Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 130 (KAR)

Jayaram v. State of Karnataka

2024-02-13

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : Mr. Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This appeal is filed by appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 praying to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.11.2012 passed in S.C. No. 229/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court at Srirangapatna. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been convicted for offence under Sections 306, 326 and 504 of IPC. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for offence under Section 306 of IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for offence under Section 326 of IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for offence under Section 504 of IPC. The trial Court ordered all the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Factual matrix of the prosecution is that, P.W.1 - Swamygowda and C.W.2 - Sarojamma are husband and wife and residents of Rampura village, Srirangapatna taluk. They had 5 daughters namely, Radha, Komala, Kavitha, Sowmya and Shruthi. Elder daughter Sowmya was given in marriage to the brother-in-law of accused No. 1. Accused No. 3 - Deepu had lent a loan of Rs. 15,000/- to Shruti - daughter of P.W.1. For non-repayment of the said loan, on 27.12.2009 at about 02.00 pm, appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention came near the house of P.W.1 and started abusing Shruti in filthy language for non-payment of loan to accused No. 3. At that time, P.W.1 - father of Shruti intervened and tried to console them and requested them not to make any quarrel in front of the house. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 being enraged upon the intervention of P.W.1, accused No. 1 assaulted on his right shoulder by club, accused No. 3 assaulted on his right forearm with club and caused hurt. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital and then to K.R. Hospital, Mysuru for treatment. He took treatment as inpatient and was discharged on 01.01.2010 and he returned home. When he prepared to lodge a complaint in the matter P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 consoled him saying that they will convene the panchayath and until then requested him not to lodge a complaint. He took treatment as inpatient and was discharged on 01.01.2010 and he returned home. When he prepared to lodge a complaint in the matter P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6 consoled him saying that they will convene the panchayath and until then requested him not to lodge a complaint. Considering the request of elders, P.W.1 did not lodge complaint. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 after coming to know the fact that a panchayath is being convened in connection with the incident, they, in furtherance of their common intention, on 03.01.2010, at about 10.00 pm, came near the house of P.W.1 situated at Rampura village and started abusing, insulting and abetting the said Shruti by saying VERNACULAR MATTER. Said Shruti being disgusted in her life due to the assault of by appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 to her father, insulting herself and her father in public place in front of her house, by leaving a death note saying that the accused are the cause for her death, committed suicide by hanging in her cattle-shed in the midnight between 12.30 am to 01.00 am by means a veil. Charge sheet came to be filed against appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offence under Sections 326, 304, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial Court framed charges for the aforesaid offences. In order to prove the charge the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 and M.O.1. Statement of P.W.3 has been marked as Ex.D.1. Statement of appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court after hearing arguments formulated points for consideration and after appreciating the evidence on record convicted appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 and sentenced them as noted above. Said judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been challenged in this appeal. 3. Heard arguments of learned counsel appearing for appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 and learned HCGP for respondent - State. 4. Learned counsel for appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 would contend that the alleged assault is made on 27.12.2009 and complaint came to be filed on 04.01.2010 and there is a delay in filing the complaint. Even the MLC intimation has not been sent by the Doctor who examined P.W.1 to the concerned Police Station. 4. Learned counsel for appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 would contend that the alleged assault is made on 27.12.2009 and complaint came to be filed on 04.01.2010 and there is a delay in filing the complaint. Even the MLC intimation has not been sent by the Doctor who examined P.W.1 to the concerned Police Station. P.W.4 - co-brother of P.W.1 has not stated regarding the alleged incident dated 27.12.2009. P.W.2 - one of the eye witnesses to the incident that took place on 27.12.2009 in his cross-examination has admitted that one Nagendra - brother of accused No. 1 has filed a complaint against his brother and mother regarding giving poison to hen and said aspect would show that he is having enmity with appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4. She has further stated that P.W.3 has stated that all appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 have assaulted P.W.1 and no specific overt act has been deposed by her. As per the wound certificate it is Kavitha who brought P.W.1 to hospital, but, in her cross-examination P.W.3 has stated that her mother P.W.4 and P.W.6 took P.W.1 to the hospital. The prosecution has not established that P.W.5 who is stated to have advised P.W.1 not to file complaint and panchayat will be held has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.6 is the brother of wife of P.W.1 and he is an interested witness and there is a contradiction with regard to the time of the incident. There is no recovery of club which is alleged to have been used by appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 to assault P.W.1. P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6 have not stated regarding abuse by appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 to P.W.1 and the deceased to attract offence under Section 504 of IPC. Note book of deceased (Ex.P.6) has been seized under mahazar dated 12.02.2010 which is after one month of the incident, but, P.W.1 says that it is after 2 - 3 days of the incident. P.W.1 has produced the said note book but he did not know the handwriting of the deceased. Note book of deceased (Ex.P.6) has been seized under mahazar dated 12.02.2010 which is after one month of the incident, but, P.W.1 says that it is after 2 - 3 days of the incident. P.W.1 has produced the said note book but he did not know the handwriting of the deceased. Ex.P.10 - death note has been marked in the evidence of P.W.3 who is in no way concerned with the said death note as it is not seized at her instance or she is not panch to mahazar - Ex.P.7 and at the time of marking, counsel for accused has objected and it is marked subject to objection. Panchas to mahazar - Ex.P.7, namely, P.W.7 and P.W.8 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, seizure of Ex.P.6 - note book containing handwriting of deceased is not proved. Said death note - Ex.P.6 not only contains the names of appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 but it also contains the names of other persons and the Investigating Officer has not investigated regarding the persons or names of other persons other than the accused. The deceased had earlier attempted to commit suicide by consuming rabbit poison and the same has been noted in paragraph No. 45 of the judgment of the trial Court. Said aspect will go to show that the deceased had suicidal tendency. Learned counsel for appellant further contended that merely asking for re-payment of loan amount and asking the deceased to go and die does not amount to abetment to commit suicide. On that point learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions: I. Mangala Gowri v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC Online Kar 64 II. Mohit Singhal and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2024 (1) SCC 417 III. Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, 2010 (1) SCC 707 IV. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 (9) SCC 618 V. Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (1) SCC 750 VI. Jangam Ravinder v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Crl.A.No.975/2013 VII. Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., 2002 (5) SCC 371 VIII. Netai Dutta v. State of W.B, 2005 (2) SCC 659 IX. Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2010 (8) SCC 628 X. Md. Jabbar Ali and Others v. State of Assam, 2022 SCC Online SC 1440 5. Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., 2002 (5) SCC 371 VIII. Netai Dutta v. State of W.B, 2005 (2) SCC 659 IX. Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2010 (8) SCC 628 X. Md. Jabbar Ali and Others v. State of Assam, 2022 SCC Online SC 1440 5. Learned counsel for appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 contended that P.W.2 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 are interested witnesses and therefore, their evidence is required to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. In this connection she placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Jabbar Ali and Others v. State of Assam reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1440. On these grounds she prayed to allow the appeal and prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and acquit appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP argued that the trial Court on proper appreciation of evidence on record has rightly convicted appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4. He supported the reasons assigned by the trial Court. He further argued that evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 is sufficient to convict appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offence alleged against them. He contends that merely because the witnesses are relatives it cannot be said that they are interested witnesses. On these grounds he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 7. On the grounds made out and considering the arguments advanced, the following point arises for my consideration: "Whether the trial Court erred in convicting appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offence under Sections 306, 326 and 504 of IPC? 8. My answer to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons: Deceased Shruti hanged herself with a veil in the cowshed on 03.01.2010 and committed suicide. P.W.10 - the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased has opined that the death is due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Therefore, said aspect itself establishes that death of the deceased is suicidal. 9. P.W.3 is the sister of the deceased and she has deposed that accused No. 3 had lent Rs. 15,000/- to her younger sister Shruti. Therefore, said aspect itself establishes that death of the deceased is suicidal. 9. P.W.3 is the sister of the deceased and she has deposed that accused No. 3 had lent Rs. 15,000/- to her younger sister Shruti. The accused persons on 27.12.2009 went to the house of the deceased and demanded repayment of the loan amount. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 also went to the house of deceased on 03.01.2010 and demanded repayment of loan amount and abused her and asked her to go and die by having or by falling in water. On the same night itself, the deceased Shruti committed suicide by having with a veil in the cowshed. P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 have deposed regarding the accused persons demanding repayment of loan amount, abusing the deceased Shruti and asking her to go and die by hanging or by falling in water. 10. On the basis of the said evidence, what can be gathered is that the deceased Shruti had borrowed money from accused No.3 and appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 demanded repayment of money borrowed by the deceased and abused her and asked her to go and die. Whether the said aspect of insisting the deceased to repay the loan borrowed and asking her to die amounts to abetment to commit suicide or not? Similar case has been considered by this Court in the case of Mangala Gowri v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2023 SCC Online 64 wherein it is held as under: "16. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under: "107. Abetment of a thing.- A person is said abet the doing of a thing who First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." 17. As per the aforesaid definition there should be instigation to do that thing and then it amounts to abetment. As per the aforesaid definition there should be instigation to do that thing and then it amounts to abetment. A person is said to have instigate another to an act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to act by means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371 wherein it is held as under: "..............Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased "to go and die", that itself does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion........." 19. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. Sate (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 wherein it is observed as under: "17. Thus to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction" (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.). 18. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. 19. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. 19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar, where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, and "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation." 20. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on is inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for selfprotection or an escapism from intolerable self." 11. In the case of Mohit Singhal and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in 2024 (1) SCC 417 the Hon'ble Apex Court considering similar case for abetment to commit suicide has observed thus: "10.. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide." 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2010 (1) SCC 417 has held that in case of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect incitement to the commission of suicide. 13. Learned counsel for appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 would contend that the deceased was hypersensitive and she had earlier also attempted to commit suicide a month prior to the alleged incident. Said aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010 (1) SCC 750 wherein it is held as under: "13. In State of W.B. v. orilla Jaiswa this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trail 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 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, 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. xxxx xxxx xxxx 17. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. xxxx xxxx xxxx 17. 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 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide." 14. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 insisted the deceased Shruti to repay the money borrowed by her. There was no intention on the part of appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 were interested in getting back the money lent to the deceased Shruti. In the case of suicide mere allegation of harassing of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such an action on the part of the accused which compel the person to commit suicide and such an offending action or to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide of another or not can only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 15. How a human mind reacts has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ude Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2019 (17) SCC 301 wherein it is observed as under: "16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or 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 in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstance" 16. A person may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons such as depression, financial difficulties, disappointment of love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment and the same has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2014 SC 1782 . 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M. Mohan v. State reported in 2011 (3) SCC 626 has observed as under: "44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide." 18. Appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 had lent money to the deceased Shruti. They were interested in getting back the money. They had no intention to take the life of deceased Shruti. Therefore, there is no mens rea on the part of the appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 to abet the deceased to commit suicide. 19. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same situation. The deceased Shruti had left a suicide note - Ex.P.6 stating the names of persons contained in it are responsible for her death. 19. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same situation. The deceased Shruti had left a suicide note - Ex.P.6 stating the names of persons contained in it are responsible for her death. Said suicide note not only contains the names of accused persons but it also contains the names of others. What act of these appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 abetted the deceased Shruti to commit suicide has not been mentioned in Ex.P.6 - suicide note. The Investigating Officer has not investigated what is the role of other persons named in the suicide note in the death of deceased Shruti. Even some names were written by Ballpoint Pen on the hand of the deceased which not only contained the names of accused persons but also names of other persons. Therefore, said suicide note - Ex.P.6 does not establish that appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 abetted the deceased to commit suicide. This Court in the case of Mangala Gowri (supra), considering the judgment of Gujarath High Court has observed as under: 30. The Gujarat High Court in the similar set of facts has quashed the proceedings for the offence under Section 306, 384, 385, 387 of Indian Penal Code and Section 40 of the Gujurath Money Lenders Act, in the case of the Jorubhai Amrubhai Varu v. State of Gujarat 2020 SCC Online Guj 1189 wherein it is observed as under: "11. Admittedly, the allegation in FIR is of deceased having borrowed money from the present applicant. The deceased failed to repay the amount with interest. The applicant was constantly demanding the money and alleged to have threatened the deceased. Such act of demanding the repayment of money would not bring case within the meaning of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. There would not be any mens rea of the applicant as he would not benefited from the act of suicide of the deceased and thus, prima facie the allegation in the FIR, taken at its face value do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused." 20. On consideration of the evidence on record there is no evidence to show that appellants - accused Nos. On consideration of the evidence on record there is no evidence to show that appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 had any intention to drive out the deceased Shruti to commit suicide. Looking from any angle the act of appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 harassing the deceased for repayment of money borrowed by her and asking her to commit suicide does not amount to abetment. Therefore, learned sessions Judge has committed an error in holding that the act of appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 amounts to abetment of the deceased Shruti to commit suicide. 21. It is accusation that appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 assaulted P.W.1 on 27.12.2009 and caused grievous hurt. Ex.P.13 is the wound certificate of P.W.1. The Doctor - P.W.10 has issued the said wound certificate - Ex.P.13 and he has opined that out of two injuries, injury No. 2 is simple in nature and injury No. 1 is grievous in nature. Said opinion of the Doctor is based on the X-Ray report dated 27.12.2009. Even in the history it is mentioned that assault is by Pandu, Jayaram, Dileep and others, but no MLC intimation was issued by the Doctor - P.W.10 to the jurisdictional Police. The Doctor - P.W.10 has stated in the cross-examination that case is registered as MLC case, Police Station is at a distance of 2 - 3 KMs from the hospital and there was no hurdle for sending the MLC intimation to the Police Station and MLC intimation was not sent to the Police Station. P.W.1 was accompanied by Kavitha (P.W.3) to the hospital. Said Kavitha - P.W.3, P.W.2 and P.W.4 are stated to be the eye witnesses to the incident. None of them have chosen to file any complaint against appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4. P.W.1 came to be discharged on 01.01.2010. He did not file any complaint immediately after his discharge. It is the case of prosecution that P.W.5 and others advised him not to file complaint and they will hold panchayat and settle the matter. Said aspect has not been established since P.W.5 has not supported the case of the prosecution in that regard. Therefore, there is no reason assigned for delay in lodging the complaint. The complaint came to be lodged only on 04.01.2010, that too, after the death of the deceased - Shruti. Said aspect has not been established since P.W.5 has not supported the case of the prosecution in that regard. Therefore, there is no reason assigned for delay in lodging the complaint. The complaint came to be lodged only on 04.01.2010, that too, after the death of the deceased - Shruti. P.W.10 - the Doctor in his cross-examination has admitted the suggestion that if a person falls on hard surface injuries noted in Ex.P.13 - wound certificate can be caused. P.W.3 - Kavitha has deposed that her mother P.W.4 and P.W.6 took her father P.W.1 to the hospital but in the wound certificate - Ex.P.13 it is stated that P.W.3 - Kavitha brought P.W.1 to the hospital. P.W.2 had enmity with the accused persons as brother of accused No.1 had filed complaint against his wife and mother which he has admitted in his cross-examination. P.W.3 is the daughter of P.W.1 and she has not specifically stated as to which accused person assaulted P.W.1 and with what weapon. P.W.4 has admitted that his wife and wife of P.W.1 are sisters. Therefore, P.W.4 is the co-brother of P.W.1. P.W.1 had grudge against the accused persons as they came to his house and made galata demanding repayment of loan amount borrowed by his daughter - Shruti. It appears, that P.W.1, after commission of suicide by his daughter Shruti has filed complaint against appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 to take revenge against them. P.W.2 to P.W.4 and P.W.6 have not deposed regarding abuse by accused persons to P.W.1 and the deceased. Therefore, except the evidence of P.W.1 there is no corroboration by other witnesses regarding abuse by accused persons to P.W.1 and the deceased. Therefore a doubt arises regarding accused persons assaulting P.W.1 and abusing him. Therefore, benefit of doubt requires to be extended to the accused persons. Considering the above aspects the Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants - accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offences punishable under Sections 326 and 504 of IPC. 22. In the result, the following; ORDER I. The appeal is allowed. II. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.11.2012 passed in S.C.No.229/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Srirangapatna is set aside. III. Appellants - accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted for offence punishable under Section 326, 504 and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.