Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1967 (KAR)

Channappa, S/o Late Ramaiah v. State Of Karnataka

2025-12-18

G.BASAVARAJA

body2025
JUDGMENT : G BASAVARAJA, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 12 th April, 2023 passed in SC No.330 of 2014 by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short "the trial Court"). 2. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, Police Inspector of Basaveswaranagar Police Station, Bangalore submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). It is alleged by the prosecution that, the marriage of the accused was solemnized with Smt. Roopa on 21 st June, 2006 as per the customs prevailed in their community and after their marriage, the accused and deceased started residing in a rented house at Laggere, Bangalore. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with two children. The accused was addicted to bad vices and also had illicit relationship with other woman, and failed to take care of the deceased and her children by not bringing the household articles and was also not paying the school fees of the children. The accused used to assault the deceased under the influence of alcohol by abusing and threatening. The accused used to tell to tell deceased to die by hanging or pouring kerosene. The deceased-Roopa, unable to bear the torture and by feeling hurt and disgusted, between 31 st October and 01 st November, 2013 killed her daughter-Lakshmi and committed suicide by hanging. The accused by subjecting the deceased-Smt. Roopa to mental and physical cruelty, abetted her to commit suicide and thereby committed the offences as alleged. 3.1. After filing the charge sheet, the case was registered in C.C.No.1848/2014. Thereafter, the case was committed to Court of Sessions and was registered in S.C.No.330/2014. The accused was enlarged on bail. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court framed charges against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.2. The accused was enlarged on bail. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court framed charges against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The same was read over and explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.2. To prove the guilt of the accused, 19 witnesses were examined as PWs1 to PW19; 28 documents were marked as Ex-P1 to Ex-P28, and six material objects were marked as MOs1 to 6. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but has not chosen to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. 4. Having heard the arguments on both sides, Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC and passed the sentence to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 5. Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court is highly illegal, arbitrary and capricious. There are no valid reasons for conviction. The Trial Court has committed a serious error and there are inconsistencies, material irregularities and illegalities in the impugned judgment. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. CW1 and CW2 are in-laws, and CW4, CW7, CW8, CW9 and CW13 are family members. Hence, the above- said persons have vested interest, but still failed to establish the case. PW10 is the Head Constable and close relative of the deceased, and under his influence, false case has been foisted against the accused. Prosecution has failed to prove the spot mahazar and seizure mahazar. None of the mahazar witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court below is based on conjunctures and surmises. Prosecution has failed to prove the spot mahazar and seizure mahazar. None of the mahazar witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court below is based on conjunctures and surmises. The ingredients of Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC are not established by the prosecution, though two provisions cannot go together. To buttress this submission, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of JAGDISHRAJ KHATTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH reported in (2019) 9 SCC 248 . 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that Ex- P15 is the complaint filed by deceased-Roopa against this accused, in which she has stated that the accused always used to pick up quarrel for petty and trivial reasons, and used to abuse and assault her. The accused had also given himself to bad vices. After lapse of six months, the deceased has committed suicide. Smt. Puttasiddamma the mother of the deceased has lodged complaint to the police as per Ex-P1, in which she has stated that the accused has demanded dowry. She has pledged her gold ornaments and handed over Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused. However, the accused used to ill-treat her daughter. On 29 th October, 2013, her daughter called her and informed about the quarrel between herself and her husband, in which her son-in-law has told her daughter that On the same day, her husband had gone out of station for work. The complaint averments itself reveal that the accused was not present at the time of commission of offence and also on 29 th October, 2013. Ex-P15 does not reveal as to the demand of dowry as stated in Ex-P1. Subsequently, after the death of deceased, this is created. The Investigating Officer has not submitted charge sheet against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Since the date of marriage, i.e. from 2006 to the date of incident, no complaint has been filed by the deceased or her parents against the accused. Except the complaint-Ex P1, the prosecution has not placed any materials to show that the accused has demanded dowry and he has subjected the deceased to cruelty. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow appeal. Except the complaint-Ex P1, the prosecution has not placed any materials to show that the accused has demanded dowry and he has subjected the deceased to cruelty. On all these grounds, it is sought to allow appeal. To substantiate his submission, he has relied on the following decisions: i. M. ARJUNAN v. STATE reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315 . - using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. ii. GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in (2017) 1 SCC 433 . iii. RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 . 7. As against this, Sri B. Lakshman, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, supports the judgment passed by the trial court and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the following points would arise for my consideration: 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code? 3. What order? 9. My answer to the above points are as follows: Point No.1: in the affirmative; Point No.2: in the negative; Point No.3: as per final order Regarding Point No.1: 10. I have examined the materials placed before the Court. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the accused was solemnized with Smt. Roopa on 21 st June, 2006 as per the customs prevailed in their community. After the marriage, the accused and deceased started residing in a rented house at Laggere, Bangalore. Out of wedlock, they had begotten two children. The accused was addicted to bad habits like consuming alcohol and also had illicit relationship with other women, and failed to take care of the deceased and her children by not bringing the household articles and was also not paying the children school fees. The accused used to assault the deceased under the influence of alcohol by abusing and threatening. The accused abetted the deceased to die by hanging or pouring kerosene. The deceased-Roopa, unable to bear the torture and feeling hurt and disgusted, between 31 st October and 01 st November, 2013 killed her daughter-Lakshmi and committed suicide by hanging. Thus, the accused committed the offences alleged. The accused abetted the deceased to die by hanging or pouring kerosene. The deceased-Roopa, unable to bear the torture and feeling hurt and disgusted, between 31 st October and 01 st November, 2013 killed her daughter-Lakshmi and committed suicide by hanging. Thus, the accused committed the offences alleged. To prove the guilt of the accused, 19 witnesses examined as PWs1 to 19, 28 documentary were marked as Exhibits P1 to P28. 11. The genesis of the case arise out of the complaint by PW1, which is marked as Exhibit P1, in which it is stated as under: 12. On the basis of the complaint, Basaveshwaranagar Police registered case in Crime No. 553 of 2013 against accused for offence punishable sections 498A, 306, 307 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and submitted FIR against accused No.1- Channappa and accused No.2-Roopa as per Exhibit P17 on 02 nd November, 2013 at 8:30 pm. Police have conducted spot panchanama on 01 st November, 2013 as per Exhibit P2. After the death of the deceased, police have conducted inquest panchanama-Exhibit P8, in the presence of panchas on 02 nd November, 2013. Postmortem was conducted on the same day as per Exhibit P13. After investigation, investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer has also filed abated charge-sheet against accused No.2-deceased Roopa for offence punishable under Sections 307 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, as she has committed murder of her seven year old daughter- Lakshmi. 13. According to the case of the prosecution, accused has committed offence under Section 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer has also filed abated charge-sheet against accused No.2-deceased Roopa for offence punishable under Sections 307 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, as she has committed murder of her seven year old daughter- Lakshmi. 13. According to the case of the prosecution, accused has committed offence under Section 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. To prove offence punishable under Section 498A, prosecution has to prove the essential ingredients which are as under: "An offence under Section 498A has following essential ingredients: (a) that the victim was a married lady (she may also be a widow); (b) that she has been subjected to cruelty by her husband or the relative of her husband; (c) that such cruelty consisted of either (1) harassment of the woman with a view to coerce meeting a demand for dowry, or (2) a willful conduct by the husband or the relative of her husband of such a nature as is likely to lead the lady to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her life, limb or health; (d) that such injury aforesaid may be physical or mental. When the husband or the relative of a husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty, he or they shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine." 14. PW1-Puttasiddamma, complainant has deposed in her evidence that she has three daughters and a son. Among them, Lakshmi is the eldest daughter and the third daughter is Roopa. In the year 2006, the marriage of Roopa was solemnized with Channappa. Further, she has deposed that after the marriage, the accused and the deceased started residing in a rented house at Laggere in Bangalore, and out of the wedlock they were blessed with two children. The accused was addicted to bad vices such as consuming alcohol and had illicit relationship with other woman and failed to take care of the deceased and her children by not providing household articles and not paying school fees of the children. Accused used to assault the deceased under the influence of alcohol. PW1 has deposed in her evidence as to the physical and mental ill-treatment given by the accused to the deceased. 15. PW2-Ningaraju has deposed in his evidence as to mahazar conducted by the police as per Exhibit P2. 16. Accused used to assault the deceased under the influence of alcohol. PW1 has deposed in her evidence as to the physical and mental ill-treatment given by the accused to the deceased. 15. PW2-Ningaraju has deposed in his evidence as to mahazar conducted by the police as per Exhibit P2. 16. PW3-Lokesh has deposed regarding inquest mahazar conducted by the police as per Exhibit P8. 17. PW4-Siddaiah, father of the deceased, has deposed as to the mental and physical ill-treatment given by the accused to his daughter. He has also deposed that he has pledged gold ornaments and had given Rs.2.00 lakh to the accused. He has further deposed that the accused, after marriage, was addicted to bad vices and also had illicit relationship with other woman. 18. PW5-Pavan, seven years son of deceased-Roopa and accused, has deposed that his father used to assault his mother everyday, and he did not know the reason. Whenever his father assaulted his mother, he and his sister would weep. Because of that, his mother committed suicide by hanging herself. 19. PW6-Shivananjaiah is a hearsay witness. 20. PW7-Smt. Subbamma, sister of deceased-Roopa has deposed as to the ill-treatment given by the accused to the deceased prior to her death. 21. PW8-Erappa, husband of PW7-Subbamma has also deposed as to the treatment given by the accused to the deceased. 22. PW9-Shivanna is the younger brother of PW1. He has deposed as to the ill-treatment given to the deceased by the accused. 23. PW10-Murthy has deposed as to submission of FIR to the court as per Exhibit P10. 24. PW11-Subramani has not supported the case of the prosecution. 25. PW12 Dr. Pradeep, Government Medical Officer, has deposed as to issuance of wound certificate, which is marked as Exhibit P2, which pertains to Pavan, the son of the deceased and accused. 26. PW13-Anitha, daughter of PW1 has deposed as to the ill-treatment given by the accused to the deceased. 27. PW14-Shivanna, Assistant Sub-Inspector of police and PW15-B.S. Hanumantharayappa, PW16-C.A. Siddalingaiah, PW17-M.S. Poornachandra Tejasvi have deposed as to their respective investigation. 28. PW18-Suresh and PW19-Radha are hearsay witnesses. 29. The prosecution has produced Exhibit P15-complaint filed by deceased-Roopa against the appellant/accused. 26. PW13-Anitha, daughter of PW1 has deposed as to the ill-treatment given by the accused to the deceased. 27. PW14-Shivanna, Assistant Sub-Inspector of police and PW15-B.S. Hanumantharayappa, PW16-C.A. Siddalingaiah, PW17-M.S. Poornachandra Tejasvi have deposed as to their respective investigation. 28. PW18-Suresh and PW19-Radha are hearsay witnesses. 29. The prosecution has produced Exhibit P15-complaint filed by deceased-Roopa against the appellant/accused. On the basis of the complaint, PW15-Hanumantharayappa, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, has registered case in Criminal Misc.No.536 of 2013, in which the deceased has stated that accused always used to pick up quarrel for one or the other reason and used to abuse and assault her. Accused was addicted to alcohol and hence, she sought for summoning the accused to the Police Station and to advise him not to commit such acts. Thereafter, the accused went to the police station on 15 th May, 2013 and that the police have recorded the statement of Channapa. In his statement, accused undertook that he will not abuse or assault his wife in future. Exhibits P15 and P16 have not been seriously disputed by the accused. Even at the time of recording the statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, he has not disputed the contents of Exhibits P15 and P16. This complaint was filed by the deceased-Roopa prior to the alleged incident. Exhibit P15 does not reveal as to the demand of dowry as stated in Exhibit P1. Subsequently, only after the death of deceased, same is inserted in the complaint filed by PW1-Puttasiddamma. Hence, the same cannot be accepted. Since the date of marriage in the year 2006, till the date of incident, no complaint has been filed by the deceased or her parents against the accused, except complaint-Exhibit P1. Prosecution has not placed any cogent or convincing evidence before the court to prove that the accused has demanded dowry. Apart from this, the investigating officer has also not submitted charge-sheet against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, she has stated that she has given document as to pledging of gold ornaments and paying of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused. But no documents are produced. 30. PW4-Siddaiah, father of the deceased has deposed as to the mental and physical ill-treatment given by the accused. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, she has stated that she has given document as to pledging of gold ornaments and paying of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused. But no documents are produced. 30. PW4-Siddaiah, father of the deceased has deposed as to the mental and physical ill-treatment given by the accused. He has deposed that, he has pledged gold ornaments and given Rs.2.00 lakh to the accused. He has also stated that he does not know the name of the woman with whom his son-in-law had illicit relationship. 31. On careful examination of the entire material on record, there is no cogent, convincing or clinching evidence shown as to the harassment of deceased by the accused with a view to coercing or making demand for dowry. However, on perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses with the contents of Exhibit P15, it is clear that the prosecution has proved that prior to commission of alleged offence, accused used to pick-up quarrel with the deceased for trivial issues and used to abuse her in filthy language, was also addicted to bad vices and used to assault the deceased. Accordingly, the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. On careful re-examination, reconsideration and re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I do not find any legal or factual error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.2: 32. With regard to offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove essential ingredients to constitute offence punishable under the said Section read with Section 107 of Indian Penal Code, in view of the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AYYUB AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in (2025)3 SCC 334 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "18. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the appellant remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die’ and the deceased thereafter committed suicide. This Court held that :- “…. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438), the appellant remarked to the deceased that ‘go and die’ and the deceased thereafter committed suicide. This Court held that :- “…. Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite means rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events….” 19. By a long line of judgments, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under Section 306 IPC, specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It has been further held that the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 IPC [See Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628 ]. Further, the alleged harassment meted out should have left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life and that in cases of abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide [See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 and M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 ." 33. In the case of GURUCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in (2017)1 SCC 544, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that to constitute an offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, the intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against said indictment. Remoteness or culpable acts or omissions rooted in intention of accused to actualize the suicide would fall short of offence of abetment essential to attract Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of indictable acts or omission are concomitant indices of abetment. 34. Remoteness or culpable acts or omissions rooted in intention of accused to actualize the suicide would fall short of offence of abetment essential to attract Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of indictable acts or omission are concomitant indices of abetment. 34. In the case of M ARJUNAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE reported in (2019)3 SCC 315 , at paragraph 7 of the judgment, it is observed as under: "7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C." 35. In the case of RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH reported in (2001)9 SCC 618 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, merely because the accused is found guilty under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, he should not necessarily be held guilty under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of same evidence. 36. In the case on hand, to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has produced complaint-Exhibit P1. In Exhibit P1, it is stated as under: 37. PW1-Puttasiddamma has not deposed as to the aforesaid in her evidence. 38. PW4-Siddaiah father of the deceased, PW5-Pavan, PW6-Shivananjaiah, PW7-Subbamma, PW8-Veerappa, PW13- Anitha, PW18-Suresha and PW19-Radha, have not deposed anything as to the aforesaid contents of the complaint. However, PW9-Shivanna, the younger brother of PW1- Puttasiddamma, has stated in his evidence that: 39. Except the evidence of PW4-Siddaiah, absolutely there is no mens rea to commit the offence. The intent of the Legislation and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Except the evidence of PW4-Siddaiah, absolutely there is no mens rea to commit the offence. The intent of the Legislation and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 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, leaving no other option, and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a decision that he/she commit suicide. 40. In this case, except some allegation in the complaint, absolutely there is no cogent, convincing, clinching or corroborative legal evidence to constitute offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, I answer Point No.2 in the negative. Regarding Point No.3: 41. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Appeal is partly allowed; ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 12 th April, 2023 passed in SC No.330 of 2014 by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, convicting the accused for the offence under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, is confirmed. The conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial court with regard to offence under Section306 of Indian Penal Code, is set aside; iii) Appellant/accused has already undergone judicial custody for a period of 2 year 10 months. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused as under trial prisoner in this case shall be given set-off towards the punishment of sentence of imprisonment imposed herein.