/>'\
1 ( -;2:\
\~./'
IN THE HIGH comm' 01:' KARNATAKA A-'I' BANe,a;LDRE I
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY 01?. V. A
B .
"H -- *:*- "u'm:'1'-'E
' 'I "II
J.
B EE :
1 M c CI.-IAITHRA L
AGED ABOUT 25* YE1'&RS-,-- 1' A
0 I.-HIE K "37''?'''''*-''*'' '
Y l'.'>;I,""'l-1" .A
RIM' 450, mm D
I
DD
K S1.;"v'§iR;unum v'1~_ A
w/0 m.'r1s; 2'1? cHANANmH,
R,IA'r»45o; DD .1~';:'-1'*f'"'=M_1'»%.1L£.~I'~,-
I'3'FAGE,V_BABIAE*-HAFHCRI
B A" Ar n.
IND
ABQLIT .3-:1 *;*1.i'...A.1-2:3,:
"T CHANANIAH,
D
I STAGE, BANASHANKRI
faANGALoRE 50.
= :4 % c CHANDAN
AGEDD A303'? 23 YEARS,
s/0 LATE" '1'
R/AT 450,167" MAIN.
1 cairn r1E.~' fihIA'fiH'A'1\IIFDl'-
5 'pr 1 A 51-! .IJ,I{l.LJl. .l.rIal.I.l!.l.\l
{BY SR1. C.V.NACvE8H, ADV.)
. .. FETITIONERS:
,9: 2J>..«z~..».-.:u2_..
uq.--.
Ag' 1):
STATE OF
B'! THE S'I-'ATIt')N- HOUSE'- C1F'F'ICE'7F',
POLICE S'I'A'I'ION,
EANGALORE RURAL.DIS'I'RlCT
BANGAL-JQR_E= 1
$17 SRI.HGI€NAP?fi, HCG771
THIS CRIMINAL. REVTSION PETITION Ts FILED
u;e=..9'z R,".1.' 491 FOR
THE PETTITONERS PRA',YIrsIG' T THIS I-'ION'BLE
co'-Hm 'BE PLEAS'EDf* To REVERSE AN-D em'
ASIDE THE ORDER DA'_I':!§13D.. 'S.C.N0..362,'G2
ON THE 91122:' or THE AJ3D;1;TIcwNAL DISTRICT 85
SESQIQIE-S = DISTRICT,
T BANGAL()RE;,V T
m:s;aR1mgNA;gmgm :9. co ENG
on @012 HEARING TH'ISi._D_AYI THE coum' MADE THE
T T '__Q§_<5R TR
one deeeased Mohan Kumar get
No.1-Chaitra. .m.eL'ri.qgc,
IQ.
.v::'r.i1_.t:s' was net ..eimu.s "f E in B;
jeint itlsisteci that her husband should arrange
' "ii separate living. She hardly stayed. in the
T home for a period-of two--weeks. She-left
the house of her 11usba,11c,l and e»!:9..v*.erJ.. li'u"L1" in the
-...!.-..% 9. ..er par.-;nt= .. The parents; of Iviohan--Kumar, to
_ ..
the me of the newly married couple, organised- a
; A_'QQ.,\,e)_,a-Ira'-----'
separate house for and in the said
accused No.1-Chaitra and her husband A' a
period of tuohdh. Ihereflr,
flied" the house. is} '
husband Mohan is flu a jjosition to a.
bungalow and lead a 1- 'oan:-fido so or
otherwise he also stated that he-
hang and
it ou__ % her parent's house.
megsamt arm consulting his father-the
legal notice to Chaitra
i*'|.Q'I'l {-11 V_' _ __ TIA _
I-I-.EJ!4-sf}-I-' - " ~
edmgivnotioe at all. The deceased Mohan Kumar
had been to the house of Chaitra and
'request that she should join Mohan Kumar.
2 » AA demanded t_h._a.t t_.e p.e-,n.ert1,r st.d:1.di.r:g in the
_.'I_ ,4 1 ,1
f Iviohan be transferred to her
V R name and only then she would join Mohan Kumar or
otherwise she willoontinue to live in her parent's house.
She also said that Mohan. Kumar should not make
?'-Q\~I./\-£Lo:LL/
frequent visits to her house and. trouble
abused him saying that a man
frequent to the house and make K
1.
.1.-_….rn..4….a }vi..}..,.,i ‘K’….._… .._ rm…_ 4-l’….; .’.’.-…-A…
1111: Gl.’.I_i.!5l.”:vfli1Vu’\.il.l’.fl||I.’.”rLt”-“.’_’l
namely S-uva111adevi»mother__of ,
the brother of accused mid another
brother of Mehan
ga.;._uim by the
V.
1. is ;..1…
note it is not
stated__ eomplaint was lodged
with meident either-r by the Mohan
in the instant case. It is
ti ‘-.f Muiw wee mi:-.3 teelcw em-an
» jupoir: parents-infilaw and his wife. He was
and that he -felt that he should
ehti When he informed the complainant he was-
VV V’ V. by the com-piainant and his family
2. That on 24.3.2002, the afternoon, Mohan _
‘5
E
B
1
D
I3
:5.
E
I’?
_.’I _ ‘I L… J. _..–…
1 h _ _ _ __ 41!.-11__1;_____ 1…. ____.1__ _ _.__–__J. _ _ .. .. .. ..
1101.188. OI [O IILHKC El. nzqu I. id’!.’.lU. HIS. 11 1′ IL! U-unuc
and join him. But he did– not return at all. till 11.30
or . _r_o_.pLe_i1:ie_nt is m to the –
PM. One Chandra Shekel: who was the relativeof the
complainant gave a phone. call and
complainant that Mohan Kumar had
4-a–0
Ill
in the l.¢.=.nded.. nrepeertj of the 3 i_ ii.-1 ‘
Hanumanthegowdana Pal§;a,: near . Fariit land ” .
immediately Mohan Wes to the
Hospital. The to the
Hospital and the D:.v.:tors-
and "'1 Holman Kumar breathed day i.e. trorn the
dateief the tngmusnt of the complaint, the
family and as such according to the
cet;a,r§l.£:.i11.r=.nt”-he ledge-3. me complaint on 29.3.2w-z.
a case and after investigation filed
against. the petitioners–accused herein
punishable under Section 306 read with
34 IPC. and when the matter was set down. fer
VV “persons sought for clischaxge. The trial Judge, by order
dated 13.6.2005 rejected the claim of the petitioners for
discharge and directed to flame charges against the
»Q2uAcLiU’—
petitioners for an offence punishable under 306
I’/W 34 IPC.
3.D’unn’ g the course of ltd ht
Chandrashekar, who saw the h
when h_;!!l.d. r:_1:I.s:.I..In…-. m n..en’gave s.».me1.'”3e to ma
campiairniflt and vagtmitted 1: to the
hosllita-1. K.Kumar C§W_;4 of the Farm
house. son-in-law of the
” h,x_a.\.re mt_a_.e
0. are ugul.-J.’ 1 in
. teat;-n1¢_i-‘:.*2-sin
was marri- ed to the first
A’I:’héi;e was no COII1.patibiliI;y’- between
stid-“‘h?lfe and first petitioner stayed with
two weeks 11.1 house.
‘I”t5f*r€fi-‘t’fi.”:i’.:s’£ -‘-‘mate Iwuse was set up even they
make a living. for one week. The first
rctmned; to the pan-,nt’s house. The
….tIvitnesses have stated that Moha-I1 Kumar was
repeatedly going to the -.eu.w of mdmnmehe.-*e”a and
the first petitioner to join as his wife and .
make a with him which was being net’-used by the
first petitioner. The statements of all these witnesses
which are referred-to above were the
tissue o, ;_on_st %
reeofiieri would ofiiy’ ‘was no ‘
compatibility between the ,
because of the said fact The
statement of of Kumar would
i “use of ti”
3:
ii
E’?
.2.
is
E:
‘ 53
F3
‘1:
2%
E?
to him when he
had They claim that he
expl.-‘essedx am: he was not desirous of
-1′ the sts._..m….nt.. …nd. t..e
avemient” *1 =m= cssmpiaint ail go to estabiish
petitioner No.1 was-not willing to make a
Kumar he was persistently making
house of the petitioner No.1/accused and
~ s§.s’ki._;ug her it. join him. The cs-tspiaint reveais
a r*”ee ‘Ms sent ugn» ‘ an advocate caumg”‘
it “upon the first petitioner to join her husband, according
to the prosecution Mohan Kumar consumed poison on
24-3-2002, he died on 25-3-2002 till: (_3t_lm,DlBi.J1t 1..
53QfivLc2JL,L
filed on 29-3-2002. Immediately aiter the deatiifiriquest
proeeedings were held and during the course
the complainant was 31– e_m____mL.ed . as
feund the “-“inrniaint do i
not find a place in the state1;t1ent’et; ;
the inquest. it it I 1
4. The leaxnediomiseiwi petitioners relied
__ it Singh Sengar Vs. State of
i gzooagsg so 559;.
V i,i’er1.L.J 2104), and
t das vs. Kartar Singh (AIR 2007 so
iii”2o45)
-5-Iv-u-r
V. tam: s-ubniitted. t1.+I..s.t the “em ‘instigate’ (Emotes
“.irr=iten3ent or ‘urgiflg to ‘o some drastic or unarivisabie
it it “action or to stimulate or insight. Presence of mense rea J
is necessary concomitant of instigation. It is- common
knowledge that the words uttered in la or m e
1’ and were not expected to
individ= 1.131 in a given
spur of the moment cannot:-be taken to. be utte:?ede.with
mans rea. In a fit of anger and in
words used were to the effect “to gas V _
wemd no.-T sI.tt.r.’n…ct Section 306 are ‘
uttered during a. quarrel or a ‘1’£.1;Jef s,
argued- – – harassm’ = ent per se Sectlond ‘ 306
Bead with Section and discards
{V A.
in the matrimexfial w.it_%.I_evi:tv t.*=.i.-1″ m’-‘aw it
dee net uttt with Section 107
IPC). it a victim committing
suicide, it’: to. petulancc
discord’ difi’:=:ire:1ee:’i;:tdomesfic life quite eemm-rI_ L.
the; ‘i_e.._Vs.vr-..ic-.§;.|’1 t..e v-w..i.’.r-. wlnngeu *1 such
1 t
1
suicide, conscience of the Court |
V. she1uJ1dT’ not be satisfied for s. __r1d-L.ge- ..hs.t me
Ill’
~ e.h…r~g-eds sf awttirig ts”-‘ *x”1″e”ee of suicide
L ‘mshouid be fbund guilty.
.-..-… .__._’I
5. TIE 1ea:i’ned= euunsex for petitioners submitted
the on record would disclose the fact of
§{Q,._v\a.o:u__.
10
Mohan Kumar going to the house of
despite he being asked by them not to do
he continued his repealzed actions,
I.I.rhethe” he M”-**~* *=–“5: shazneper the
has been = e,
that the iii’-st petitioner is a living
with him, he .npaetHa.nd decided
to end his life. __’I’h_i:3 0.. -he
‘aeing a V’ He was not
He was -not
b»”I-ie-.vvwa.s’not dependent upon them.
_ Except attached to the first
nI=§t§’%.-ti’V- rner and th * “.’.’a£’. we: ..=.-1e’=..~.a.*.=nd,e there was ‘-*5”
h m visits to the house of
despite the -petitloners- objecting. for the-
sanae, particularly even after issuing at lcgalenotice
in the complaint. _.-I1 t_.1.1.ie’yr-.n_1…r.-1
I an: nv-1::
_.._..A._..___l_1 __.lI LI,
D CI.’ FYI KI L1 lb J’|””‘ . “”
:.guu.:–::uu uuuniawsl ti t flu DI U16
‘V “prosecution placed in the form of a charge sheet even
accepted at its face value without controversy, the same
would not make out suflieient. grotmds for framing of a
J’: JQ.u;cu2\J»’—-
11
Charge. It may only out a prima, facie for
issue of process which stage is. already
basis of which process was Ls-ue;L But. Vhaeei zi.?.i-as
,1._
remannhw a stage of findmg out are
sufficient grounds to flame
6.Per contra, the for the
respondent submits_.”:’*ttiai. a stage for
the acso.ssed;,j:V. m set d”-“‘1
for . should not be
since there was a
were summon before
the * of the ;;2e.rsor1..s for
taken through the contents in the
J statements of the witnesses. they all-
there was no compatibility between husband
2 bang} wife. The petitioner was .-..–1-‘-.–..i..g to as a
‘”1 A _:a.’I..
.i1vu’-“”- Winn }vi*i-“1 K-‘-“*7 “- her husband for -reasons best
V’ uiiknown to her or for the reasons as stated in the
complaint. If such refusal is taken serious “by Mohan
Kumar and he takes a drastic step of committing
};0.Lv\c4,Qu—-
sfiicide, the petitioners cannot be held mspem-fible for
the same. with to he going to the
accused persons immediately prior to.
poison,.it is stated. by the he ‘
about the sarne only heeause– ._ Mshan-‘ ‘: v
ixlformed him that he ’31. is
placed on record to Kumar
the house of the * he csnumtr”.-
psisuart Th,ss§h’_Vs.vfh-t-.i’5′?i11fij.s of the materials
of th’ at the stage of
of a. cursory reading of the
smtcznents the complaint wag… gr.» ts
CI’
.”~ the prfiseeution
estegbiish made out
‘V ” held a be flamed
for the offences punishable under
IPC for abatement of suicide as defined
_, under Section 107 IPC. The CoI.J_rt h…s 1.|’.’.4.=.*.l.-..’-. to
. “spreciete this asgt of the ..’sat'”*’*. ‘
fin
‘hm at this stage
[ ~ “‘it~*1f t..’«”<-e no suflicient grounds. made out to frame
a change, the very purpose of would not be of any
consequence as held by the Supt-'eme~ tin 197.7
13
SC 1489 Where under it is held for the of
determination whether there is for
proceeding against an accused the :_
-_m.-p;a=_r..t.ivo1§,r wider iI1_t1’i”f –.*f, in
it can determine question .
record if un-mbuttod, is suc1a”_donk%med ofwmch the
conviction can be posoiblc.
8. In tho of the
is no possibiiity
of the” to be held guilty of
the -‘may are charged. Hence the-
X» d.v"d npnnn \J£\¥# L\ of dated 13-6-2005
__S;;C£No-.362/2002 is set aside. The revision
isfiiaflowcd. The accused are discharged of the
., “om:-;1cés for which they are The ha… wads
‘;f”..-..”.”.ish.-=3.-3′. by the petiti’–‘nei’fi sum; sum ssoivod.
gvq/-% Page Nos. 1 to 5. 5d]-
Shh] – Page Nos.6 to 14. judge