IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6787 OF 2019 Between:
Sri. B.Siddaiah, S/o. Late Basavaiah, Aged about 47 years, R/at No.35, 2nd Floor, 9th Main Road, 9th Cross, Kalappa Block, Srinagar, Bengaluru-560050.
... Petitioner (By Sri. Chandrashekara K.A., Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka By the Police of Hanumanthanagara Police Station, Bengaluru-560050.
Rep by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560001.
(By Sri. Rohith B.J., HCGP) …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.155/2019 of Hanumanthanagara Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The brief facts of the case which emanate from the charge sheet filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.23769/2019 are that the petitioner and deceased Rajeshwari married each other and they were living as husband and wife happily for some time and they were blessed with two children Manasa and Bhoomika. About 3 to 4 years prior to the incident, the deceased Rajeshwari found that the petitioner has developed some illicit intimacy with some other ladies. In this context the petitioner has been ill treating and harassing the deceased. In spite of several advice by the elders and panchayat, he did not desist from having the illicit relationship with other ladies. In this context there was quarrel between husband and wife and admittedly the accused has scolded them and told them to go and die and therefore because of those abusive words used by the petitioner, the said Rajeshwari and the two children have committed suicide in their house situated at Srinagar, Bengaluru. The entire charge sheet papers disclose the police have collected some material to show the illicit intimacy between the petitioner and other ladies and that is the root cause for the death of the deceased persons.
3. The learned counsel has relied upon the rulings of the Apex Court reported in 2002 CRL.L.J.2796 between Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.
Apex Court has observed that in order to attract Sections 306 and 107 of IPC, the quarrel between the accused and the deceased – accused telling deceased ‘to go and die’ – That itself would not constitute ingredient of ‘instigation’ – Presence of mense rea is necessary concomitant of instigation – Fact that deceased committed suicide after two days of quarrel during which said words were uttered by accused – Would show that suicide was not direct result of quarrel – Suicide note left by deceased showing that he was in great stress and depression – Statement by his wife that he was frustrated man and was in habit of drinking – Held, charge sheet framed under Section 306 against accused was liable to be quashed as ingredients of abetment were totally absent.
4. Therefore, the intention of the accused play a dominant role in order to attract Section 306 of IPC. Here the intention of the accused may be to continue the illicit intimacy with other ladies, but whether he had intention that the said conduct of the accused must drive the deceased persons to commit suicide has to be established by holding a full fledged trial. In another decision reported in ILR 2008 KAR. 888 – Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishnaiah @ Krishna Vs. State of Karnataka, Represented by R.T. Nagar Police Station, Bangalore City, this court has held that the difference between Sections 498-A and 306 in the following manner:
“INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 -
SECTIONS 498-A AND 306 – Offences under – Conviction – Appealed against – Allegation of harassment, assault and abuse of victim and accused No.1, developed illicit intimacy with some other lady – ON FACTS, HELD, That the death of the deceased was due to the attitude of accused No.1 would not be sufficient to hold that there is an abetment to commit suicide and the finding of the Trial Court that the accused was duty bound to maintain moral obligation and that he failed to do so, as such the deceased had committed suicide cannot be accepted to hold that there is an abetment to commit suicide – Finding of the Trial Court is not justified in so far it relates to offence under Section 306 IPC.”
5. On perusal of the provisions under Section 498A and the above said decision, the court has observed that at the most the intention of accused may attract Section 498A. Be that as it may, on the merits of the case it is the allegation against the petitioner that he intended and by means of his conduct he abated the suicide of his wife and children. That particular intention of the accused which was in the mind of the accused has to be established by cogent evidence during the course of trial. Under the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a ground for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. He has already been arrested and he is sent to judicial custody. He is no more required for further investigation as the charge sheet has already been filed. Therefore, the following order is required to be passed. However, it is made clear that whatever the observation made by this court while disposing of this petition shall not in any manner persuade the trial court in disposing of the matter on merits. The trial court shall appreciate the evidence that may be adduced before the court and take its own decision. With these observations, I pass the following :
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.155/2019 of Hanumanthanagara Police Station, Bangalore City registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like- sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE sd