Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Girjaben Hiralal Buddhsing Prajapati on 29 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 15/04/2026
Pronounced On : 29/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2164 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GIRJABEN HIRALAL BUDDHSING PRAJAPATI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MOHINI J BHAVSAR(3071) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3
NON BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 2,3
RULE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.04.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No.69 of 2007, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"). Page 1 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court is that the daughter of the complainant viz., Shyamshree alias Bhuriben got married with Vinodbhai Hiralal Prajapati - accused No.2 three years prior to the alleged incident; that her marriage life was smooth for one year; but thereafter, the accused i.e. father-in-law, mother-in-law used to quarrel with the deceased and also instigated accused No.2 (husband), due to which, he used to beat her; that whenever the deceased used to visit the house of the complainant - Ramlakhan Patiram Prajapati, she complained of ill-treatment at the hands of the accused persons, the parents of the deceased went to the house of the accused and scolded them; but the accused continued giving physical and mental torture to her as she was not able to conceive a child; that on 11.05.2007, when the complainant was at his work, he received a phone call and he was informed that his daughter - Bhuriben received burn injuries and instructed him to come immediately; therefore, the complainant and his wife reached the matrimonial home of their daughter, where they were informed that she was taken to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad; therefore, they reached the Civil Hospital, and upon making inquiry, the deceased - their daughter - Bhuriben informed them that the in-laws were giving mental and physical torture and also taunting her, and therefore, she sprinkled kerosene on her Page 2 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined body and set ablaze. Accordingly, the complaint was filed.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge- sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Sessions Case No.69 of 2007. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and also produced 10 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment.
: ORAL EVIDENCE :
P.W. Exh Name of the witness Description
No. .
1 19 Chunilal Jujalal Medical Officer
Kumavat C.H.Gandhinagar who
performed the P.M. of the
dead body
2 23 Dr.Sumeet Asharam Doctor who treated
accused No.2 Vinodbhai
Page 3 of 31
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
for burn injuries
3 33 Ramlakhan Patiram Complainant /father of
the deceased
4 38 Parvatiben Ramlakhan Mother of the deceased /
wife of the complainant
5 39 Bhalabhai Jivabhai Panch No.1 of the
panchanama of scene of
offence at Exh.40.
6 41 Rajubhai Tulsibhai Panch No.2 of the above
stated panchanama aat
Exh.40
7 42 Navinchandra H Joshi Dy.S.P., Kalol the person
who registered the
complaint
8 43 Prakash K Patel Investigating officer /
P.S.I Adalaj Police
Station
9 46 Nitinkumar D Chauhan Investigating Officer /
P.S.I.
: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE :
Sr.No. Exh. Particulars
Page 4 of 31
Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
1 15 Analysis report of the FSL muddammal
produced vide list
2 20 P.M.note of the deceased
3 21 Yadi by the investigating officer for performing
the P.M.of the dead body of the deceased 4 22 The certificate of the doctor of the C.H.hospital for seizure of the viscera 5 34 Complaint 6 36 Inquest panchanama of the dead body of the deceased 7 37 Panchanama of the seizure of necessary sample from the place of offence by the FSL officer 8 30 Panchanama of scene of offence 9 44 Telephone vardhi 10 45 Yadi written to the Executive Magistrate for recording the D.D. of the deceased by the investigating officer
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed Page 5 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned Page 6 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court :
8.1 If the complaint produced vide Exh.34 is taken into consideration, the complaint has been filed by the father of the deceased viz., Ramlakhan Patiram Prajapati on 11.05.2007, wherein it has been stated that the marriage of the deceased (his daughter viz., Shyamshree @ Bhuriben) and accused No.2 viz., Vinodbhai Hiralal Prajapati had taken place before three years of the incident; and that initial one year of the marriage, the relations were cordial, but on trivial matters, there was a dispute between the deceased and accused No.1 i.e. mother-in-law, who used to instigate the father-in-law i.e. accused No.3 and as and when the deceased used to come to her parental house, she would Page 7 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined inform about the said incidents to the complainant and his wife. It has been stated that the said incident was informed by the complainant to his brother-in-law viz., Manjuram and his wife - Kamla and thereafter, his brother-in-law went to the matrimonial home of the deceased and scolded the accused. The settlement had taken place and the said complainant also states that the complainant has also tried to make her understand and thereafter sent her to the matrimonial home.
It has been also stated that accused No.2 was in a habit of consuming alcohol and after consuming alcohol, he used to physically abuse the deceased and just before four days of the incident, the mother-in-law i.e. accused Nos.1 and 2 had taunted the deceased for not conceiving a child and has stated her to be unlucky and at that time, the complainant had consoled the deceased that they will get the deceased treated and so saying, had sent the deceased back to her matrimonial home. It has been stated that the deceased had expired due to the constant harassment of the accused.
The deceased used to narrate such incidents to the complainant upon visiting her parental home, whereupon the complainant, his wife, and his brother-in-law - Manchharam had once visited the matrimonial home of the deceased and admonished the accused. However, the ill-treatment continued, Page 8 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined but no complaint was lodged to preserve the matrimonial life of the deceased. It is further alleged that about four days prior to the incident, the deceased informed the complainant that accused Nos.1 and 2 were taunting and harassing her on the ground that she was unable to conceive a child. On 11.02.2007, upon receiving information that the deceased had sustained burn injuries, the complainant reached the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, where the deceased stated that due to continuous harassment by her husband and mother-in-law, and as they had told her to die, she poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze.
8.2 Prosecution Witness No. 1 viz., Dr.Chunilal Jujalal Kumawat, who was serving as a Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, has been examined vide Exh.19. He deposed that on 12.05.2007, while he was on duty, the dead body of the deceased - Bhuriben was brought for postmortem. He conducted the postmortem between 1:20 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. He observed second and third-degree burn injuries on the body, which were ante-mortem in nature. In his opinion, the cause of death was 'shock due to burn injuries'. The postmortem report is produced vide Exh.20. 8.3 The prosecution has thereafter examined Dr.Sumeet Asharam Agrawal as P.W.2, vide Exh.23, who was a Resident Page 9 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Medical Officer and who had treated accused No.2 - Vinodbhai (husband). From his evidence, it appears that on 13.05.2007, he had examined accused No.2 - Vinodbhai, who had given a history that he sustained burn injuries while attempting to save his wife - Bhuriben (deceased). The case papers regarding treatment of accused No.2 - Vinodbhai were produced vide Exhs.25 to 30. It appears from the said case papers that the said patient, i.e., accused No.2 - Vinodbhai, had left the hospital against medical advice. In cross- examination, the witness stated that the patient - Vinodbhai had sustained second and third-degree burn injuries. It was also stated that the burn injuries had been treated earlier at the Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar.
8.4 The prosecution has thereafter examined the complainant viz., Ramlakhan Patiram Prajapati as P.W.3, vide Exh.33. He deposed that on 11.05.2007, at about 5:00 p.m., while he was at his work (colour work) near Vijay Cross Roads, he received information that his daughter had sustained burn injuries. He first went to Motera, where he found that his daughter was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad; he thereafter went to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, where he found that his daughter was admitted in a severely burnt condition. He stated that upon inquiry, his daughter informed him that due to harassment by her Page 10 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined husband and in-laws, she had poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. He further stated that she was being harassed on account of not having any children and over trivial household issues.
In cross-examination, he admitted that he reached the hospital ward at about 9:00 p.m., where his daughter was under treatment, her body fully bandaged except the face, and she was screaming in pain. He further stated that the police recorded his statement at the hospital while his daughter was alive, and thereafter, he was informed by the doctor that his daughter had passed away. In cross- examination, the witness also stated that he believed the complaints made by his daughter. He further stated that about four days before the incident, when his daughter had come to him, she had complained of harassment on account of not conceiving a child, whereupon he consoled her by assuring her that she would be given proper medical treatment and would be advised by a good doctor, and thereafter sent her back to her matrimonial home. 8.5 The inquest panchanama is produced vide Exh.36 and the panchanama of sample collected by the FSL is produced vide Exh.37.
8.6 The prosecution has thereafter examined the Page 11 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined mother of the deceased viz., Parvatiben Ramlakhan Prajapati as P.W.4, vide Exh.38. She deposed that for about one year after the marriage, her daughter was treated well by the in- laws; however, thereafter accused No.2 - Vinodbhai developed a habit of consuming alcohol and, under its influence, used to assault her daughter. She further stated that the in-laws also instigated such conduct and subjected her daughter to harassment. She further deposed that when she met the deceased - Bhuriben at the hospital, the deceased informed her that due to continuous mental harassment by her husband and mother-in-law, she poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire.
In cross-examination, the witness admitted that at the time of marriage, as her daughter was of a young age, she was not sent to her matrimonial home for about four years and was sent there only about one year before the incident. She further stated that upon receiving information about the burn incident, she and her husband first went to the matrimonial home of the deceased at Motera and, upon inquiry, learnt that the deceased - Bhuriben had been taken to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, where they proceeded immediately.
8.7 There is a contradiction in the deposition of the said witness (P.W.4). The father of the deceased and the Page 12 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined mother of the deceased, both have stated that as soon as they came to know about the said incident, they had left their residence, but if the deposition of the mother of the deceased P.W.4 is taken into consideration, she has stated that they had directly gone to the hospital. Whereas, the father of the deceased i.e. the complainant (P.W.3) has stated that they had first gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased and thereafter had gone to the hospital. 8.8 The prosecution has produced the panchnama of the place of offence vide Exh.40. The panch witnesses thereto viz., Bhalabhai Jivabhai Rabari and Rajubhai Tulsibhai Marathi were examined at Exhs.39 and 41, respectively. However, from their evidence, it appears that both the panch witnesses have merely admitted their signatures on the panchnama and have stated that they signed the document at the instance of the police. Accordingly, both these witnesses were declared hostile.
8.9 Deputy Superintendent of Police viz., Navinchandra H. Joshi was examined as P.W.7, vide Exh.42. He deposed that on 11.05.2007, upon receiving a message from Adalaj Police Station, he proceeded to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. On visiting the burn ward, he found the deceased - Bhuriben in a serious condition and upon inquiry, she was only able to respond by gestures. He contacted the Page 13 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined doctor, who informed him that she was not in a position to speak. In the ward, he met the father of the deceased, who identified her and stated that his daughter had sustained burn injuries due to harassment by her in-laws. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant - Ramlakhan was recorded as per his narration.
In cross-examination, the said witness admitted that he had attempted to ascertain from the deceased how she had sustained the burns, but as she was unable to provide any information, he relied upon the opinion of the doctor that she was not in a condition to speak. He further admitted that after recording a complaint, he did not take the statements of any person.
8.10 The prosecution has examined Prakash K. Patel, P.S.I., Adalaj Police Station as P.W.8, vide Exh.43. He was the Investigating Officer. He deposed that he got the postmortem of the deceased conducted, prepared the inquest panchnama, obtained the postmortem report, and thereafter handed over the dead body to the father of the deceased (the complainant). He further stated that the muddamal articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the panchnama of the place of offence was prepared in presence of the panch witnesses. He also obtained the medical certificate regarding burn injuries sustained by accused No.2 - Page 14 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Vinodbhai at the time of the incident. Thereafter, on 18.06.2007, he handed over further investigation to P.S.I. - N.D.Chauhan.
In cross-examination, the witness admitted that though an attempt was made during the investigation to record the dying declaration of the deceased, no such statement was obtained. He further admitted that any statement, if made by the deceased - Bhuriben before a doctor or nurse while she was alive, was not collected or taken into custody during the investigation. He also admitted that it had come on record during the investigation that while attempting to save the deceased, her husband - Vinodbhai (accused No.2) had also sustained burn injuries and was initially treated at the Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar, and thereafter at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad; however, the medical certificates regarding such treatment were not taken into custody during the investigation. He further admitted that during the course of the investigation, no suicide note of the deceased or any material evidence relating thereto was found.
8.11 The prosecution has produced the yadi for preparing the dying declaration vide Exh.45. The endorsement on the said document clearly states that the deceased was not conscious and was unable to give a statement. Page 15 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined 8.12 The prosecution has examined Nitinkumar D. Chauhan, P.S.I., Gandhinagar, as P.W.9, vide Exh.46. He deposed that on 18.06.2007, he took over the investigation of the offence and addressed a requisition to the Executive Magistrate for recording the dying declaration of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he admitted that, considering the condition of the deceased with burn injuries, steps were taken to have her dying declaration recorded. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that while attempting to save the deceased, her husband - accused No.2
- Vinodbhai had also sustained burn injuries and was initially treated at the Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar, and thereafter at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. 8.13 It is most significant to note here that Dr. D.S. Mehta, who treated the deceased - Bhuriben, has not been examined by the prosecution, nor have any case papers of the treatment been produced on record. In the absence of such evidence, it remains unestablished whether, during the course of treatment, the deceased was in a condition to speak or was mentally fit to comprehend and communicate. 8.14 If the document produced vide Exh.45 i.e. the yadi Page 16 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined sent to the Executive Magistrate for taking dying declaration, is taken into consideration, the endorsement on the said yadi states that at 8:30 p.m., the patient is conscious and the said endorsement is made by Dr.Sumeet (P.W.2) and the said doctor has again made an endorsement at 10:45 p.m. that the patient is not conscious and is unable to give the statement. The fact remains that the said doctor has been examined as PW.2 Exh.23. The prosecution has examined the said doctor only for the treatment that was given to accused No.2 for his burn injury which is alleged to be received while trying to save the deceased; and that the prosecution has not placed any material on record to show that what treatment was given to the deceased at the hospital when she was under treatment and/or whether Dr.Sumeet, who has made an endorsement on the yadi (Exh.45), was actually the treating doctor or not. Moreover, though the father and mother of the deceased, who have been examined vide Exh.33 as P.W.3 and Exh.38 as P.W.4, respectively, have stated that the patient had informed them at the hospital that she took such a step due to the harassment by the in-laws and husband, but the fact that at 8:30 p.m., the doctor stated that the patient is conscious but does not state that the patient is a fit to give statement.
9.1 The evidence on record and the glaring omission Page 17 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined on the prosecution as pointed out above leaves no room of doubt that the order passed by the trial Court is as per law. The trial Court has rightly held that there was no positive evidence on record to prove that the accused by way of the conduct or spoken words, overtly or covertly, actually aided and abetted or instigated the deceased in such a manner that it leaves no other option for the deceased but to commit suicide. In the present case, the prosecution has also not been able to prove the clear motive of the accused to commit offence of abatement. There is also no close connection between the accused's action and the deceased's choice to commit suicide. In view of the said fact, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused have stimulated the deceased to commit suicide.
9.2 The prosecution has not proved that there was a clear motive to commit the offence of abatement. The prosecution has also not proved that the accused proceeded to encourage and/or irritate the deceased through words or insults and that the accused intended to urge the deceased to end it all by committing suicide. The prosecution has also not been able to prove the direct connection between the incitement and committal of suicide. The prosecution has also not been able to prove direct or indirect act of incitement to the commitment of suicide. The prosecution has also not been Page 18 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined able to prove by accusation of harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused close to the time of occurrence that led and forced the deceased to commit suicide.
9.3 The present matter turns on whether the conduct attributed to the accused satisfies the legal threshold of abetment of suicide. Therefore, read as a whole, it can be said that mere occurrence of a suicide does not automatically trigger rigours of the Section. The penal consequences under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code arise when the prosecution is able to establish that the accused abetted and had a role in provoking or facilitating that suicide. Therefore, this twin test distinction is required to be borne in mind. 9.4 Abetment, as understood in criminal jurisprudence, is not a broad moral expression but a term of precise statutory meaning. Section 107 IPC delineates its contours:
instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding. Each of these modes presupposes active involvement. The law does not punish omission except in some cases, it punishes intentional encouragement or positive facilitation of a prohibited act.
9.5 It is therefore not sufficient to show that the deceased was unhappy, distressed, or subjected to unpleasant Page 19 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined treatment. The jurisprudence developed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently underscored that routine domestic disagreements, suspicion between spouses, or episodes of harassment do not ipso facto amount to instigation. Rigours of this Section intervene only where there is clear evidence of mens rea and a direct causal link between the accused's conduct and the decision of the deceased to commit suicide.
9.6 The concept of instigation demands something more than mere reproach or accusation. It connotes an active suggestion, an incitement, or conduct of such intensity that it operates upon the mind of the victim and pushes him or her toward this drastic and unfortunate step. The prosecution therefore, must demonstrate either a deliberate intention to drive the deceased to suicide or knowledge that the conduct in question was likely to produce that consequence. Equally indispensable is the requirement of proximity. The law insists on a live and immediate nexus between the acts complained of and the suicide. A remote or generalized allegation is insufficient. There must be evidence showing that the accused engaged in conduct so closely connected in time and effect with the suicide that it can reasonably be said to have triggered the fatal act.Page 20 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined 9.7 No material has been brought on record demonstrating any proximate act immediately preceding the suicide which could be construed as instigation. Nor is there evidence of a positive act amounting to intentional aid. The essential ingredients of abetment -namely, culpable mental state coupled with active or proximate conduct-are not established.
9.8 On an overall assessment of the evidence, the prosecution has failed to demonstrate the existence of the foundational elements necessary to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC.
10. In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the essence of abetment lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. 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 consequence must be capable of being spelt out. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion Page 21 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
10.1 In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (1) Crimes 347 (SC), the observations are made with regard to abetment of suicide. It has been held that in order to bring a case within purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in commission of said offence, person who is said to have abetted commission of suicide must have played active role by act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of suicide. It has been further observed that the act of abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved and established by prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. It is further observed that to satisfy requirement of instigation, accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have created such circumstances that deceased was left with no other option, except to commit suicide.
10.2 In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, it has been held that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment Page 22 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable. 10.3 In the case of Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2020) 15 SCC 359, after considering the provisions of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC, the Court held that conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
10.4 In the case of Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC 244, it was held that there has to be an act of incitement on the part of the accused proximate to the date on which the deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.
11. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court Page 23 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.
12. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence connecting the accused with the incident and there are contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive of the accused behind the incident is not established. The trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
13. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Page 24 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
14. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
15. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction.
But as a rule of prudence, it is Page 25 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined desirable that the High Court should
give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."
16. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial Page 26 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
17. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or Page 27 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as,
"substantial and compelling reasons",
"good and sufficient grounds", "very
strong circumstances", "distorted
conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be Page 28 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held in paragraph 24 as under:
"24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a Page 29 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
19. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
20. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal.
21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Appeal fails and the same Page 30 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) SRILATHA Page 31 of 31 Uploaded by U. SRILATHA(HC00185) on Wed Apr 29 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 29 22:26:52 IST 2026