SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri. Yashwanth vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 October, 2018

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6280/2018

BETWEEN :

Sri Yashwanth
S/o Chaniyappa
Aged about 40 years
R/at Shree Bhagavathi
Sowjanya Road, Naigera Hills
Baikarnakatte, Mangalore-D.K.
Now R/o. Padavu Village
Mangalore-D.K-575 005.
… Petitioner
(By Sri Aruna Shyam M., Advocate)

AND :

The state of Karnataka
through Kankanady Town
Police Station, D.K.
Represented by its State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bangalore-560 001.
… Respondent
(By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP;
Sri Vishwajith Shetty S. Advocate
Sri Smt. Haleena Ameen, Advocate for
impleading applicant)
-2-

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.116/2018 of Kankanady
Town Police Station, Mangaluru City for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:-

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the accused

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release him on

anticipatory bail in Crime No.116/2018 of Kankanady

Police Station, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru for the

offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the applicant in I.A.No.1/2018, so also the

learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The brief case of the prosecution is that daughter

of the complainant was got married to the accused-

petitioner on 31.10.2008. Thereafter they led happy
-3-

marital life. In the said wedlock, a child was born. On

25.5.2016, the petitioner-accused assaulted the

deceased and the said fact was also informed to the

complainant through phone. Immediately they went and

took the deceased to Wenlock hospital and got her

admitted for the treatment. In this behalf, a panchayath

was held. The petitioner has agreed to look after the

deceased well and as such she was sent along with the

petitioner. Even thereafter the harassment and ill-

treatment was continued and the said fact was also

informed by the deceased to the complainant. They used

to pacify her and used to tell that she has to adjust in the

matrimonial house. It is further alleged that since one

month, the petitioner left the deceased and child in the

home. On 23.6.2018 his daughter informed over phone

that the petitioner came home and told that she should

go to her mother’s house and threatened that he will not

leave her if she stays in the said house. In the

meanwhile, a divorce case was also filed and enquiry was
-4-

held in this behalf. On 27.6.2018 at about 8.30 a.m.

when the complainant was in the house, a Christian lady,

resident of the said area informed over the phone that

his daughter committed suicide by hanging with the help

of duppatta. Immediately he went there and by seeing

the dead body, he came to know that because of the

harassment by the petitioner both physically and

mentally she committed suicide by hanging herself. On

the basis of the complaint, a case was registered in this

behalf.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that earlier to the said incident, the deceased

used to use abusive words and she was also harassing

the petitioner-accused and in this behalf, the complaint

was also registered and in the said Police Station she was

advised to live properly along with the petitioner. He

further submitted that the divorce petition also came to

be filed against the deceased in this behalf. He further
-5-

submitted that there is no positive evidence to show that

the petitioner-accused instigated the deceased to commit

suicide. He further submitted that he is running a

medical shop and there is no question of his abscondence

and he is very much available for the investigation and

interrogation. He further submitted that mere

harassment of wife by the husband due to differences per

se does not attract the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.

He further submitted that there is no evidence to show

that abatement has been made by the petitioner to

commit suicide. In this behalf, he relied upon a decision

in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State

of M.P., reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998 and another

decision in the case of Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh

others, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2045. He also

relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of

Shivarudra Vs. The State through mahila Police

Station, in Criminal Petition No.200607/2017,
-6-

disposed of 14.6.2017. On these grounds, he prayed to

allow the petition.

5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued

and submitted that there is a prima facie material to

show that the petitioner-accused has abetted the

deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted that

when place of incident was verified, death note was also

found and the same has been seized by drawing a

mahazar. He further submitted that still investigation is

pending and if the petitioner-accused is released on bail,

he may tamper with the prosecution evidence, he may

abscond and may not be available for trial. On these

grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant in

I.A.No.1/2018-complainant submitted that immediately

after the marriage, the petitioner-accused harassed the

deceased and the complaints were also registered in this

behalf. She further submitted that the petitioner forced
-7-

the deceased to give property. Accordingly, the

deceased gifted the property to the petitioner-accused.

Even then the harassment continued and a death note

was also left by the deceased to show that the petitioner-

accused is the cause for her death. She further

submitted that the petitioner is very influential person

and if he is released on bail, there is every likelihood of

he tampering with the prosecution evidence and he may

not be available for trial. On these grounds, she prayed

to dismiss the petition.

7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the

contents of the complaint and the submissions made at

the Bar. On going through the contents of the complaint,

it indicates the fact that there used to be ill-treatment

harassment caused to the deceased and she was also

admitted in the hospital and even thereafter the said ill-

treatment and harassment continued and ultimately on

26.6.2018, the deceased committed suicide by hanging.
-8-

Though the said complaint was registered on 27.6.2018

in the said complaint no where it is whispered that a

suicidal note has been left by the deceased, that is a

matter it has to be considered and appreciated only at

the time of trial. On going through the contents of the

complaint and other material it indicates that there was

some difference of opinion between the petitioner-

accused and the deceased and as such the complaints

and counter complaints were also filed and a divorce

petition came to be filed in this behalf. It is well settled

principles of law that mere harassment and ill-treatment

due to difference of opinion per se does not attract the

provisions of Section 306 of IPC. The said proposition of

law has been laid own by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh others

(quoted supra) at paragraph-16, which reads as under:-

16. However, in our opinion mere
harassment of wife by husband due to
differences per se does not attract Section
-9-

306 read with Section 107 IPC, if the wife
commits suicide. Hence, we agree with the
view taken by the High Court. We,
however, make it clear that if the suicide
was due to demand of dowry soon before
her death then Section 304B IPC may be
attracted, whether it is a case of homicide
or suicide. Vide Kans Raj v. State of Punjab
and Ors. 2005(5) SCC 207, Satvir Singh
and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.
2001(8) SCC 633, Smt. Shanti and Anr. v.
State of Haryana AIR 1991 SC 1261.

8. Even at paragraphs-7 and 12 in the case of

Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., it

has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under:-

7. Section 107, I.P.C. defines
abetment to mean that a person abets the
doing of a thing if he firstly, 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

– 10 –

and in order to the doing of that thing; or
thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

xxx xxx xxx

12. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarth (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court
while considering the charge framed and
the conviction for an offence under Section
306, I.P.C. on the basis of dying
declaration recorded by an Executive
Magistrate, in which she had stated that
previously there had been quarrel between
the deceased and her husband and on the
day of occurrence she had a quarrel with
her husband who had said that she could
go wherever she wanted to go and that
thereafter she had poured kerosene on
herself and had set fire. Acquitting the
accused this Court said:

“A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to
actually follow cannot be said to be

– 11 –

instigation. If it transpires 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 for abetting the offence of
suicide should be found guilty.”

9. On going through the aforesaid proposition of law

it indicates that mere difference of opinion between the

husband and wife it will not attract the provisions of

Section 306 of IPC. In order to attract the provisions of

306 of IPC, there must be positive evidence to show that

it is the petitioner-accused who instigated the deceased

to commit suicide. On going through the material which

has been produced in this behalf, nowhere a single

– 12 –

document which shows that it is the petitioner who

instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

10. In the light of the discussion held by me and

keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid

decisions, I am of the considered opinion that if the

petitioner is released on anticipatory bail by imposing

some stringent conditions, it would meet the ends of

justice.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the

petitioner is granted anticipatory bail. In the event of his

arrest in Crime No.116/2018, the petitioner herein is

ordered to be released, subject to the following

conditions:-

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with
two sureties for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Agency.

– 13 –

ii) He shall surrender before the Investigating
Agency within fifteen days from today.

iii) He shall not tamper with the evidence of the
prosecution directly or indirectly.

iv) He shall mark his attendance before the
concerned Investigating Officer every fortnight
in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the
charge sheet is filed.

v) He shall co-operate during the course of
investigation.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*ck/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation