KUMAR @ SHIVA KUMAR [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA [RESPONDENT(S)]
(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1427 OF 2011)
(2JB, BELA M. TRIVEDI and UJJAL BHUYAN JJ.., delivered by UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)
Facts: This appeal by special leave takes exception to the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), wherein appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Karnataka, being Criminal Appeal No. 1139/2004 (SJ-A) was dismissed vide the judgment and order dated 17.09.2010 by upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Issue: Whether the appellant is guilty of offence under Section 306 IPC?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellants:
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the trial court and the High Court had failed to appreciate the evidence on record in the proper perspective. Conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC is not supported by the evidence on record. Therefore, such conviction and the resultant sentence cannot be sustained. There are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. According to learned counsel for the appellant, even if the prosecution case is accepted, no case for abetment to commit suicide by the deceased could be made out against the appellant. There is no evidence pointing out any act of instigation, conspiracy or aiding on the part of the appellant which had compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the evidence on record unmistakably point to the guilt of the appellant. Prosecution could prove that it was the appellant who had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The charge against the appellant was proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the trial court was fully justified in convicting the appellant under Section 306 IPC and imposing the sentence as above. The High Court rightly affirmed the conviction of the appellant imposed by the trial court. There is no rule of evidence that conviction cannot be based on the testimony of the evidence of the family members of the deceased. A holistic reading of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses more particularly that of PW Nos. 1, 2 and 4 would clearly establish the prosecution case which was further strengthened by the evidence of the doctor i.e. PW-13. He, therefore, submits that there is no merit in the appeal which is liable to be dismissed.
Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “Court is of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge of abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC against the appellant. The settled legal position, the evidence on record and the glaring omissions of the prosecution, leaves no room for doubt. We are therefore of the unhesitant view that the conviction of the appellant is wholly unsustainable.”
