Abused Partner With Criminal Intention, Said That Even If She Committed Suicide He Will Face Court: Karnataka HC Declines Relief To Man Booked U/S 306 IPC
Headnote:
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860: Section 306—Presumption To Prosecute For Abettment of Suicide—-Petitioner sought quashing of offence claiming mere recovery of death note no ground to show he abetted the death—-Held—-Once a statement were given in respect of the love affairs, death note and CDR prior to the suicide were all a presumption available to the prosecution and the accused is required to face the trial and rebut the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the Court of law—(Para 14). Petition dismissed.
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused who sought to quash the prosecution initiated against him after a woman with whom he was in a relationship, committed suicide by hanging herself after he refused to marry her.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by Kumar C who is charged under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It said “Once a statement were given in respect of the love affairs, death note and CDR prior to the suicide were all a presumption available to the prosecution and the accused is required to face the trial and rebut the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the Court of law. Therefore, the accused is required to take the trial.”
As per the complaint filed by the father of the deceased, it was said that she had a love affair with the accused/petitioner, for five years. On 29.08.2022, the petitioner telephoned his wife and told her that the deceased was not picking up the phone. Once his wife peeped through the window, she found that their daughter had committed suicide by hanging. She broke open the door and saw that she was already dead and a death note stating that the petitioner/accused was responsible for her suicide was also recovered.
The petitioner seeking quashing of offence claimed that merely because a death note is left, that itself was not a ground to show that he had abetted the deceased to commit suicide and she was suffering from depression.
The complainant opposed the plea saying that there was continuous harassment made by the petitioner on the deceased. He had refused to marry her and there was a telephone conversation and messages between the petitioner and deceased indicating the same.
The prosecution also opposed the plea saying that the accused suspected her character and refused to marry her and therefore forced her to commit suicide. It was stated that the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is already filed. If at all any defence was available, then the accused shall take the same before the trial Court.
Findings:
The bench noted that the petitioner was in a relationship with the deceased and had agreed to marry her but later refused on the grounds of suspecting her character stating that she was having an affair with other persons.
It said, “The death note itself reveals that she has stated he is suspecting her character, she has categorically stated in the death note that he has suspected her character and also told that she cannot do anything to him and even if she dies, he can face the Court case and he will not worry as she is not having good character.”
Following this it observed, “On reading of the entire death note, which clearly reveals that the petitioner abused her with criminal intention and even he has dare enough to say that even if she commit suicide, he will face the Court case and she cannot do anything against him, which clearly reveals that there was conversation between the deceased and the accused, even prior to the suicide.”
Noting that the petitioner had called the mother of the deceased saying she was not answering her calls. The court held “Clearly reveals that prior to committing 9 suicide there was a conversation between the deceased and the accused. The accused was having knowledge about the deceased going to commit suicide.”
Accordingly, it said the petition was devoid of merits and dismissed it.
Appearance: Advocate Lethif B for Petitioner.
HCGP Anitha Girish FOR R1.
Advocate Mahesh C M for R2.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 367
Case Title: Kumara C AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13157 OF 2023