TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE

APPELLANT IS MAINTAINABLE ?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE INCIDENTS OF THE ACCUSED FOLLOWING THE

DECEASED IN THE STREET, DEMANDING HER TO FULFILL THE LUST,
AMOUNT TO OFFENCES UNDER SEC. 306 AND 509 OF IPC?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE

ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?

PRAYER

1
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

2
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondent accepts the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, invoked by the
Prosecution under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

The respondent humbly and respectfully submits before the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka.

3
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Satyanarayana Reddy & Dhananjaya Reddy were the residents of Krishnarajapuram, a

small Town, and were close friends.
2. Sujatha, 27 years was the daughter of Venkate Gowda in the same town. She was given
to Harikrishna of the adjacent village in marriage. The couple were leading a happy
married life, they had a son aged 4 years.
3. Harikrishna was running a Medical store in the ton, Krishnarajapuram.After a couple of
months the couple had shifted their house to Krishnarajapuram.
4. Sathyanarayana Reddy & Dhananjaya Reddy had an eye on Sujatha. They used to follow
her wherever she was going on the road and were making indecent gestures, uttering
obscene words, hurling flowers at her; hurling small stones at her playfully; when she
was at home, they used to Whistle and call her through the signs of their hands; they
would clap at her, smiling.
5. Sujatha's husband would go to his Medical store at 7:30 a.m. and come back for lunch at
1:30 p.m. Noon; again he would go to his medical store at 2:30 p.m. and return home at
9:00 p.m. Sujatha used to stay alone at home with her son.
6. Sathyanarayana Reddy and Dhananjaya Reddy used to go to Sujatha's door steps and
were demanding her to fulfill their lust. Sujatha used to refuse their request and did not
yeild to them. Therefore two Reddy's started spreading rumurs in the toen regarding her
chastity and created mental agony to her. The deceased being an orthodox lady could
not endure the humiliation caused by the Reddy's.
7. She complained to her husband, her father, mother and brother and sought protection
from them.
8. The father of Sujatha reported the matter to elders of the locality in which the Reddy's
were living and the eldersadmonished the Reddy's and cautioned them not to repeat
their conduct. Thereafter, they stopped harassing Sujatha for 2 or 3 months.
9. After sometime the Reddy's started spreading rumours and created an atmosphere of
terror in the mind of Sujatha. She complained to her husband that, the Reddy's were
hurling flowers and small stones at her in a playful manner and that she could not bear
the humiliation.
10. On 02.03.2012, Sujatha came to her parents house with her son in distress and
sorrowful and narrated to them about her miserable life and expressed that, she could
not bear the humiliation caused to her by the Reddy's. The parents of Sujatha consoled
her and promised Sujatha that, they would arrange for shifting her house to some other
locality after marriage of her brbrother Thereafter she returned to her husband's house
leaving her son with her parents.

4
11. Sujatha decided to commit suicide put an end her miseries. On 05.03.2012 in the
morning her husband went to his medical shop and Sujatha was alone in the house. On
the same day at about 12.00 noon Raghav Reddy, the grand father of Sujatha went to
her house and found the door closed unblolted. He opened the door and found Sujatha
hanging to the fan hook of the ceiling of the kitchen, United the cloth and laid the body
on the floor.
12. The husband and all the relatives cremated the body, for want of sufficient information
regarding the cause of death.
13. Ten days later, after the death, Sujatha's sister notices a letter while cleaning the room in
which the deceased committed suicide. The letter was in the handwriting of the
deceased; the letter disclosed that, the Reddy's created the circumstance which
compelled the deceased to take the extream step of hanging herself.
14. The letter was handed over to the Police along with a complaint under Section - 306
&509 of Indian Penal Code, against Reddy's. The Police laid the charge sheet for the
offences under Sections - 509, 306 &107 of Indian Penal Code against the accused
Sathyanarayana Reddy and Dhananjaya Reddy who claimed for trial denying the charges.
15. Prosecution did not adduce any eye witness evidence. The Prosecution examined father,
mother, brother, sister, grandfather and other elders who had advised the accused to
desist from such acts against the deceased.
16. The trial court acquitted the accused holding there was no direct evidence adduced by
the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
prosecution has preferred a criminal Revision Petition against the Judgement, to the
Hon'ble High Court

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1) Whether the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the Prosecution is

maintainable ?

2) Whether the incidents of the accused following the deceased in the

street, demanding her to fulfill their lust, uttering vulgar words, spreading

5
 rumour in the village about her chastity amount to offences under
Sections 306 and 509, IPC ?

3) Whether there is enough evidence to prove the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1) WHETHER THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE

APPELLANT IS MAINTAINABLE ?
It is humbly submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of High Court under Section 397 of Cr.PC
cannot be invoked in the present case as the decision given by the trial court is neither grossly
erroneous nor illegal and there is a provision for appeal aginst the acquittal under Section 378
of the Cr.PC.

6
2) WHETHER THE INCIDENTS OF THE ACCUSED FOLLOWING THE

DECEASED IN THE STREET, DEMANDING HER TO FULFILL THE LUST,

AMOUNT TO OFFENCES UNDER SEC. 306 AND 509 OF IPC?

It is most humbly submitted that as the material placed by the prosecution does not attract the
ingredients of Section 107, 309 and 509 of Indian Penal Code. Hence the accused cannot be said
to have committed the offence underany of the above provisions.

3) WHETHER THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE

ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?

It is humbly submitted that there was no direct evidence adduced by the Prosecution to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and Hence the he trial court has rightly
acquitted the accused.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE

APPELLANT IS MAINTAINABLE ?

It is humbly submitted that the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked in the present case as
the decision given by the trial court is neither grossly erroneous nor illegal.

7
1.1. CONDITIONS FOR REVISION
Section 397 of CrPC, the High Court or any Sessions Judge have been empowered to call for and
examine the records of any proceeding satisfy oneself:

 as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, whether

recorded or passed, and
 as to the regularity of any proceedings of an inferior court.

The revisonal powers of the High Court are very wide. The jurisdiction of the High Court is
discretionary and is used only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring miscarriage of
justice. The revision is a procedural mechanism to rectify any manifest error in justice
dispensation.

In the case of State Of Rajasthan vs Fatehkaran Mehdu, it has been held that “the object of the
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which
has crept in the proceeding.”

In Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr it has been held that “the revisional jurisdiction can
be invoked only where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no
compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material
evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.”

In the present case, trial court has rightly acquitted the accused holding there was no direct
evidence adduced by the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.

Thus there hasn't been any failure of justice and the provision of revision cannot be invoked.

1.2. PROVISION FOR APPEAL

Where there is provision for appeal, sec. 397 cannot be invoked. In a court case, the provision of
appeal to the higher court is inbuilt in law. An aggrieved litigant can redress his grievance by
exercising that provision.

It is been provided in Section 378(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 "Save as otherwise
provided in sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of subsections (3) and (5), the State
Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High
Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any court other than a High
Court".

8
In the present case, trial court has acquitted the accused holding there was no direct evidence.
If the prosecution wants to question the order, they can get the leave of the high court and file
an appeal bfeore it under section 378, where they can question the acquittal of the accused.

However, they can not invoke section 397 of CrPC and the criminal revision petition filed by the
prosecution is not maintaiable.

ISSUE 2 : WHETHER THE INCIDENTS OF THE ACCUSED FOLLOWING THE

DECEASED IN THE STREET, DEMANDING HER TO FULFILL THE

LUST, AMOUNT TO OFFENCES UNDER SEC. 306 AND 509, IPC

It is most humbly submitted that the act of the accused does not satisfy the ingredients of
Sections 306 and 509 of Indian Penal Code and therefore they are not liable.

2.1. ACT DOESN'T AMOUNT TO ABATEMENT

It is most humbly submitted that as the material placed by the prosecution does not attract the
ingredients of Section 107, IPC, the accused are not liable to be convicted for the offence under
Section 306, IPC.

9
As per Sc. 107 of the Indian Penal Code a person is said to have abetted the doing of a thing, if
he/she —

i) Instigates any person to do that thing; or

ii) Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the 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

iii) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Further as per Section 306 of IPC If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission
of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

In Shankaraiah v. State of A. P. 2002 Cri LJ 3201 (AP) a learned single Judge of this High Court
while dealing with Sections 306(iii) and 107, IPC held that in a case of suicide alleged to have
been committed by the deceased on account of cancellation of her marriage with A. 1 after its
settlement and on account of the paternal uncle of the accused humiliating the deceased along
with A. 1 and father of A. 1, it does not amount to instigation as the ingredients of Clauses (i)
and (if) of Section 107 are not attracted. The Court further held that since no aid was given by
the accused to the deceased, Clause (iii) of Section 306 does not apply.

In Ram v. State of U.P. the Supreme Court held that in order to constitute abetment, the abettor
must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. It is clearly held that
mere proof that the crime could not have been committed without the interposition of the
alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirement of Section 107, IPC.

Various High Courts have taken a view that merely because a person committed suicide by
feeling insulted or humiliated, due to the comments or uttarances made by the accused, the
accused cannot be said to be guilty of an offence under Section 306, IPC.

In Devraj v. State of H. P. a partner in a firm committed suicide due to the other partners
(accused) taking away large sums of money out of partnership fund for various purposes and

10
their not rendering an account to the deceased, and for not permitting the deceased utilizing
the profits. The other partners in the firm who are accused of an offence under Section 306, IPC
for the suicide of the deceased, were held to be not guilty of such offence.

In Alka Grewal v. State of M. P, a woman was held to be not guilty of an offence under Section
306, IPC for her husband committing suicide, after feeling insulted and humiliated due to her
immoral conduct. The Court specifically held that though she may be the cause for suicide of
her husband, she cannot be said to have abetted his suicide.

In State of Gujarat v. Pradyuman Ramanlal Mehta, the publishers and others responsible for
publication of a defamatory article are held to be not guilty of an offence under Section 306, IPC
for the defamed person's suicide on feeling humiliated due to the defamatory publication.

Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the
requirement of Instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the con-sequence must be capable of being
spelt out.

The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued
course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred.

2.2. NOT GUILTY OF SECTION 509

It is humbly submitted that there is absolutely no legal or factual basis for convicting the
accused for the offences under Section 509 I.P.C. It is argued that in this case, there are
absolutely no materials on record to attract the offence under Section 509 I.P.C.

Prosecution did not adduce any eye witness evidence.The trial court acquitted the accused
holding there was no direct evidence adduced by the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused.

11
Hence the accused cannot be said to have committed the offence under Section 509 of IPC and
the traial court was right in acquittal of the accused.

ISSUE 3 : WHETHER THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GUILT

OF THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT?

It is humbly submitted that there was no direct evidence adduced by the Prosecution to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the accused are not liable.

3.1. BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

In criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable
man with ordinary prudence can have. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty
or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, the benefit will go the accused.

This principle of reasonability is offspring of another principle on which our entire Criminal
justice System is based- let 100 criminals go untouched, but one innocent should not be
punished. That is the reason why the guilt of the accused is to be proved beyond any reasonable
doubt.

In Kali Ram v. State of H.P., it has been observed that another golden thread that runs through
the web of administration of criminal justice is that if two views are possible on the evidence -

12
one pointing to the guilt and other towards innocence, the view which is favorable to the
accused should be accepted.

As observed in the case of Vijayee Singh and others Vs. State of U., it can be argued that the
concept of ‘reasonable doubt’ is vague in nature and the standard of ‘burden of proof
contemplated under Section 105 should be somewhat specific, therefore, it is difficult to
reconcile both. But the general principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that the
prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to
the benefit of a reasonable doubt, are to be borne in mind.

In the present case, Prosecution did not adduce any eye witness evidence. The Prosecution
examined father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather and other elders to whom Sujatha had
complained about the accused and their statements cannot be regarded as direct evidence.

3.2. Evidentiary value of suicidal note written by Sujatha

The statement of the deceased as to the cause of his or her death is admissible not only against
the person who actually instigated the deceased to commit suicide, but also against other
persons concerned in the transaction which resulted in the deponent's death. The suicidal note
of the deceased comes within the purview of Section 32 of the Evidence Act.

Though the dying declaration is only a piece of untested evidence and it is required to satisfy
the court like any other evidence that what is stated therein is the unalloyed truth when once it
is absolutely safe to act upon it.

In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. 1996 Cri L J 894 the Supreme Court held that merely because
the deceased woman stated in her dying declaration that she was harassed by the accused, the
accused cannot be held guilty of an offence under Section 306, IPC.

In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2002 (1) Andh LT (Cri) 80 : 2001 Cri LJ 4724 the
Supreme Court while considering Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC and contents of a letter written
by the de-ceased held that the case is not one which may fall under clauses, secondly and

13
thirdly of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code. The case has to be decided by reference to the first
clause, i.e. whether the accused-appellant abetted the suicide by instigating her to do so.

After placing reliance on the above judgments submitted that even if there is some material to
show that the revision petitioners eve-teased the deceased through demands, gestures and
objectionable words, it does not amount, to abetment for committing suicide.

Hence the he trial court has rightly acquitted the accused holding there was no direct evidence
adduced by the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

14
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the Issues Raised, Argument Advanced and Authorities Cited, the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka may be pleased to:

 Dismiss the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the Prosecution.

AND/OR Pass any other order, direction or relief that it deems fit in the interest of

Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Appellants shall duty bound forever pray.

Sd/-

(Counsel for the Respondent )

15