IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.744 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.669 OF 2017 In Crl.RP.No.744/2018 BETWEEN:
Smt.Sheetal Aged about 35 years, W/o C.G.M. Vishvas, R/at Shivananda Nagar, Kalasapur Road, Near Ayurvedic College, Gadag – 582 103.
(By Sri.M.T.Nanaiah, Sr. Advocate a/w Sri.Prabhugoud B.Tumbigi, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, By Vinobha Nagara Police Station, Shivamogga – 577 201.
Rep by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
.. Petitioner 2 2. Vishvas.C.G.M Aged about 37 years, S/o late H.B.Gangappa, R/a No.MIG – 276, K.H.B. 2nd Phase, F Group, Kallahalli, Shivamogga – 577 204.
(By Sri.Divakar Maddur, HCGP for R-1;
.. Respondents Sri.Basavaraj S.Sappannavar, Advocate for R-2) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, praying to set aside the order dated 14.02.2017 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in S.C.No.100/2016 for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC registered by 1st Respondent Vinobhanagar Police, Shivamogga and discharge the petitioner by dismissing the complaint.
In Crl.RP.No.669/2017 BETWEEN:
Sri.Vishwas. C.G.M, Aged about 37 years, S/o late H.B.Gangappa, R/at No.MIG – 276, K.H.B. 2nd Phase, F Group, Kallahalli, Shivamogga – 577 204.
(By Sri.Basavaraj S.Sappannavar, Advocate) .. Petitioner 3 AND:
1. Krishna Shankarappa Hanjigi S/o Shankarappa, Aged 55 years, Businsess, R/o Shivananda Nagar, Kalasapura Road, Gadag.
2. State of Karnataka, Represented by Vinobha Nagara Police Station, Shivamogga – 577 201.
Rep by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri.Divakar Maddur, HCGP for R-2;
.. Respondents Respondent No.1- served but unrepresented) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C, praying to set aside the impugned order and to direct the trial Court to frame the charge against respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and to proceed with the trial and to dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law.
These Criminal Revision Petitions having been heard and reserved for Orders on 12.12.2018, this day the Court made the following:
4 ORDER The revision petitioner in Crl.RP.No.669/2017 is the informant, who has challenged the order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘trial Court) in S.C.No.100/2016, wherein it has allowed the application filed by accused No.2 (respondent No.1 in Crl.RP.No.669/2017 herein) under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) and discharged accused No.2 before it, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘IPC’).
Crl.RP.No.774/2018 has been filed by accused No.1 in the same case - S.C.No.100/2016, challenging 5 the very same order passed by the trial Court, wherein the similar application filed by her under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected.
2. Thus, both these revision petitions having arisen out of the common order passed by the trial Court, both revision petitions are taken up together as connected matters.
3. Though the matters are listed in the admission list, however, with the consent from both side, the matters are taken up for final disposal.
4. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the petitioner in Crl.RP.No.744/2018 (accused No.1) Sheetal was performed with the complainant - Vishwas C.G.M on 22.05.2005. After some time of the marriage, there 6 arouse some misunderstanding between the spouses. Accused No.1 started making false allegations against the complainant and his parents and created unrest in the house by disturbing the peace. She also used to publicly abuse them and insult them. Accused No.2 – Krishna Shankarappa Hanjigi, who is the father of accused No.1 was instigating his daughter in that regard. Being very much annoyed and humiliated by it, the father of the complainant who was a retired professor committed suicide on 17.01.2010 by hanging himself to a ceiling fan, after leaving a death note. The respondent-Police registered crime against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Both the accused filed application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., before the trial Court. The said application came to be allowed as against 7 accused No.2 and was rejected as against accused No.1.
5. During the pendency of these revision petitions, the trial Court proceeded to frame charge against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC on 27.10.2018.
6. Heard the arguments from both side in both the matters.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.RP.No.744/2018 in his arguments submitted that there is no proximity between the alleged conduct of the petitioner/accused No.1 and to the suicide of the father of the complainant. Even according to the respondent-Police, the alleged act of accused No.1 is only cruelty said to have been 8 practiced by her against her father-in-law. As such, the same cannot be considered as an abetment of suicide by the deceased. He also submitted that there is no proof or evidence that accused No.1 was residing in the house where the complainant and his father were residing, at the time of incident. Citing few judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in his support, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the alleged death note does not lead anyone to infer that accused No.1 has abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Learned counsel also submitted that the trial Court framed charge on 27.10.2018, even after knowing about the pendency of the present revision petition, which is bad in the eye of law. As such, the present revision petition is maintainable.
9 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.RP.No.744/2018 and the petitioner in Crl.RP.No.669/2017 in his arguments submitted that during the pendency of these petitions, the trial Court has framed charge against the accused No.1 on 27.10.2018 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, as such, the Crl.RP.744/2018, filed by accused No.1 is not maintainable. However, the learned counsel did not elaborate or substantiate his contention on the alleged non-maintainability of the petition.
9. Learned counsel also submitted that CW-2, who is the wife of the deceased, in her statement before the Investigating Officer, has clearly stated that both accused Nos.1 and 2 are the cause for the death of her husband and accused No.2 was harassing 10 the family of the deceased by instigating his daughter over the phone to cause trouble to the family of the complainant. Further, the death note left by the deceased itself is an important piece of evidence showing that both accused Nos.1 and 2 are the cause for his death, as such, discharging accused No.2 from the case deserves to be set aside and the revision petition filed by accused No.1 deserves to be rejected. The same argument was supported by the learned High Court Government Pleader, who is representing the respondent-State in both the cases.
10. The complainant in the case is the husband of accused No.1 – Sheetal, who is the revision petitioner in Crl.RP.No.744/2018.
A perusal of the certified copy of the complaint given by the complainant which is produced along with 11 copies of the charge sheet papers by the petitioner, would go to show that the complainant has stated that his marriage with accused No.1 – Sheetal was performed on 22.05.2005, after which she started living with him along with his parents. The complainant has also stated that few days after their marriage, she started suspecting her husband and used to quarrel without any reason. Many a time, the parents of the complainant, being disturbed by her behaviour and psychologically hurt, interfered in the quarrel and resolving the dispute had advised her. Accused No.1 without heeding to the advice and good words, started accusing the parents of the complainant and the younger brother of the complainant and also started making baseless allegations against them. The complainant has also stated that accused standing outside the house in 12 public view and making known the public was accusing the members in her matrimonial home. In that regard, many a times, neighbours and other well wishers advised her, despite which, she did not mend her attitude and behaviour. The complainant has specifically stated that because of her behaviour, all members in his family have been strained both physically and mentally. The said behavior of accused No.1 exceeded the limits. She did not heed to the advice made in counseling also. The complainant has specifically stated that the accused in the presence of everybody was stating that she would bring on street the reputation and respect of the family of her husband and that she will see that they reach an end and also she would ensure that in-laws and brother-in-law would be thrown out of the house. Thus, being affected by the continuous mental torture 13 and insult made by his wife, his father Sri.H.G.Gangappa, feared by the reputation of the family committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan on 17.01.2010, by leaving a death note stating that his daughter-in-law (Sheetal) is the cause for his death. Thus, the complaint in its prima-facie reading attempts to establish the proximity and build a nexus between the death of the deceased and the act of accused No.1.
11. CW-2 – Smt.Shakuntala, the mother of the complainant, who is the wife of the deceased in her statement before the Investigating Officer, is shown to have stated that her husband was a retired professor and the complainant, who is her elder son, is a lecturer. On similar lines of her son - the complainant, she has also stated that accused No.1 – Sheetal, who 14 was her daughter-in-law was not behaving properly at home and that she was a quarrelsome lady, she used to always quarrel with other members at the house and was not listening to the good advice that was being given to her. Smt.Shakuntala, is also shown to have stated that in the presence of others, accused No.1 used to insult the deceased and her children and was also threatening that she would not leave them as it is and bring the reputation of the family to the street. It is because of the constant misbehaviour and harassment, her husband fearing to the respect and reputation of their family committed suicide by hanging himself to a ceiling fan in the bedroom of their house. She has also stated that the deceased has left a death note stating that his daughter-in-law – Sheetal, is the cause for his death.
15 12. CW-3 – Spoorthi, the younger son of the deceased is also shown to have stated before the Investigating Officer on the similar lines on his elder brother, who is the complainant – Sri.Vishwas.
13. CW-6 – Sri.G.R.Manjunatha, CW-7 – Smt.Manjula and CW-8 – Smt.Latha, who were shown as neighbours of the deceased are also shown to have stated before the Investigating Officer about the misbehaviour of accused No.1 towards the family of the deceased. Thus, the witnesses are also shown to have stated of they witnessing some incidents where accused No.1 was shown to have coming outside of the house i.e., standing in public shouting at and abusing the family of the deceased. Thus, the witnesses are also shown to have stated that everyday her indifferent attitude towards her 16 matrimonial home was increasing and that was being revealed even before them by the deceased also. These three independent witnesses are also shown to have stated that accused No.1 – Sheetal and her father are the cause for the death of the deceased. Thus, not only the alleged statement of the family members of the deceased, but also the neighbours are also shown to have stated about the alleged indifferent attitude of accused No.1 and her alleged misbehaviour in the family of the deceased and more particularly, about subjecting the deceased to mental agony.
14. The first contention of learned Senior Counsel for accused No.1 - Mrs.Sheetal, is that there is no proximity between the alleged incident and the alleged act of the accused. According to learned 17 Senior Counsel accused No.1 - Mrs.Sheetal was not in her matrimonial home at Shivamogga either on the date of the suicide of her father-in-law or since few months prior to it. In that regard, learned Senior Counsel referring to the alleged statements said to have been given by accused No.1 – Sheetal and accused No.2 - her father and also the certified copy of the deposition of the complainant as PW-1 in MC No.7/2013 in the Family Court at Gadag, submitted that even according to the complainant, accused No.1 had left her matrimonial home on 18.12.2009. As such, on the date of the incident which was on 17.01.2010, accused No.1 was not at all in the house of her husband.
15. The documents produced by accused No.1 along with memo dated 11.12.2018 comprises 18 certified copy of two statements said to have been given by accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. Both the statements show that they have been marked in C.C.No.348/2010 as Ex.P-19 and P-20 respectively. However, both the documents do not specifically mention the alleged statement of accused Nos.1 and 2. In both those documents, it is shown that accused Nos.1 and 2 have sated that it was accused No.1, who was through out causing problem to her husband and family members in the matrimonial home. It is shown that she has stated that she was unnecessarily quarreling with them, abusing them and insulting them in public. Thus, two statements also shows that accused Nos.1 and 2 have stated that accused No.1, who had left the company of her husband, on 10.09.2007 later agreed to return to her husband’s house expressively promising that she 19 would not repeat her wrong behaviour any further and would ensure that no untoward incident would happen henceforth. The said statements of accused Nos.1 and 2, if accepted on its facial value, shows that accused have committed the alleged guilt of indifferent behaviour with the complainant and his family which has resulted to a lot of mental trauma to them. However, she was brought back to her husband’s house.
16. The other documents produced by accused No.1 is the certified copy of the depositions said to have been given by the present complainant - Sri.Vishwas, as PW-1 in the Family Court at Gadag in M.C.No.7/2013. In the said deposition also, the complainant is shown to have stated about the constant cruelty and misbehaviour said to have been 20 practiced by accused No.1 – Mrs.Sheetal against him and other family members including his father. In his cross examination, a statement is shown to have been made by him stating that on 18.12.2009, both of them separated and on the same date she has left the house. It is banking upon the said statement of PW-1. It was vehemently argued from the side of accused No.1 that since the said day of 18.12.2009, accused No.1 not being in the house of the deceased, there is no question of she abetting the suicide of the deceased.
Even though the said logic, at this stage, may catch some attention of the Court but a reading of the said evidence of PW-1 in M.C.No.7/2013 in its entirety, at this stage, gives an impression that the witness has vehemently stated that his entire family 21 was being harassed by his wife i.e., accused No.1 in addition to that while taking note of the said deposition of PW-1 shown to have been given in M.C.No.7/2013, the other two alleged statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 produced by their side which were marked as Ex.P-19 and Ex.P-20 in C.C.No.348/2010 wherein, the accused have shown to have admitted their indifferent attitude, harassment caused by accused No.1 to the family of the complainant also cannot be ignored. Further, the certified copy of conciliation statement of accused No.1 – Mrs.Sheetal, which is produced by her at page No.62 along with memo dated 11.12.2018, shows that on 12.01.2010, in her statement while accepting for conciliation of the matter, she has shown her residence as that of her husband at Shivamogga. Therefore, the said document which is produced by 22 none else than accused No.1 herself also cannot be ignored. As such, prima-facie it cannot be, at this stage, come to a conclusion that there is no proximity between the alleged suicide of the father of the complainant and the alleged acts of the accused.
17. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in his arguments apart from submitting that in order to attract Section 306 of IPC, there must be prima-facie material to show that there was abetment to the act of suicide by the deceased, relied upon some of the reported judgments in his favour.
18. The first case relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for accused No.1 is the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court considering the facts of the case before it 23 firstly that the appellant had asked the deceased ‘to go and die’, secondly, there was a gap of two days between the alleged abusive words said to have been told to the deceased and the deceased was found hanging and thirdly, the words in the death note that “Sengar is responsible for my death’, ‘Sanjay Sengar is responsible for my death’, ‘Sanjay Sengar is responsible for my death”, was pleased to hold that the same would not fulfil the ingredients of abetment.
With great respect to the said judgment, it is submitted that in the very same judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed that none else than the wife of deceased was shown to have stated that the deceased always remained in a drunken condition. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court was also pleased to hold that it is common knowledge that 24 excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued on 25-7-1998, where the appellant was stated to have used abusive language. With the said observation, taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of case into consideration, Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that it was deceased and he alone, and none else, was responsible for his death.
Since in the case on hand, it is nobody’s case that the deceased was either drunken or was with some infirmities, the same conclusion cannot be arrived at, further the facts and circumstances of the case on hand also differs from the above.
25 19. The second case relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for accused No.1 is the case of Bhagwan Das vs. Kartar Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 2045, where the Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to its previous judgment reported in 1994 (1) SCC 73, was pleased to observe in paragraph No.14 of its judgment as below:
“the courts 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 transpires 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 26 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”.
Whether in the case on hand, the deceased was hypersensitive to ordinarily petulance, discard and differences in domestic life, common to the society would be the subject matter of trial. As such, at this stage, it cannot be concluded that the act of suicide by the deceased was at his own wrong.
20. Another judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for accused No.1 is the judgment of a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Gopalkrishna vs. Sharad Kumar Shirali and Another reported in 2015 (2) AICLR 521, 27 wherein considering the facts before it, the Court was pleased to observe that in order to hold that there was an abetment to commit suicide, there must be an overt-act of accused which should be pleaded in complaint and proved during the course of evidence that the accused has instigated the deceased to do something and such an act should be of such character that ordinary prudent man should believe that such instigation is sufficient in the ordinary course to drive a person to commit suicide. In the said case, the death note left by the deceased stated that “Accused is responsible for the status and position of the deceased as on the date of his death”. Taking into account the content of the said note and more particularly, absence of overt-act alleged against the accused, the Court opined that a mere say that the accused was responsible for death without explaining 28 the conduct of the accused, is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC.
21. In the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another reported in 2012 (9) SCC 460, the Hon’ble Apex Court while laying down the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction particularly, with regard to quashing of the charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or 482 of Cr.P.C or together was pleased to hold that where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the Courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. In the process of laying down the principles, 29 the Hon’ble Apex Court, in that case, however, observed that another very significant caution that the Courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of Court leading to injustice. The Hon’ble Apex Court was further pleased to hold in the same judgment that quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and 30 reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima-facie.
22. Thus, the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court when applied to the case on hand, it clearly go to show that the complainant and the statements of not only the family members but also of the neighbours of the complainant shows that they have alleged with respect to the indifferent attitude, misbehaviour and harassment practiced by accused No.1 against her husband and his family members. Further, the death note which reads as thus:-
“Due intolerable cruel torture by Sheetal I am committing suicide (from last three years) signed (H.G.Gangappa)”
also shows that the deceased has categorically stated that there was intolerable cruel torture to him by 31 accused No.1. Therefore, whether the said ‘intolerable cruel torture’ was a fact and if so, whether it leads to an abetment by accused No.1 to the suicide of the deceased can only be ascertained in a full fledged trial. As such, it is too early to come to a conclusion that there is no case for subjecting accused No.1 to the trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
23. The revision petitioner in Crl.RP.No.669/2017 is the informant/complainant before the respondent-police. It is at his information, the respondent-police after registering the crime and conducting investigation in the matter filed charge sheet against two accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. However, as observed above, the application made by applicant under 32 Section 227 of Cr.P.C., was allowed by the trial Court discharging accused No.2, who is said to be the father of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Challenging the said order of discharge of accused No.2, the informant has preferred the revision petition.
24. The argument of learned counsel for the complainant is that CW-2, the wife of deceased in her statement has stated that both the accused have caused trouble to her husband and that accused No.2 was harassing the family of deceased by instigating his daughter (accused No.1) over phone to cause trouble to the family of the complainant. As such, the trial Court ought not to have discharged accused No.2 from the case. He also submitted that the death note 33 left by the deceased is a major piece of evidence against accused No.2 also.
25. The contents of the death note which is reproduced earlier in this order, no where whispers anything about accused No.2. Even a reading of the complaint, at this stage, also goes to show that the entire allegation made by the complainant is mainly as against accused No.1, who is the wife of the complainant. It is only at the conclusion of the complaint, the complainant has stated that his wife Sheetal (accused No.1) and her father Krishna Shankarappa Hanjigi (accused No.2) are required to be dealt in accordance with law. Thus, from a bare reading of the complaint, a nexus between the alleged suicide of the deceased and accused No.2 cannot be made out.
34 26. The alleged statement of CW-2, who is said to be the wife of the deceased, a copy of which is also produced by the complainant in the form of additional documents, when perused go to show that no where she has stated in her statement that it was due to the abetment of accused No.2 joined by accused No.1, her husband committed suicide. Merely because, it is shown to have stated by her that the behavior of accused No.1 in publicly abusing the complainant and his family members was at the instigation of accused No.2, by that itself it cannot be concluded that there was any abetment or instigation by accused No.2 for the alleged commission of suicide by the deceased.
27. Learned counsel for the complainant in his arguments relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Parikh vs. C.B.I. and 35 Ors. reported in MANU/SC/7850/2008 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to its previous judgment in the case of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in AIR 2005 SC 359, was pleased to observe that at the stage of framing charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible and a mini trial cannot be conducted at such stage.
28. In the instant case, as already observed, by a prima-facie perusal of the charge sheet material, since no materials are found to arrive at a prima-facie opinion that the alleged suicide of the deceased was either abetted or instigated by accused No.2, the trial Court has rightly allowed his application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C and discharged him from the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. I do not 36 find any reason in interfering with the said finding of the trial Court.
Accordingly, both Crl.RP.No.669/2017 and Crl.RP.No.744/2018 are dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-