defence got marked some statements along
with some photos, visiting card, etc., as Exhibits D1 to
D23. The Trial Court, after considering both oral and
documentary evidence on record, convicted the accused
for the offences stated supra.
12. Heard Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate for Sri
K. Raghavendra, learned counsel for the appellant and
Smt. B. Pushpalatha, learned Addl. SPP for respondent in
Criminal Appeal No.682/2015.
13. Heard Sri S. Shankarappa, learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate for
Sri K. Raghavendra, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 and Smt. B. Pushpalatha, learned Addl. SPP for
respondent No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.721/2015.
14. Smt. B. Pushpalatha, learned Addl. SPP for appellant and
Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate for Sri
K. Raghavendra, learned counsel for the respondent in
Criminal Appeal No.1125/2015.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
15. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the
accused / appellant in Crl.A.No.682/2015, who is
respondent in Crl.A.No.721/2015 and Crl.A.No.
1125/2015, is that the judgment of conviction and order
on sentence passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the
evidence on record. In fact, the facts of the case have
been misconceived before the Trial Court. Therefore, the
impugned judgment is passed, which is required to be set
aside.
16. It is further submitted that, though there are some
allegations made against the appellant that he was
humiliating, degrading, and assaulting the deceased (his
wife) in front of the public on many occasions, no
complaints have been lodged or registered before any
Police Station in respect of such incidents. In fact, the
accused married the deceased, Anitha, after writing his
KPSC examination for his job. After some time, he
obtained a job and was earning a handsome salary,
taking care of his wife along with his family members. In
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
fact, he encouraged his wife to pursue her PUC, Degree,
and Master's Degree, and he assisted her not only in
securing a house, but also in establishing an Ayurvedic
hospital.
17. It is further submitted that the evidence of interested
witnesses ought not to have been considered by the Trial
Court as gospel truth without any corroboration. In fact,
corroboration is very much essential in order to assess
the evidence of all the witnesses. Indeed, the evidence
of independent witnesses assumes greater significance
than the evidence of related witnesses.
18. It is further submitted that M.O.1 and M.O.2 are stated to
be the letters written by the deceased before her death.
However, the same were recovered four days after the
date of her death in an open place. The letter was torn
into a number of pieces. The said recovery appeared to
be doubtful and concocted. Merely because FSL report
indicated that disputed handwriting and the handwriting
of the letter both are one and the same, that itself is not
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
sufficient to hold that the appellant had committed
instigation or abetment to the deceased to commit
suicide.
19. It is further submitted that, even on reading the evidence
of the complainant and other witnesses who supported
the case of the prosecution, the ingredients of either
Section 498A or 306 of IPC do not get attracted. In fact,
the alleged incident of assault took place when the
marriage of the sister of the accused had taken place in
the year 2011, whereas the deceased died on
02/06/2012. There is no nexus between the alleged
abetment, cruelty and assault with the suicide. The
proximity between the abetment and suicide is sine qua
non to constitute an offence. Therefore, the conviction
rendered by the Trial Court is required to be set aside
and the accused be acquitted in the interest of justice.
By making such submissions, the learned Senior Counsel
prays to allow the appeal, and further prays to dismiss
the appeals filed by the de-facto complainant and the
State.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
20. Learned counsel for complainant / appellant in
Crl.A.No.721/2015 vehemently justified the judgment of
conviction and submitted that the complainant, being
aggrieved by the punishment imposed for the offences,
has preferred this appeal. However, he justified the
judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
21. It is further submitted that the Trial Court ought to have
considered the gravity and seriousness of the offences. In
fact, the deceased ended her life and also killed her son
by injecting poison. She had committed suicide by taking
this extreme step after undergoing continuous mental
trauma and agony. The accused is responsible for the loss
of two lives. Under such circumstances, imposing a lesser
sentence for the offences stated supra is highly erroneous
and not proper. Therefore, adequate punishment must
be imposed to send a strong message to society to teach
a lesson to the persons who are harassing women in such
a way. Having said thus, learned counsel prays to allow
the appeal and enhance the sentence.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
22. Similarly, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State adopted the arguments advanced
by the complainant and prayed to enhance the
punishment in accordance with law.
23. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties
and also on perusal of the findings of the Trial Court in
rendering the conviction, now, it is relevant to mention
the proposition of law in respect of the offences under
Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code.
24. In the case of K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of
1
Karnataka (2017) 11 SCC 176, paragraph Nos.8 to 19
define “mental cruelty”, which read thus:
8. To appreciate the submissions raised at the Bar,
we have bestowed our anxious consideration and
carefully examined the decision rendered by the
trial court and that of the High Court. On a studied
scrutiny of the evidence, it is demonstrable that the
father of the deceased in his deposition has not
stated anything with regard to any kind of cruelty
1
(2017) 11 SCC 176
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
meted out to the deceased except stating that she
quite often complained to the parents about the
visit of the appellant to the house of Ashwathamma
and that she had suspicion against her husband
that he was going to have a second marriage. The
other witnesses including the investigating officer
have deposed that there was discussion in the
locality about the illicit connection of the appellant
with one lady at Chelur Village. Barring the
aforesaid, there is no whisper with regard to any
kind of ill-treatment or cruel behaviour by the
husband.
9. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the question
that emerges for consideration is whether the
conviction under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC is
legally justiciable in this context. We think it
appropriate to refer to Section 498-A IPC. The said
provision reads as follows:
“ 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty .—Whoever,
being the husband or the relative of the husband of
a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section,
“cruelty” means—
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as
is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to
her to meet such demand.”
10. The said provision came up for consideration in
Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra
[Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra,
(2002) 5 SCC 177 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 971] , where
the Court dwelling upon the scope and purport of
Section 498-A IPC has held thus: (SCC p. 180, para
3)
“3. The basic purport of the statutory
provision is to avoid “cruelty” which stands
defined by attributing a specific statutory
meaning attached thereto as noticed
hereinbefore. Two specific instances have
been taken note of in order to ascribe a
meaning to the word “cruelty” as is
expressed by the legislatures: whereas
Explanation (a) involves three specific
situations viz. (i) to drive the woman to
commit suicide, or (ii) to cause grave
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
injury or, (iii) danger to life, limb or
health, both mental and physical, and thus
involving a physical torture or atrocity, in
Explanation (b) there is absence of
physical injury but the legislature thought
it fit to include only coercive harassment
which obviously as the legislative intent
expressed is equally heinous to match the
physical injury: whereas one is patent, the
other one is latent but equally serious in
terms of the provisions of the statute since
the same would also embrace the
attributes of “cruelty” in terms of Section
498-A.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. In Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab [Gurnaib
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 7 SCC 108 :
(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 49] , while dwelling upon the
concept of “cruelty” enshrined under Section 498-A
the Court has opined thus: (SCC pp. 118-19, para
18)
“18. … Clause (a) of the Explanation to the
aforesaid provision defines “cruelty” to
mean “any wilful conduct which is of such
a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide”. Clause (b) of the
Explanation pertains to unlawful demand.
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
Clause (a) can take in its ambit mental
cruelty.”
12. The aforesaid analysis of the provision clearly
spells how coercive harassment can have the
attributes of cruelty that would meet the criterion
as conceived of under Section 498-A IPC. Thus, the
emphasis is on any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature that is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide. The mental cruelty which is engraved in the
first limb of Section 498-A IPC has nothing to do
with the demand of dowry. It is associated with
mental cruelty that can drive a woman to commit
suicide and dependent upon the conduct of the
person concerned.
13. In this regard, Mr Singh has drawn our
attention to the authority in Pinakin Mahipatray
Rawal v. State of Gujarat [Pinakin Mahipatray
Rawal v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 :
(2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 616 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] .
In the said case, the Court was dealing with as to
whether relationship between the appellant and the
second accused therein was extra-marital leading
to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC
and whether that would amount to abetment
leading to the act of suicide within the meaning of
Section 306 IPC. Dealing with the extra-marital
relationship, the Court has opined that marital
relationship means the legally protected marital
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
interest of one spouse to another which include
marital obligation to another like companionship,
living under the same roof, sexual relation and the
exclusive enjoyment of them, to have children,
their upbringing, services in the home, support,
affection, love, liking and so on, but extra-marital
relationship as such is not defined in the Penal
Code. The Court analysing further in the context of
Section 498-A observed that the mere fact that the
husband has developed some intimacy with another
woman, during the subsistence of marriage and
failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such
would not amount to “cruelty”, but it must be of
such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to
commit suicide to fall within the Explanation to
Section 498-A IPC. The Court further elucidated
that harassment need not be in the form of physical
assault and even mental harassment also would
come within the purview of Section 498-A IPC.
Mental cruelty, of course, varies from person to
person, depending upon the intensity and the
degree of endurance, some may meet with courage
and some others suffer in silence, to some it may
be unbearable and a weak person may think of
ending one's life. The Court ruled that in the facts
of the said case the alleged extra-marital
relationship was not of such a nature as to drive
the wife to commit suicide. The two-Judge Bench
further opined that: (Pinakin Mahipatray case
[Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat,
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
(2013) 10 SCC 48 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 616 :
(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] , SCC p. 58, para 27)
“27. Section 306 refers to abetment of
suicide [which] says that if any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to 10 years and shall
also be liable to fine. The action for
committing suicide is also on account of
mental disturbance caused by mental and
physical cruelty. To constitute an offence
under Section 306, the prosecution has to
establish that a person has committed
suicide and the suicide was abetted by the
accused. The prosecution has to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that the
deceased committed suicide and the
accused abetted the commission of
suicide. But for the alleged extra-marital
relationship, which if proved, could be
illegal and immoral, nothing has been
brought out by the prosecution to show
that the accused had provoked, incited or
induced the wife to commit suicide.”
(emphasis added)
14. Slightly recently in Ghusabhai Raisangbhai
Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat [Ghusabhai
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
Raisangbhai Chorasiya v. State of Gujarat, (2015)
11 SCC 753 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 545] , the Court
perusing the material on record opined that even if
the illicit relationship is proven, unless some other
acceptable evidence is brought on record to
establish such high degree of mental cruelty the
Explanation (a) to Section 498-A IPC which includes
cruelty to drive the woman to commit suicide,
would not be attracted. The relevant passage from
the said authority is reproduced below: (SCC pp.
759-60, para 21)
“21. …True it is, there is some evidence
about the illicit relationship and even if the
same is proven, we are of the considered
opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under
the first limb of Section 498-A IPC would
not get attracted. It would be difficult to
hold that the mental cruelty was of such a
degree that it would drive the wife to
commit suicide. Mere extra-marital
relationship, even if proved, would be
illegal and immoral, as has been said in
Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal [Pinakin
Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat,
(2013) 10 SCC 48 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ)
616 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] , but it
would take a different character if the
prosecution brings some evidence on
record to show that the accused had
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
conducted in such a manner to drive the
wife to commit suicide. In the instant
case, the accused may have been involved
in an illicit relationship with Appellant 4,
but in the absence of some other
acceptable evidence on record that can
establish such high degree of mental
cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498-A
IPC which includes cruelty to drive a
woman to commit suicide, would not be
attracted.”
15. The concept of mental cruelty depends upon
the milieu and the strata from which the persons
come from and definitely has an individualistic
perception regard being had to one's endurance
and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalise but
certainly it can be appreciated in a set of
established facts. Extra-marital relationship, per se,
or as such would not come within the ambit of
Section 498-A IPC. It would be an illegal or
immoral act, but other ingredients are to be
brought home so that it would constitute a criminal
offence. There is no denial of the fact that the
cruelty need not be physical but a mental torture or
abnormal behaviour that amounts to cruelty or
harassment in a given case. It will depend upon the
facts of the said case. To explicate, solely because
the husband is involved in an extra-marital
relationship and there is some suspicion in the
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental
cruelty which would attract mental cruelty for
satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 IPC.
16. We are absolutely conscious about the
presumption engrafted under Section 113-A of the
Evidence Act. The said provision enables the court
to draw presumption in a particular fact situation
when necessary ingredients in order to attract the
provision are established. In this regard, we may
reproduce a passage from Pinakin Mahipatray
Rawal [Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of
Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ)
616 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] : (SCC p. 58, para
26)
“26. … Criminal law amendment and the
rule of procedure was necessitated so as
to meet the social challenge of saving the
married woman from being ill-treated or
forcing to commit suicide by the husband
or his relatives, demanding dowry.
Legislative mandate of the section is that
when a woman commits suicide within
seven years of her marriage and it is
shown that her husband or any relative of
her husband had subjected her to cruelty
as per the terms defined in Section 498-A
IPC, the court may presume having
regard to all other circumstances of the
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
case that such suicide has been abetted
by the husband or such person. Though a
presumption could be drawn, the burden
of proof of showing that such an offence
has been committed by the accused
under Section 498-A IPC is on the
prosecution.”
We have reproduced the aforesaid passage only to
highlight that the Court can take aid of the
principles of the statutory presumption.
17. In the instant case, as the evidence would
limpidly show, the wife developed a sense of
suspicion that her husband was going to the house
of Ashwathamma in Village Chelur where he got
involved with Deepa, daughter of Ashwathamma. It
has come on record through various witnesses that
the people talked in the locality with regard to the
involvement of the appellant with Deepa. It needs
to be noted that Anjanamma, being not able to
digest the humiliation, committed suicide. The
mother and the brother of Anjanamma paved the
same path. In such a situation, it is extremely
difficult to hold that the prosecution has established
the charge under Section 498-A IPC and the fact
that the said cruelty induced the wife to commit
suicide. It is manifest that the wife was guided by
the rumour that aggravated her suspicion which
has no boundary. The seed of suspicion planted in
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
mind brought the eventual tragedy. But such an
event will not constitute the offence or establish the
guilt of the appellant-accused under Section 306
IPC.
18. Having said that we intend to make it clear that
if the husband gets involved in an extra-marital
affair that may not in all circumstances invite
conviction under Section 306 IPC but definitely that
can be a ground for divorce or other reliefs in a
matrimonial dispute under other enactments. And
we so clarify.
19. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The
conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC is set
aside. The appellant be set at liberty unless his
detention is required in connection with any other
case.
25. Similarly, in another case, Prakash and others v. State
2
of Maharashtra , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:
20. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a
plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment
involves a mental process of instigating or
intentionally aiding another person to do a
2
(2026) 6 SCC 251
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
particular thing. To bring a charge under Section
306IPC, the act of abetment would require the
positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding
another person to commit suicide. Without such
mens rea on the part of the accused person being
apparent from the face of the record, a charge
under the aforesaid section cannot be sustained.
Abetment also requires an active act, direct or
indirect, on the part of the accused person which
left the deceased with no other option but to
commit suicide.
21. This Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan,
(2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465] , had
an occasion to consider the scope of Section
306IPC and the ingredients which are essential for
abetment, as set out in Section 107IPC. It observed
as follows: (SCC pp. 195-97, paras 16, 18, 21 &
23-25)
“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
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
means employed by him in achieving his
object of killing himself.
*
18. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an
offence, considering that the successful offender is
beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an
offence under Section 309 IPC.
*
21. The learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in
Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [Mahendra Singh
v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 1157] In Mahendra Singh [Mahendra
Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] the allegations levelled were
as under: (SCC p. 731, para 1)
‘1. … “My mother-in-law and husband and
sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's
wife) harassed me. They beat me and
abused me. My husband Mahendra wants
to marry a second time. He has illicit
connections with my sister-in-law.
Because of these reasons and being
harassed I want to die by burning.” ’
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
The Court on the aforementioned allegations came
to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the
ingredients of abetment are attracted on the
statement of the deceased. According to the
appellant, the conviction of the appellant under
Section 306IPC merely on the basis of the
aforementioned allegation of harassment of the
deceased is unsustainable in law.
*
23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [State of W.B.
v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994 SCC (Cri)
107] this Court has cautioned that : (SCC p. 90,
para 17)
‘17. … the court should be extremely
careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case and the
evidence adduced in the trial for the
purpose of finding whether the cruelty
meted out to the victim had in fact
induced her to end the life by committing
suicide. If it [appears] to the court that a
victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences in domestic life
quite common to the society to which the
victim belonged and such petulance,
discord and differences were not expected
to induce a similarly circumstanced
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
individual in a given society to commit
suicide, the conscience of the court should
not be satisfied for basing a finding that
the accused charged of abetting the
offence of suicide should be found guilty.’
24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC
(Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect
of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary
meaning of the words “instigation” and “goading”.
The Court opined that there should be intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by
the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is
different from the other. Each person has his own
idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is
impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in
dealing with such cases. Each case has to be
decided on the basis of its own facts and
circumstances.
25. 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 306IPC there has to
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
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
that act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed
suicide.
23. More recently, in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh
Chavda v. State of Gujarat [Jayedeepsinh
Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, (2025) 2
SCC 116 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 652] , this Court has
relied on S.S. Chheena [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay
Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2011) 2
SCC (Cri) 465] to hold that the element of mens
rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead
it must be evident and explicitly discernible.
Without this, the foundational requirement for
establishing abetment under the law, that is,
deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke or
contribute to the act of suicide, would remain
unfulfilled. This Court observed as follows:
(Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh case [Jayedeepsinh
Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, (2025) 2
SCC 116 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 652] , SCC pp. 123-
24, para 23)
“23. For a conviction under Section
306IPC, it is a well-established legal
principle that the presence of clear mens
rea—the intention to abet the act—is
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is
not sufficient to find an accused guilty of
abetting suicide. The prosecution must
demonstrate an active or direct action by
the accused that led the deceased to take
his/her own life. 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.”
26. Relying on the decision in Ramesh Kumar
[Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9
SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , this Court in Ude
Singh v. State of Haryana [Ude Singh v. State of
Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri)
306] observed as follows: (Ude Singh case [Ude
Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 306] , SCC pp. 321-22, para
16)
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of
suicide, there must be a proof of direct or
indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It could hardly be
disputed that the question of cause of a
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
suicide, particularly in the context of an
offence of abetment of suicide, remains a
vexed one, involving multifaceted and
complex attributes of human behaviour
and responses/reactions. In the case of
accusation for abetment of suicide, the
court would be looking for cogent and
convincing proof of the act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide.
In the case of suicide, mere allegation of
harassment of the deceased by another
person would not suffice unless there be
such action on the part of the accused
which compels the person to commit
suicide; and such an offending action
ought to be proximate to the time of
occurrence. Whether a person has
abetted in the commission of suicide by
another or not, could only be gathered
from the facts and circumstances of each
case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a
person has abetted commission of suicide
by another, the consideration would be if
the accused is guilty of the act of
instigation of the act of suicide. As
explained and reiterated by this Court in
the decisions above referred, instigation
means to goad, urge forward, provoke,
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
incite or encourage to do an act. If the
persons who committed suicide had been
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. But, on the
other hand, if the accused by his acts and
by his continuous course of conduct
creates a situation which leads the
deceased perceiving no other option
except to commit suicide, the case may
fall within the four corners of Section
306IPC. If the accused plays an active
role in tarnishing the self-esteem and
self-respect of the victim, which
eventually draws the victim to commit
suicide, the accused may be held guilty of
abetment of suicide. The question of
mens rea on the part of the accused in
such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of
the accused and if the acts and deeds are
only of such nature where the accused
intended nothing more than harassment
or snap show of anger, a particular case
may fall short of the offence of abetment
of suicide. However, if the accused kept
on irritating or annoying the deceased by
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
words or deeds until the deceased
reacted or was provoked, a particular
case may be that of abetment of suicide.
Such being the matter of delicate analysis
of human behaviour, each case is
required to be examined on its own facts,
while taking note of all the surrounding
factors having bearing on the actions and
psyche of the accused and the deceased.
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 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
- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
to be dealt with on its own facts and
circumstances.”
32. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
that instigation or incitement on the part of the
accused person is the gravamen of the offence of
abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified
on many occasions that in order to link the act of
instigation to the act of suicide, the two
occurrences must be in close proximity to each
other so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act
of suicide by the deceased being a direct result of
the act of instigation by the accused person.
(emphasis supplied)
26. Having gone through the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, it makes clear that the abetment of suicide has to
be defined in such a way that there must be some
instigation or clear mens rea on the part of the accused
to abet such a crime, and it requires an active act or a
direct act leading to commission of suicide.
27. In the present case, the entire case is based on the
evidence of family members and also the alleged dying
declaration. PW1, stated to be the Scientific Officer,
working at FSL, Bengaluru, has submitted a report on
- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
conducting an examination of the letters produced before
him by the Investigating Officer. According to him, the
said letters, as per Ex.P1, have been written by the
person who had written Exs.D1 to D9. It means the
deceased had written the letters.
28. P.W.2, the father of the deceased Anitha, in his evidence
has admitted that the accused was residing along with his
family members in his house for more than 13 to 14
years. Though he has made several allegations regarding
ill-treatment and harassment to his daughter, he had not
chosen to lodge a complaint before any authority to
substantiate his contention. PW.2 made allegations that
the accused was having an illicit relationship with another
woman who is a resident of Sira town. However, the
same has not been proved. Even the mobile phone of the
accused has not been seized and investigation in that
regard has not been done. He further stated that on
1/6/2012, his daughter had written a letter to the
accused. The accused after receiving the said letter, tore
the same into pieces and threw it in front of his house.
- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
He further stated that after completing the funeral
ceremony of his daughter and grandson, he conducted a
search of the entire house on the following day. He found
one needle and a syringe. Further, he conducted a search
and found a letter which was torn into pieces. According
to him, the said letter was torn into 40 to 45 pieces. On
5/6/2012, he handed over the syringe and needle and the
letter stated to be the death note of the deceased to the
Investigating Officer. In addition to the same, he handed
over the answer sheet containing the handwriting of his
daughter.
29. P.W.2 has been cross-examined extensively. In the cross-
examination, he has admitted that his daughter was
suffering from bronchitis. It is also true that his daughter
was admitted to Manipal Hospital, wherein they removed
water from her lungs and she took rest for eight days in
the said hospital. P.W.2 further denied that his daughter
and grandson were suffering from different ailments.
- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
30. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased. According to her,
the accused was having an illicit relationship with another
woman. Whenever it was questioned by the deceased, he
used to assault her. Further, she was informed that the
accused used to visit the hospital and abuse the
deceased, and he was assaulting her in front of her staff.
31. P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased, also supported the
case of the prosecution in respect of the incident of death
of his sister and her son. He further stated that his sister
was under depression. She was taking anti-depression
tablets.
32. P.W.5 was stated to be an independent witness.
According to him, on 5/6/2012, he was coming from
Betawadi and noticed a police jeep parked near Chethana
School. He is stated to be the witness to the mahazar,
which is marked as Ex.P5, under which a death note,
which was recovered from the house, was kept on the
table and also a bottle and syringe cover were found
- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
inside the room of the deceased and the same were
seized.
33. P.W.6 is also stated to be the witness to Ex.P6. According
to him, P.W.4 handed over the death note to the police,
which was there in the drawer situated in the clinic of the
sister of P.W.4. Further, he stated in his evidence that he
was taken to the house of sister of P.W.4 who had
committed suicide, and also he was present at the time
when the police seized the death note, one bottle, syringe
cover, etc.
34. P.W.7 was working as a Receptionist in the hospital which
was being run by the deceased Doctor, Anitha. He has
stated in his evidence that both the deceased and
accused were on cordial terms. They did not quarrel at
any point of time, either in the hospital or in his
presence. He further stated in his evidence that one letter
was found in the drawer of the cupboard situated in the
clinic and the same has been seized under Mahazar
Ex.P6. He further stated in his evidence that the accused
- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
used to talk in the mobile with another lady and there
was a serious objection in that connection. In the cross-
examination, he admitted that Dr. Anitha was suffering
from lung infection and her son was suffering from vitiligo
/ leukoderma.
35. P.W.8 was working as a Doctor. According to him, both
the accused and Dr. Anitha were family friends. The son
of the accused and his daughter were studying in the
same school. According to him, Dr. Anitha was suffering
from a lung infection. However, he did not know as to
whether the son of Dr. Anitha was suffering from
leukoderma or not. He further admitted that on
2/6/2012, there were 100 messages exchanged between
himself and Dr. Anitha. He further admitted that the
relationship between Dr. Anitha and the accused was
cordial in nature and the accused was taking care of his
son cordially with affection.
36. P.W.9 is the sister of the deceased Anitha. According to
her, the accused used to contact another woman, which
- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
was not being tolerated by her sister. Whenever she
questioned him, he used to assault her.
37. P.W.10 was working as a Doctor at Bhadravathi. He is
the friend of the deceased. Whenever he came to
Tumkur, he used to visit and talk with Dr Anitha. He has
stated in his evidence that after the cremation of the
dead body of Dr Anitha and her son Chintu, he
accompanied the family members of the deceased and
went inside the house and found a syringe, needle cap
and also some pieces of paper, vial etc., On joining all
the papers together, they noticed that it was the death
note of Dr Anitha. In the cross-examination, he admitted
that, after taking the death note, which was found torn
into pieces, he did not give information to the police.
38. P.W.11 was working as a Senior Doctor at Tumkur
hospital. He conducted post-mortem and submitted a
report as per Ex.P17.
39. P.W.12 was working as a Sub-Inspector at NEPS Police
Station. He registered a case on the basis of the
- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
complaint and FIR also was registered. He identified the
same, which was marked as Ex.P4. In the cross-
examination, he admitted that he had not seized the
mobile phone of the accused. He further admitted that,
on the following day, he had been to the house of the
deceased, which was locked. After seeing the said house,
he came back.
40. P.W.13 was working as a Police Inspector. According to
him, M.O.4 was produced before him by the complainant,
which was torn into 40 – 45 pieces and all the pieces
were joined together. He further stated that, on
20.06.2012, he seized the mobile of P.W.8 and also the
mobile phone of the deceased. In the said mobile, some
texts were deleted. Therefore, he had sent the said
handsets to the cyber crime branch. In the cross-
examination, he admitted that he did not seize the mobile
phone of the accused and also did not conduct any
investigation in respect of the alleged illicit relationship of
the accused along with another woman. He further
admitted that, on 02.06.2012, there were around 100
- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
messages exchanged between the P.W.8 and the
deceased. Those messages were being exchanged even
upto 1.00 a.m. to 2.00 a.m.
41. Having gone through the evidence of all these witnesses,
no doubt, the father, brothers and other friends of the
deceased have been examined by the prosecution to
substantiate that the deceased was being subjected to
cruelty and harassment. As a result of which, she and
her son died. However, the evidence of P.W.2, who is the
complainant, would indicate that the accused was
residing in his house for more than 13 to 14 years. There
was no complaint of ill-treatment, harassment to the
deceased. All the petty quarrels which took place in the
matrimonial house cannot be construed as harassment or
cruelty.
42. As can be seen from the records, the entire case is based
on the alleged death note stated to be found in the
verandah of the house of the deceased. No doubt, the
alleged incident had occurred on 02.06.2012. However,
- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
on 05.06.2012, the alleged death note was seized by the
Investigating Officer and the same has been produced by
P.W.1. The said letter was sent to FSL. The Scientific
Officer after examining the said letter, submitted the
report as per Ex.P1. As per the said report, the
handwriting found on the disputed death note and the
handwriting found on the notebook of the deceased are
one and the same. The death note, which was identified
as M.O.2, has been written on 01.06.2012, whereas the
deceased committed suicide on 02.06.2012. However,
the same has been seized as per Ex.P5 on 05.06.2012 in
the house of the deceased. Except the evidence of family
members or related witnesses, all the independent
witnesses have stated that both the accused and the
deceased were in cordial terms and both were respecting
each other.
43. In the absence of any complaints prior to the incident
before the Police or any authority in respect of alleged
harassment and cruelty against the accused, it is not safe
to arrive at a conclusion that the deceased had
- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
committed suicide and killed her son on account of
cruelty and harassment. However, the fact that the
deceased was suffering from depression and she was
taking treatment for the same and her son was suffering
from vitiligo, cannot be discarded. Merely because the
deceased has stated something in the disputed death
note that she was being harassed, humiliated and
tortured by the accused, that itself is not sufficient to
hold that there is a live link between the death and the
alleged harassment. It is needless to state that the law
requires a live link between the death and harassment to
impose sentence or convict the accused.
44. In the light of the observations made above, I am of the
considered opinion that the Trial Court committed an
error in analyzing the evidence. Therefore, the said
conviction is liable to be set aside.
45. In view of the conviction being set aside, the appeals filed
by the de facto complainant and the State against
- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58722
CRL.A No. 1125 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 682 of 2015
CRL.A No. 721 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010358492015
inadequate sentence do not survive for consideration and
the same are liable to be dismissed.
46. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
i) Criminal Appeal No.682/2015 is allowed.
ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence
dated 04/06/2015 passed in S.C. No.110/2013 on
the file of the Second Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tumkur, is set aside.
iii) The appellant is acquitted of the offences under
Sections 498A, 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
v) Criminal Appeal No.721/2015 and Criminal Appeal
No.1125/2025 are dismissed.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
Bss
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44