-1-

NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2023
BETWEEN:

SMT. MANGALA GOWRI,

W/O. JAGNATH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 16/11,
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
SRIKANTESWARA NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 096.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH. B. MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA
BY BANNERUGATTA P. S.,
REPRESENTED BY S. P. P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU -560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY. R., HCGP)

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.PC PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED
31.01.2023 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT
ANEKAL IN S.C.NO.5050/2020, CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 OF IPC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT,

THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 -2-
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2023 passed

in S.C No. 5050/2020 by the III Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore sit at

Anekal, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence

under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code sentencing to

undergo with rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7

years and to pay fine amount of Rs.50,000/- in default to

undergo with simple imprisonment for a period of 06

months.

2. The factual matrix of this case is that, the

deceased Raju was elder son of the complainant and he

married Kavita in the year 2010 and they have got one

child namely Puneeth. The deceased and his wife are in

cordial relationship. The deceased had friendship with the

appellant/accused. The appellant/accused was torturing

him as she has given loan to the deceased and she was

threatening him. That on 21.04.2019 deceased Raju and

 -3-
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

his wife Kavita went to Mysuru for a function, after

function the Kavita with her child stayed at Mysuru

and the deceased Raju came back to the Bangalore. That

on 25.04.2019 the appellant/accused and her daughter

came to the house of the deceased Raju and on that day

deceased Raju committed suicide by hanging with a piece

of saree. The appellant/accused called the brother of the

deceased Raju namely Laxminarayana over phone and

informed that Raju committed suicide by hanging. The said

Laxminarayana informed to the Manjunath and Sagar and

they also came to the house of the deceased Raju.

The appellant/accused and her daughter Sapandana have

untied the body from the hanging and blood was oozing

from his mouth. Sagar shifted the Raju to

Astra Super Speciality Hospital, the appellant/accused and

her daughter accompanied them. Raju was treated in

the Hospital till he died on 10.05.2019 at about 3.50p.m.

In the complaint it is stated that Raju was

intelligent, he was got properties and he was not a

person to commit suicide. The appellant/accused caused

 -4-
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

torture to Raju and therefore, he committed suicide. On

the basis of the compliant the case came to be registered

in crime No.69/2019 in the Bannerghatta Police Station for

the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal

Code. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed

and case committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions

Court filed charge against the appellant/accused for the

offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The

prosecution in order to prove the charge examined 11

witnesses as PW-1 to PW-11 and got marked documents

as EX.P1 to EX.P11. The statement of the

appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments on both sides the

Trial Court formulated points for consideration and

convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The said judgment

of conviction and order of sentence has been challenged

by the appellant/accused in this appeal.

 -5-
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that

the evidence on record is not sufficient to attract

ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 of

the Indian Penal Code and ingredients of Section 306 of

the Indian Penal Code. There are material contradictions in

the evidence of the prosecution with regard to amount

barrowed by the deceased from the appellant/accused. He

argued that mere demand of repayment of the money

borrowed will not amount to abetment to commit suicide.

The witnesses examined by the prosecution have not

stated any harassment by the appellant/accused to the

deceased. The ligature material used by the deceased

Raju to hang him has not been seized, since it is stated

that it was burnt. The deceased was in Hospital for nearly

15 days and during that time the relatives of the deceased

have not filed any complaint of any harassment by the

 -6-
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

appellant/accused to the deceased Raju and there is delay

in filing the complaint. PW-4 who stated the

appellant/accused brought rowdies to the house of the

deceased and made galata has not been stated the day

and date of the same. PW-5, 6 and 8 who are Panchas to

the inquest Mahazar, who have been given statements

before the P.S.I who conducted the inquest and they have

not supported the case of the prosecution. The pancha to

Spot Mahazar-Ex.P4 namely PW-7 has also not supported

to the case of the prosecution. There is no any allegation

against the appellant/accused having any illicit relationship

with the deceased Raju. Witnesses are examined by the

prosecution have stated that this deceased having good

relationship with the appellant/accused.

5. He further argued that mere appellant/accused

telling to the deceased Raju to go and die does not

amounts to abetments, since, there is no mens rea or

intention on the part of the accused to drive the deceased

Raju to commit suicide. There is no mens rea on the part

 -7-
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

of the appellant/accused to drive the deceased to commit

suicide. The appellant/accused only has asked for the

deceased to repay the amount barrowed. The deceased

was doing lorry business by borrowing money from the

different persons and his lorry business was under loss

and therefore, he might have committed suicide. There is

no instigation by this appellant/accused to deceased to

commit the suicide. The persuasion for repayment of

borrowed money does not amount to abet to commit

suicide. The prosecution has failed to establish the

ingredients of abetment and therefore, there is no

necessity for this appellant/accused to explain the

circumstances under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. On

the above contention, the learned counsel for the

appellant has relied upon the following decisions:

1) Sanju v. State of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371

2) Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State(Government of NCT of

Delhi) (2009)16 SCC 605

3) Ude Singh and Others v. State of Haryana (2019) 17

SCC 301
 -8-
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

4) State of WB v. Indrajit Kandu and Others (2019)10 SCC

188

5) Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu v. State of WB (2010)1 SCC

707

6) Shabbir Hussain v. State of MP and Others (2021) SCC

Online SC 743

7) M. Mohan v. State (2011) 3 SCC 626

8) Jorubhai Amrubhai Varu v. State of Gujarat (2020) SCC

Online Guj 1189

9) Nagendra Shah v. State of Bihar (2021)10 SCC 725

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader

argued that the trial Court on proper appreciation of

evidence on the record, Court has rightly convicted the

appellant/accused. He has supported the reasons

assigned by the trial Court. He has further argued that

the evidence of PW-1 to 4 is sufficient to convict the

appellant/accused for the offence levelled against him.

The appellant/accused was present in the house of the

deceased on the date of incident and there is no

explanation by the appellant/accused regarding the same.

 -9-
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

The appellant/accused continuously demanded the

deceased to repay the money which drew the deceased to

commit the suicide. On these grounds he sought for

dismissal of the appeal.

7. On the grounds made out and considering the

arguments advanced, the following point arises for my

consideration:

1) Whether the Trial Court erred in

convicting the appellant/accused for

the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C?

8. My answer to the above point is in affirmative

for the following

REASONS

9. The deceased Raju hanged himself with the

piece of a saree in his house on 25.04.2019 and he was

taken to the Hospital and treated for 15 days and he died

on 10.05.2019. The doctor who conducted the post

mortem examination of the deceased Raju has opined

that cause of death is due to "Cerebral Anoxia Consequent

 - 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

upon to attempted hanging". The said aspect itself

establish that the death of the deceased is suicide as per

EX.P7 Post Mortem Report.

10. The deceased Raju was taken to Hospital on

25.04.2019 and he died on 10.05.2019. The complaint as

per EX.P10 came to be filed on 10.05.2019. The father of

the deceased Raju has filed the said complaint. The father

of the deceased has died and therefore, prosecution has

not examined him. PW-1 is the elder brother of the

deceased, PW-2 is the wife of the deceased, PW-3 is the

younger brother of the deceased and PW-4 is the cousin

brother of the deceased. The statements of PW-5 as per

EX.P1, PW-6 as per Ex.P3 and PW-8 as per Ex.P6 recorded

by the investigation officer at the time of the inquest. PW-

5, 6 and 8 did not supported the case of the prosecution

with regard to the harassment by the appellant/accused to

the deceased Raju insisting him to repay the amount

borrowed and giving him life threat.

 - 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

11. PW-1 is the elder brother of the deceased Raju

and he has deposed that on 25.04.2019 the

appellant/accused was found in the galata between her

and deceased Raju and he committed suicide. He went to

the house and shifted Raju to the Hospital. He has

deposed that the appellant/accused was harassing the

deceased Raju regarding repayment of the money

borrowed by her.

12. PW-2 is the wife of the deceased and she has

deposed that her husband Raju introduced the

appellant/accused as his friend. She used to come to her

house in her absence. She has given Rs.10,00,000/-

(rupees Ten Lakhs) loan to the deceased Raju. The

deceased Raju told her that they both have to die as the

appellant/accused is harassing him and she used to pacify

him. She has deposed that the appellant/accused told her

husband to repay the money or to leave his wife. In the

cross examination she has denied that in her absence the

appellant/accused used to come to her house.

 - 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

13. PW-3 is the younger brother of the deceased

and he has deposed that the deceased was acquainted

with the appellant/accused. The deceased use to go to the

house of the appellant/accused and the appellant/accused

use to come to the house of the deceased Raju. On

25.04.2019 on receiving message regarding Raju

committed suicide by hanging, he went and saw, at that

time the appellant/accused was in his house and blood

was oozing from the mouth of the deceased Raju and he

has taken the deceased Raju to the Hospital. He has

stated that he came to know that the appellant/accused

used to harass deceased Raju asking him to repay the

money borrowed from her.

14. PW-4 is the cousin brother of the deceased Raju

and he deposed that on receiving the phone call on

25.04.2019 and he went to the house of the deceased at

that time the appellant/accused and her daughter were

there and he has taken the deceased Raju to the Hospital.

He has further deposed that the appellant/accused had

 - 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

given Rs.20,00,000/-loan and she was harassing the

deceased and one day before she brought some rowdies

and made galata and same was informed to him by

deceased Raju.

15. On the basis of the above evidence, what can to

be gathered is that the deceased Raju had borrowed

money from the appellant/accused and the

appellant/accused demanded the repayment of the money

borrowed by the deceased and used to harass him.

Whether the said aspect of insisting the deceased to repay

the loan borrowed and asking him to die amounts to

abetment to commit suicide or not.

16. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of the

Indian Penal Code which reads as under:

"107. Abetment of a thing.- A person is

said abet the doing of a thing who

First - Instigates any person to do that

thing; or

Secondly - Engages with one or more other

person or persons in any conspiracy for the
 - 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

doing of that thing, if an act or illegal

omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or

Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or

illegal omission, the doing of that thing."

As per the aforesaid definition there should be

instigation to do that thing and then it amounts to

abetment. A person is said to have instigate another to an

act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to act by

means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the

form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or

encouragement.

17. The learned counsel for the appellant has

placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs Sate

of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371 wherein it is held as under:

"..............Even if we accept the

prosecution story that the appellant did tell
the deceased "to go and die", that itself
 - 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

does not constitute the ingredient of

"instigation". The word "instigate" denotes
incitement or urging to do some drastic or
inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite.
Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the
necessary concomitant of instigation. It is
common knowledge that the words uttered
in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment
cannot be taken to be uttered with mens
rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion………."

18. The learned counsel for the appellant has

placed reliance of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs Sate (Government of NCT

of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 wherein it is observed as

under:

"17. Thus to constitute "instigation", a

person who instigates another has to
provoke, incite, urge or encourage the
doing of an act by the other by "goading" or
"urging forward". The dictionary meaning of
the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates
someone into action; provoke to action or
reaction" (see Concise Oxford English
Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying
 - 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

somebody until he reacts" (see Oxford

Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).

18. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or

try hard to persuade somebody to do
something or to make a person to move
more quickly and or in a particular
direction, especially by pushing or forcing
such person. Therefore, a person who
instigates another has to "goad" or "urge
forward" the latter with intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the doing of
an act by the latter.

19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar,

where the accused by his acts or by a
continued course of conduct creates such
circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit
suicide, and "instigation" may be inferred.
In other words, in order to prove that the
accused abetted commission of suicide by a
person, it has to be established that:

(i) the accused kept on irritating or

annoying the deceased by words,
deeds or wilful omission or conduct
which may even be a wilful silence
until the deceased reacted or
pushed or forced the deceased by
 - 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

his deeds, words or wilful omission

or conduct to make the deceased
move forward more quickly in a
forward direction; and

(ii) that the accused had the intention

to provoke, urge or encourage the
deceased to commit suicide while
acting in the manner noted above.
Undoubtedly, presence of mens
rea is the necessary concomitant
of instigation.

20. In the background of this legal

position, we may advert to the case at
hand. The question as to what is the cause
of a suicide has no easy answers because
suicidal ideation and behaviours in human
beings are complex and multifaceted.
Different individuals in the same situation
react and behave differently because of the
personal meaning they add to each event,
thus accounting for individual vulnerability
to suicide. Each individual's suicidability
pattern depends on is inner subjective
experience of mental pain, fear and loss of
self-respect. Each of these factors are
crucial and exacerbating contributor to an
individual's vulnerability to end his own life,
 - 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

which may either be an attempt for self-

protection or an escapism from intolerable
self."

19. The appellant/accused insisted the deceased

Raju to repay the money borrowed by him. There was no

intention on the part of the appellant/accused to drive the

deceased to commit suicide. The appellant/accused was

interested in getting back the money lent to the deceased.

In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of

the deceased by another person would not suffice unless

there be such an action on the part of the accused which

compels the person to commit suicide; and such an

offending action ought to be proximate to the time of

occurrence. Whether a person as abetted in the

commission of suicide by another or not, only be gathered

from the facts and circumstances of each case.

20. How a human mind reacts has been observed

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ude Singh and

 - 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

Other Vs State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301

wherein it is observed as under:

"16.2. We may also observe that human

mind could be affected and could react in
myriad ways; and impact of one's action on
the mind of another carries several
imponderables. Similar actions are dealt
with differently by different persons; and so
far a particular person's reaction to any
other human's action is concerned, there is
no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate
or assess the same. Even in regard to the
factors related with the question of
harassment of a girl, many factors are to be
considered like age, personality,
upbringing, rural or urban set-ups,
education, etc. Even the response to the ill
action of eve teasing and its impact on a
young girl could also vary for a variety of
factors, including those of background, self-
confidence and upbringing. Hence, each
case is required to be dealt with on its own
facts and circumstance"

21. The person may attempt to commit suicide due

to various reasons such as depression, financial difficulties,

 - 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acture

or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to

abetment. The same has been observed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Mangat Ram Vs State of

Haryana reported in AIR 2014 SC 178.

22. PW-1 the brother of the deceased Raju in his

cross examination has stated that the deceased had

purchased the lorry by taking loan and he has sustained

loss in his lorry business. The very said admission given by

PW-1 itself show that the deceased has barrowed money

for purchase of lorry and he has sustained loss in the said

lorry business. That may be one or the reason for the

deceased to commit suicide.

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the

M.Mohan Vs State (2011) 3 SCC 626 wherein it is

observed as under:

"44. Abetment involves a mental process

of instigating a person or intentionally
 - 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

aiding a person in doing a thing. Without a

positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained.

45. The intention of the legislature and the

ratio of the cases decided by this Court are
clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear
mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which
led the deceased to commit suicide seeing
no option and this act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he/she committed suicide."

24. The appellant/accused has lent money to the

deceased Raju. She was interested in getting back the

said money. She had no intention of taking the life of the

deceased Raju. Therefore, there is no clear mens rea on

the part of the appellant/accused to abet the deceased to

commit suicide. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said

decision also observed that "Human sensitivity of each

individual differs from person to person. Each individual

 - 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Different

people behave differently in the same situation"

25. In the similar situation that the deceased

committed suicide as the accused insisted the deceased to

repay the loan amount, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of M.Arjuna Vs State reported in AIR 2019 SC 43 has

observed reads as under:

"8. The essential ingredients of the offence

under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the
abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused
to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to
commit suicide. The act of the accused,
however, insulting the deceased by using
abusive language will not, by itself,
constitute the abetment of suicide. There
should be evidence capable of suggesting
that the accused intended by such act to
instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are
satisfied, accused cannot be convicted
under section 306 I.P.C."
 - 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

26. In the said case the deceased had left a suicide

note stating that he is unable to repay the loan and taking

the extreme steps.

27. Having advanced money to the deceased the

appellant/accused have uttered some abuse words and

threatened him to take his life; but that by itself is not

sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 of

I.P.C. From the evidence brought on record and in facts

and circumstances of the case, the ingredients of 306 of

I.P.C is not established. The trial Court placed much

reliance on the evidence wherein accused was present in

the house of the deceased Raju along with her daughter

and deceased committed suicide. There is no evidence on

record to show that at what time the appellant/accused

has came to the house of the deceased. The trial Court

has held that what happened on that day in the house of

the deceased was within the knowledge of the

appellant/accused and burden of proving of that fact is

upon the appellant/accused placing reliance on provision

 - 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

contained under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

Considering said provision under Section 106 of the

Evidence Act the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Nagendra Sah Vs State of Bihar (2021) 10 SCC 725

wherein it is observed as under:

"22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act

will apply to those cases where the
prosecution has succeeded in establishing
the facts from which a reasonable
inference can be drawn regarding the
existence of certain other facts which are
within the special knowledge of the
accused. When the accused fails to offer
proper explanation about the existence of
said other facts, the court can always
draw an appropriate inference.

23. When a case is resting on

circumstantial evidence, if the accused
fails to offer a reasonable explanation in
discharge of burden placed on him by
virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act,
such a failure may provide an additional
link to the chain of circumstances. In a
case governed by circumstantial evidence,
if the chain of circumstances which is
 - 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

required to be established by the

prosecution is not established, the failure
of the accused to discharge the burden
under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is
not relevant at all. When the chain is not
complete, falsity of the defence is no
ground to convict the accused."

28. The circumstances established by the

prosecution do not lead to only possible inference

regarding the guilt of the appellant/accused. Therefore,

the Trial Court was not right in placing burden on the

appellant/accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act,

as the prosecution has not established its burden as

required under Section 101 of the Evidence Act.

29. The Gujarat High Court in the similar set of

facts has quashed the proceedings for the offence under

Section 306, 384, 385, 387 of Indian Penal Code and

Section 40 of the Gujurath Money Lenders Act, in the case

of the Jorubhai Amrubhai Varu Vs State of Gujarat

2020 SCC Online Guj 1189 wherein it is observed as

under:
 - 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

"11. Admittedly, the allegation in FIR is of

deceased having borrowed money from the
present applicant. The deceased failed to
repay the amount with interest. The
applicant was constantly demanding the
money and alleged to have threatened the
deceased. Such act of demanding the
repayment of money would not bring case
within the meaning of section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code. There would not be any
mens rea of the applicant as he would not
benefited from the act of suicide of the
deceased and thus, prima facie the
allegation in the FIR, taken at its face value
do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused."

30. On the consideration of the evidence on record,

there is no evidence to show that the appellant/accused

had intention to drive out the deceased Raju to commit

suicide. Looking from any angle the act of the

appellant/accused harassing the deceased for repayment

of money borrowed and threatening him to take his life

does not amounts to abetment. Therefore learned

 - 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

Sessions Judge has committed an error in holding that the

act of the appellant/accused amounts to abetment to the

deceased Raju to commit suicide. In the result the

following:

ORDER

i) Appeal is Allowed.

ii) The judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed in S.C No.5050/2020

dated 31.03.2023 by the III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore

Rural District, Bangalore sitting at Anekal

convicting for the offence punishable

under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code

is set aside.

iii) Consequently, the appellant/accused

stands acquitted for the offence under

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Fine if any, paid by the appellant/accused

is ordered to be refunded to her.

 - 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC:32254
CRL.A No. 276 of 2023

iv) In view of the disposal of appeal pending

IA's does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-
JUDGE

DSP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
CT: AVB