JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the State, challenging the judgment dated 08.10.2004 passed by the Fast Track Court-Il, Bangalore City in S.C.No. 364/1999. acquitting the accused-respondents of the offences under Section 120-B, 306 and 201 IPC. It is case of the prosecution that the accused Nos. I to 3 were trustees of the Visbveshwaraiah Trust and the said trust was running a college called as Rajeev Gandhi Dental College. Accused No. 1 was the chairman of the trust. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are sons of accused No. 1 and also trustees of the trust and Accused No.4 was the manager of the college. It is case of the prosecution that the deceased Aiya Somaraj was admitted to the first year B.D.S. course in the said college on 9.12.1997 and the deceased Arya Somaraj and her father failed to meet demands of Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the payment of donation and also annual tuition fees in time; agreed to do an illegal act of abetting Aiya Somaraj to committee suicide with an intention to allot that seat to some one else for more donation, in the event of her death and also to compel her to pay the donation as intended by them, thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence Under Section 120-B IPC. It is further alleged that on 31.12.1998 when the deceased Arya Somaraj was attending her college in Rajeev Gandhi Dental College, the accused persons secured her presence to their office at about 10.15 a.m and abused her indiscriminately for having not. paid the sum of Rs. 2.11 lakhs being the donation amount and tuition fees for one year. Since she bad failed in the Is' year BDS Course, She was also asked to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- as additional fees as against 1/4'" fee of Rs. 89,000/- said to have been fixed by the University and told her that if she did not pay that amount immediately to go and die by setting fire to her. As a consequence of said abusive words of the accused, the deceased Arya Soma raj went to her room in the ladies hostel and committed suicide by self immolation, thereby it is alleged that the accused had committed an offence of abatement to commit suicide by her, and thereby it is alleged that the accused had committed an offence under Section 306 of IPC.
2. It is further alleged by the prosecution that Accused Nos.1 to 4 on 31.12.1997 at about 11.00 or 11.30 a.m. after coming to know that the deceased has committed suicide in pursuance of their abatement and knowing that an offence punishable under Sections 306 IPC has been committed by them started propagating that Arya Somaraj has committed suicide by self immolation, though she had committed suicide in pursuance of the abetement by Accused Nos. 3 to 4, in order to screening themselves of the offence committed by them they had given false information to the police and public, thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence under Sections. 201 IPC.
3. The prosecution in order to prove the case, has got examined 38 witnesses and has got marked Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P.60 and produced MOs. 1 to 4. The defence of the accused is one of total denial. However, the learned Sessions Judge after hearing prosecution and the defence, held, that, the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has acquitted the accused of all the offences charged against them. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal the State has filed this appeal.
4. Heard Sri P.M. Nawaz, the learned Addl. SPP for the State and Sri S.G. Bhaghavan, Hie learned Counsel appearing for the accused.
5. The learned Addl. SPP submits that the evidence of PW.l. 9, 24 and 26 clearly establishes that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 being incharge of the running of Rajeev Gandhi Dental College Hcbbal. have infact admitted the deceased Arya Somaraj to the first year BDS course in. the year 1997 and in the year 1998 when the financial year came to a close the accused had forced the deceased and her father to pay additional donation and also advance fees for the next, year, though due to the jaundice suffered by her the deceased had not passed in the 1st year examination. He further submits that the evidence of PW.24 mother of the deceased and PW.26 brother of PW.24 clearly establishes that due to the harassment given by the Aeeused Nos. 1 to 4 and abusive words hurled at her, on 31 /12/ 1998 at about. 10.15 to 1.1.00 a.m., the deceased had gone to her room and committed suicide. He therefore submits that the accused are directly responsible for the death of the deceased caused by suicide, as a result of insult and abuses for nonpayment of the additional amount demanded by them and also the excessive donations which was not prescribed at the time of admission. Hence lie submits that the accused arc liable to be convicted by allowing this appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that at the out set there is no convincing evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence under Sections 120-B. There is absolutely no material to show that the accused have committed the act of criminal conspiracy in order to cause the commission of suicide by the deceased. Further he submits that no witnesses speak about the prior meeting of the accused for the purpose of commission of any offence. Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 120-B IPC. He further submits that the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC namely conspiracy to commit: an offence, instigate to commit an offence or assistance to commit an offence of suicide by any person has not been proved by the prosecution, even though the prosecution has examined as many as 38 witnesses and therefore he submits that the accused cannot be convicted for the offence Under Section 306 IPC. He further submits that there is no material to show that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 either together or separately have given false information to the police regarding the death of the deceased and that thus, they have concealed themselves from the legal punishments awardable to them for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Hence he submits that the order of acquittal docs not suffer from any illegality and irregularity. He also submits that to convert an order of acquittal into one of conviction the appellate Court has to find that the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is perverse apart from other grounds. He submits that there is no such perversity in the judgment of the acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Therefore he submits that the appeal may be dismissed.
7. On perusal of the lower Court records, it is observed that tire proceedings in this case commenced with filing of petition by one Sri K. Davananda Shetty, who is cited as CW.77 in the chargesheet addressed to the P.S.I., HebbaL In the said complaint it is stated as follows:
"Sub: Complaint regarding that student by name Arya Sornaraj met fire accident while she was in the hostel at 11.30 a.m."
The contents of the said letter are as follows :
"With reference to the above. I submit (hat a student by name Arya Somarajan studying in I BDS course has met a fire accident while she was attempting to boil milk, the details of the accident, is not known. Now she is taken to Ramaiah hospital for the immediate treatment. Sd/-. 31.12.98 (K. Dayananda)
8. The above petition has been endorsed by the P.I., stating that the same was received by him, on 31.12.1998 at 14.05 hours and the same is registered as Crl. Misc. No.397/1998. The prosecution has produced the intimation from the M.S. Ramaiah Medical Teaching Hospital, addressed to the P.S.I. Sanjay Nagar P.S. stating that the patient expired on 31.12.1998 at about 4.45 p.m. and kindly to do the needful. The said intimation contains the information stating that Arya Somaraj aged 19 years is admitted in the S.S. Ward, with an history of burns etc., on 31.12.1998 at: about 12 noon brought by her classmates of Rajeevn Gandhi Dental Hostel and address given as Rajeev Gandhi Dental College, Chola Nagar, Hebbal. On receipt of this intimation by the police at about 10.45 a.m. on 1.1.1999 the same has been transferred to the Hebbal P.S. on the point of jurisdiction. The Hebbal P.S. received the same at 1215 hours on 1.1.1999 and registered it as UDR No. 1/1999 under Section I 74 of Cr.P.C. Il is seen in the prosecution case that the father of the deceased was working in Saudi Arabia during the relevant period and he arrived at Bangalore on 07.01.1999 and he gave a detailed complaint regarding the incident as per Ex.P.41. The police on receipt of the said complaint on 07 01.1999 at 15 hours registered the same as crime No.7/ 1999 for the offence under Sections 302. 201 K/'w. Section 34 IPC and commenced investigation. It is seen that having not satisfied with the post mortem examination conducted at the instance of the police at Victoria Hospital, PW. 1 who is father of the deceased has taken body to his native place and subjected the dead bod}' for the second post mortem examination. Thereafter on completion of investigation chargeshect came to be filed against the accused.
9. The relevant evidence in this case is that of the father of deceased who is PW. 1, mother of the dec-cased PW.24. PW.26. the brother of PW.24 and PW.9 who speaks about the conspiracy. Evidence of college mates of (he deceased, PW.12. PW. 15 and PW.27 is alse relevant to some extent, though all three of them have not supported the case of the prosecution in foil.
10. PW.l is the father of the deceased and the complainant. He has stated that he is working in Saudi-Arabia as an. Engineer and deceased Arya was his first daughter. She was studying in PUC II in the year 1997, thereafter, sought admission to the college run by the accused Nos.1 to 3. He has stated that after confirming about the availability of the seat in the college, he had given money to one Radha Krishna a distant relative but had in turn contacted the personal secretary of then Central Minister C.M.Ibrahim for sfeeuring the seat. Accordingly, he was informed that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is required to register the admission in Rajiv Gandhi Dental College, Bangalore. He had paid the said amount to his wife so as to give it to the said Radha Krishna who in turn contacted one Mohana a relative of one of the stall of the minister's office. Thereafter, they had been to Bangalore in the month of November and later contacted accused no.], who was the Managing Trustee of Vishweshwaraiah Trust, which ran the college. Accused No.4 is the Superintendent of the college. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are sons of accused No. J and they were also assisting their father in the running of the college. It is stated by him that when the year ended after getting admission, his daughter could not appear for the examination due to jaundice and therefore, she was declared failed in the first B.D.S. examinations. When she approached the college for continuation of her studies, it was informed to her that they have to pay an additional donation and also to pay a sum of Rs.89,000/- being advance fees for the next year. She was also informed that for having failed in the subjects she has to pay the fees in advance for appearing for the examination again. It is stated by PW. 1 that since he could not make arrangements to pay the entire sum of money as demanded by the college in excess of what was agreed upon earlier, his daughter has been summoned to the office on 30.12.1998 and was abused by the management and was insulted. It is stated by PW. 1 that the accused have fold her to go and die if she cannot pay the fees and accordingly, his daughter came to the hostel room and committed suicide. It is further stated in the evidence that the accused have informed die concerned authorities that his daughter met with an accidental lire while boiling milk in the kitchen. However, he came to know that his daughter had committed suicide and he has also come to know that it is because of the abetment of accused Nos.1 to 4 that she has committed suicide, otherwise there was no reason for his daughter to commit, suicide. He had given a statement to Inspector Munivenkatappa after coming to India on 07.01.1999 as per Ex.P. 1. It is suggested to PW. 1 in the cross-examination that, the accused has never instigated nor assisted the deceased in the commission of suicide and that they are not responsible for the unfortunate incident. PW.2 is the doctor who has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the ucceased at the Victoria Hospital. He has opined that the death is due to burns but he cannot say whether the same is homicidal, accidental or suicidal. PW.3 Muniraju, PW.6 Dr.Girish, PW.l 2 Shalini Joseph. PW. 13 Hari Kiran, PW.14 Dr.Mahesh Chandra. PW.l 9 Dr. Shiva Suthan, PW.27 Sapna Thomas have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PWs.4 and 5, 7 and 8, 11, 16 to 18. 20 to 22 is of formal nature. PW.9 C.N.Narayana Reddy has stated that he is the owner of the land in survey Nos.61/3, 61/5 and 61/2 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas in Cholanayakanahalli village and same was purchased by the accused to build a college. The accused were due to him in a sum of Rs.3,00.000/-and in connection with the same, he had filed the complaint. He has stated in his evidence that on 31.12.1998 in the evening when he had gone to the Rajiv Gandhi Dental College, accused Nbs. 1 to 4 were standing near the ladies hostel and stating that one lady student has not paid the donation of Rs.3,00.000/- to the Trust, and she should be finished by burning her. In the cross-examination, it is elicited from him that the sale deed was registered by him as per the decree passed against him by the City Civil Court in O.S.No.7521/1995. It is further elicited that his son C.N.Raghu. and daughter Padmalatha had filed a suit in O.S.No. 1963/1999 for partition of the properties mentioned by him. It is suggested to him that he has not witnessed accused Nos. 1 to 4 standing near the Rajiv Gandhi Dental College in the evening and were not discussing to finish one lady dental student. PW.24 is the wife of PW. 1. She has stated in same terms as that of PW. 1 regarding payment of fees and admission of the deceased in the college and also her committing suicide. In her evidence she has stated that her daughter was informing her over telephone that the accused are harassing her regarding nonpayment of fees and donation in time. PW.25 Lakshmamma is the attender of the college who has stated that the deceased was staving in room No.l of Rajiv Gandhi Dental College Ladies Hostel and that he has seen her at about 9.15 a.m.. on the date of incident. PW.2G Goplriathan is the brother of PW.24. He has stated regarding the securing of seat by the deceased in Rajiv Gandhi Dental College. Hebbal, Bangalore. He has also stated regarding payment of money by securing the scat through the personal secretaiy of then Central Minister C.M.Ibrahim. He has also stated that he has accompanied PWs. 1 and 24 at the time of death of the deceased. PW.27 Sapna Thomas is the room-mate of the debeksed Arya Somaraj and has stated that Arya Somaraj has committed suicide in the room of the college hostel. However, she has pleaded ignorance regarding the demand alleged to have been made to the deceased for payment of Rs.80.000/- for each failed subject to appear for the examination. PW. 15 Sheela Varghese in her statement has stated that she came to know that Arya Somaraj committed suicide in the hostel due to the payment of additional fees and tuition lees as demanded by the management and that she has given the statement, to the police to ibis effect. PWL28 H.R.Dharmendra was P I. of Hebbal Police Station during the relevant period. lie has stated that on 31.12.1998 at. 2.05 p.m.. Dayananda Shetty, Office Supervisor of Rajiv Gandhi Dental College appeared before him in the police station and produced a written report which was written in English. On the basis of the said report lie has registered a case in Crl.Misc.Case No.627/1998 and went to M.S.Ramaiah College Medical Hospital and saw that the deceased was being admitted for the treatment for burns in the burns ward of the hospital. Thereafter, he has conducted the investigation into the matter. PW.29 K.Govindaiah has stated that he was PSI in the Hebbal Police Station and on 01.01.1999, he has received the death memo of Arya Somaraj and registered a UDR No. 1/1999 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The said UDR is marked as Ex.P.39. PW.30 Prithivtraje Urs was the ASI. He has assisted in the investigation of the ease. PW.31 Dr.Malli Manjiinaf.h has stated that deceased was brought to. M.S.Ramaiah Hospital at 12.30 noon on 31.12.1993 for treatment of burns. PW.35 is the doctor The was the Deputy Director of Medical Education of Government of Karnataka. He has stated that the deceased was studying in Rajiv Gandhi Dental College Hospital in first year DOS. He has stated that he was directed to conduct the enquiry by the Government regarding the death of the student Arya Somaraj. Accordingly, he has submitted the report to the Government. PW.36 was the PI in CCB Branch, Bangalore. He was directed to take up the investigation in UDR No. 1/1999. Accordingly, he has conducted the investigation and visited the spot thereafter, he has recorded the statement of witnesses. On 07.01.1999 he has arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2 and produced them before theCourt. He has further stated that he has examined the college student and also other witnesses. He has recorded the statement of PW. 1 and after conclusion of the investigation he has handed over the file to the successor in office. PW.37 is the Director of Medical Education who has enquired regarding the Rajiv Gandhi Dental College in the capacity of the Director of Medical Education. Government of Karnafaka.
11. It is from the above evidence of the witnesses that the learned Sessions Judge has held that the prosecution has not been successful in proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
12. I have given my careful thought, to the entire material on record and the evidence produced by the prosecution. So far as the offence under 120 B IPC is concerned, the material produced by the prosecution is the evidence of PW.9 C.N.Narayana Reddy. It is seen that he is the vendor of the land on which the building of Rajiv Gandhi Dental College has been constructed. He has stated that accused Nos.l to 3 have not paid the balance consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- and that he had executed the sale deed in consequence of a decree passed against him by the Court. He has further stated that his son and daughter have filed a suit against the College for partition of the land, which was sold to the College by him. Therefore, though in his evidence he has stated that he has seen accused Nos. 1 to 4 discussing about the setting fire to a girl who has not paid the donation, nothing prevented PW.9 to give complaint to me police. PW.9 is the retired Police Officer of Lokayuktha and if at all he had heard accused Nos.1 to 4 talking about the burning a girl nothing prevented him to inform the same to the police immediately. Further from his cross-examination, it is clear that he had bitter enemity against accused Nos.l to 4. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 would not have discussed in the presence of PW.9, who was in enemical terms with them and therefore, no credence can be given to evidence of PW.9 regarding their discussion to burn a girl who has not paid the fees. Apart from this piece of evidence, no other material is there to show that there is any criminal conspiracy to commit an offence of setting fire to the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the offence under Section 120 B IPC.
13. So far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, merely because accused Nos. 1 to 3 have demanded the donation and fees as per their regular list of payments due to the college it cannot be said that they have instigated or abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. There is nothing to show that the commission of the suicide by the deceased is direct consequence of the acts alleged against the accused. Therefore, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 either individually or collectively arc the cause for the commission of death of the deceased by committing suicide. Merely saying a person to go and die does not amount to abetment as held by the Supreme Court in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1998 - Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in S.C.I998. Hence, the accused cannot be found guilty under Section 306 IPC.
13. So far as thc offence under Section 201 IPC is concerned, the prosecution has not examined Dayanand Shetfy CW.77 who has informed the police that the deceased died while boiling the milk, neither his letter is marked as evidence in this case. Therefore, there is no evidence to show that the accused have given any false information regarding the offence committed by them in order to conceal themselves from the punishment for the said offence. Under the circumstances, offence under Sect km 201 IPC is not proved against, the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
14. On a careful consideration of the entire judgment of the trial Court, it seen that the judgment is based on the evidence on record and there is no perversity or illegality in the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge so as to attract interference by this Court in this appeal. Hence, his appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.