Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 206 (KAR)

M. C. Chaithra v. State of Karnataka

2008-03-27

R.B.NAIK

body2008
Judgment :- Naik, J. On 23.8.2001, one deceased Mohan Kumar got married to accused No.1-Chaitra. After the marriage, Chaitra who was not desirous of making a living in a joint family, insisted that her husband should arrange for a separate living. She hardly stayed in the matrimonial home for a period of two weeks. She left the house of her husband and started living in the house of her parents. The parents of Mohan Kumar, to settle the life of the newly married couple, organised a separate house for them and in the said house the accused No.1-Chaitra and her husband stayed for a period of one month. Thereafter, Chaitra made a grievance that the house is very small and if her husband Mohan Kumar is in a position to provide a big bungalow and lead a luxurious life, he can do so or otherwise he should forget her. She also stated that he is incapable of organising a big house and he should hang himself. She removed the sacred Thali and threw it on him and went away to her parent's house. Thereafter, Mohan Kumar after consulting his father-the complainant herein sent a legal notice to Chaitra calling upon her to come and join him. There was no response to the said notice at all. The deceased Mohan Kumar and his mother had been to the house of Chaitra and made a request that she should join Mohan Kumar. Chaitra demanded that the property standing in the name of Mohan Kumar should be transferred to her name and only then she would join Mohan Kumar or otherwise she will continue to live in her parent's house. She also said that Mohan Kumar should not make frequent visits to her house and trouble her. She abused him saying that a man with respect would not frequent to the house and make repeated requests. She humiliated Mohan Kumar. The other accused persons namely Suvarnadevi-mother of accused No.1, Charan, the brother of accused No.1 and Chandan, another brother of accused No.1, altogether harassed Mohan Kumar. It is alleged that he was also assaulted by the said persons. But it is pertinent to note that it is not stated in the complaint that a complaint was lodged with regard to the said incident either by the Mohan Kumar or the complainant in the instant case. It is alleged that he was also assaulted by the said persons. But it is pertinent to note that it is not stated in the complaint that a complaint was lodged with regard to the said incident either by the Mohan Kumar or the complainant in the instant case. It is complained that Mohan Kumar was being looked down upon by his parents-in-law and his wife. He was harassed and humiliated and that he felt that he should end his life. When he informed the complainant he was consoled by the complainant and his family members. 2. That on 24.3.2002, in the afternoon, Mohan Kumar informed the complainant that he is going to the house of Chaitra to make a request and ask her to come and join him. But he did not return at all till 11.30 P.M. One Chandra Shekar who was the relative of the complainant gave a phone call and informed the complainant that Mohan Kumar had consumed poison in the landed property of the complainant in Hanumanthegowdana Palya near the Farm House and immediately Mohan Kumar was admitted to the Hospital. The complainant and his wife went to the Hospital and found him being treated by the Doctors and on 25.3.2002 at about 11.00 A.M. Mohan Kumar breathed his last. Even on the next day i.e. from the date of the incident till the lodging of the complaint, the family was in bereavement and as such according to the complainant he lodged the complaint on 29.3.2002. The Police registered a case and after investigation filed a charge sheet against the petitioners-accused herein for an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and when the matter was set down for addressing arguments before the charge, the accused persons sought for discharge. The trial Judge, by order dated 13.6.2005 rejected the claim of the petitioners for discharge and directed to frame charges against the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. 3. During the course of investigation it is revealed, Chandrashekar, who saw the deceased Mohan Kumar who had consumed poison gave a phone call to the complainant and admitted Mohan Kumar to the hospital. K. Kumar C.W.4 is an employee of the Farm house. C.W.5 Radhakrishna is the son-in-law of the complainant. 3. During the course of investigation it is revealed, Chandrashekar, who saw the deceased Mohan Kumar who had consumed poison gave a phone call to the complainant and admitted Mohan Kumar to the hospital. K. Kumar C.W.4 is an employee of the Farm house. C.W.5 Radhakrishna is the son-in-law of the complainant. All these witnesses have made statements during the course of investigation to the effect that Mohan Kumar was married to the first petitioner herein. There was no compatibility between the husband and wife and first petitioner stayed with him hardly for two weeks in the matrimonial house. Thereafter a separate house was set up even then they could hardly make a living for one week. The first petitioner returned to the parent's house. The witnesses have stated that Mohan Kumar was repeatedly going to the house of petitioners herein and requesting the first petitioner to join him as his wife and make a living with him which was being refused by the first petitioner. The statements of all these witnesses which are referred to above were earlier recorded at the time of inquest proceedings. The said statements so recorded would only show that there was no compatibility between the husband and wife and because of the said fact Mohan Kumar was upset. The statement of Chandrashekar and that of Kumar would reveal that Mohan Kumar was upset because of the humiliation and harassment meted out to him when he had been to call back his wife. They claim that he expressed before them that he was not desirous of making a living. The reading of the statements and the averments in the complaint would all go to establish that though petitioner No.1 was not willing to make a living with Mohan Kumar he was persistently making trips to the house of the petitioner No.1/accused and asking her to join him. The complaint also reveals that a notice was sent through an advocate calling upon the first petitioner to join her husband, according to the prosecution Mohan Kumar consumed poison on 24-3-2002, he died on 25-3-2002 and the complaint is filed on 29-3-2002. Immediately after the death inquest proceedings were held and during the course inquest; complainant was also examined The averments as found in the complaint and in his further statement do not find a place in the statement recorded at the time of the inquest. 4. Immediately after the death inquest proceedings were held and during the course inquest; complainant was also examined The averments as found in the complaint and in his further statement do not find a place in the statement recorded at the time of the inquest. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments: i) State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy ( AIR 1977 SC 1489 ) ii) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2003 (3) SC 650] iii) State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994 Crl.L.J.2104), and iv) Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh ( AIR 2007 SC 2045 ) and submitted that the word ‘instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or insight. Presence of mense rea is necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. In a fit of anger and in emotion, even if the words used were to the effect "to go and die”, the same would not attract Section 306 if the said words are uttered during a quarrel or in a fit of anger. He further argued harassment per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC. The disputes and discords in the matrimonial home without some thing more it does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC. It is further submitted that a victim committing suicide if was hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, 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. 5. 5. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the material on record would disclose the fact of Mohan Kumar going to the house of petitioners herein despite he being asked by them not to do so and when he continued his repeated actions, he was asked whether he carried any shame or not and as to why he has been humiliating them despite indicating by them that the first petitioner is not willing to make a living with him, he appears to have become upset and decided to end his life. This brings him within the category of he being a super sensitive human being. He was not within the bounds of any of the petitioners. He was not under their shelter. He was not dependent upon them. Except that he was emotionally attached to the first petitioner and that he was her husband, there was no reason for him to make frequent visits to the house of the petitioners despite the petitioners objecting for the same, more particularly even after issuing a legal notice as stated in the complaint. Thus on this ground learned counsel submits that the entire material of the prosecution placed in the form of a charge sheet even accepted at its face value without controversy, the same would not make out sufficient grounds for framing of a charge It may only mike out a prima facie case issue of process stage is already over and on the basis of which process was issued. But we have now reached a stage of finding out whether there are sufficient grounds to frame a charge. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that this is not a stage for discharging the accused. The case should be set down for trial. The case of the prosecution should not be throttled at the initial stage itself and since there was a prima facie case, the accused were summoned before the Court and the plea of the accused persons for discharging should not be entertained. 7. I have been taken through the contents in the complaint, the statements of the witnesses, they all reveal that there was no compatibility between husband and wife. The first petitioner was refusing to make a living with Mohan Kumar her husband for reasons best known to her or for the reasons as stated in the complaint. 7. I have been taken through the contents in the complaint, the statements of the witnesses, they all reveal that there was no compatibility between husband and wife. The first petitioner was refusing to make a living with Mohan Kumar her husband for reasons best known to her or for the reasons as stated in the complaint. If such refusal is taken serious by Mohan Kumar and he takes a drastic step of committing suicide, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the same. With regard to he going to the house of the accused Persons immediately prior to he consuming poison, it is stated by the complainant he came to know about the same only because Mohan Kumar had informed him that he was going there. No material is placed on record to establish that Mohan Kumar visited the house of the petitioners before he consuming poison. Though a meticulous analysis of the material of the prosecution is not permissible at the stage of frame of charge, even a cursory reading of the statements and averments in the complaint would go to establish that the grounds made our by the prosecution are not sufficient to hold that a charge should be framed against the accused under Section 306 IPC for abatement of suicide as defined under Section 107 IPC. The trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. When at this stage itself there are no sufficient grounds made out to frame a charge, the very purpose of trial would not be of any consequence as held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1977 SC 1489 where under it is held for the purpose of determination whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the Court possesses, comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on record if un rebutted, is such on the basis of which the conviction can be said reasonably to be possible. 8. In the instant case, the entire material of the prosecution even if un-rebutted, there is no possibility of the petitioners being reasonable to beheld guilty of the offence for which they are charged. Hence the following: ORDER The order of the trial Court dated 13-6-2005 passed in S.C.No.362/2002 is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The accused are discharged of the offences for which they are charged. Hence the following: ORDER The order of the trial Court dated 13-6-2005 passed in S.C.No.362/2002 is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. The accused are discharged of the offences for which they are charged. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioners shall stand dissolved.