Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Solanki Uttambhai @ Babubhai Maghabhai on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On: -06/04/2026
Pronounced On: 30/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1185 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SOLANKI UTTAMBHAI @ BABUBHAI MAGHABHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BHUVNESH GAHLOT(10286) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4
NON BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.04.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patan, in Sessions Case No.29/2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 323, 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Dowry Prohibition Act, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court is that the deceased was married to accused No.1 and, during her matrimonial life, she was Page 1 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined allegedly subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused persons on account of suspicion regarding her character and demands for dowry. It is alleged that, unable to bear such harassment, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself ablaze. The complaint was filed by the brother of the deceased with this regard. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-accused.
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.29/2008. 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 12 witnesses and also produced 28 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are as under;
Oral Evidences Page 2 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined Exh.
No. Oral Evidence
No.
1. Deposition of Complainant Shaileshbhai Manilal Parmar 51
Dr. Nareshbhai Prahladbhai Patel (who performed the Post- 2. 56 Mortem)
3. Deposition of Minaben Mahendrabhai Solanki 59 4. Deposition of Babiben Manabhai 60
5. Deposition of Sunilbhai Bhalabhai Solanki 61 6. Deposition of Dhanjibhai Balabhai 62 7. Deposition of Ganeshbhai Devabhai 63 8. Deposition of Chanchalben Manilal 64
9. Deposition of P.S.O. Hargovanbhai Kalabhai Desai 66
10. Deposition of Investigating Officer Patel Natvarlal Bechardas 71 Deposition of Investigating Officer Vithaldas Shivabhai 11. 72 Parmar Deposition of Investigating Officer Ramdevsinh Fatehsinh 12. 74 Gohil Documentary Evidences No. Documentary Evidence Exh.No. 1 Deputy Order 70 2 Report for registering the offense 69 3 Written Complaint by the Complainant Shaileshbhai 73 4 Investigation order for Accidental Death No. 14/07 22 5 Accidental death report 23 6 Inquest Panchnama 24 7 Panchnama of the scene of the incident 25 8 Requisition for Post-Mortem Examination 26 9 Body Dispatch Memo 27 10 Receipt of receiving the dead body 28 Page 3 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined No. Documentary Evidence Exh.No. 11 Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Officer's Report 30 Requisition to Executive Magistrate for Conducting 12 31 Inquest 13 Forwarding Memo for Viscera Examination to FSL 32 14 Post-Mortem Note 33 15 Receipt of handing over the body for final rites 29 16 Cause of Death Certificate 34 17 List of Viscera sent to F.S.L. 35 18 Muddamal (Seized Property) dispatch note 36 19 Receipt of Muddamal received at F.S.L. 37 20 Receipt of Muddamal received at F.S.L. 38 21 F.S.L. Forwarding Letter 39 22 F.S.L. Report 40 23 F.S.L. Forwarding Letter 41 24 F.S.L. Report 42 25 Order by Police Superintendent to register the offense 43 26 Application sent via Reg. P.A.D. (Post) 44 27 Application sent via Fax 45 28 Photo No. 3 46
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 to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Page 4 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined
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 trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the Page 5 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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. The prosecution has mainly relied on the complaint, which is filed vide Exh-73, and the said complaint is dated 05.08.2007 with respect to the incident that has taken place on 03.08.2007, at 11.30 p.m. As per the said complaint, which has been filed by the brother of the deceased, it is the case of the prosecution, that the accused no.1 and the deceased were married, before 17 years from the date of incident and from the said marriage a son namely Hardik, was born.
8.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused no.1 used to physically harass the deceased for seeking dowry, and at that time the mother of the deceased used to Page 6 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined give money so that the accused no.1 does not harass the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.07.2007, deceased had come to her parental house, and informed that accused no.1 was not doing any work, and he used to physically and mentally harass her, and demand money, and at that time also the amount was given to the deceased. If the entire complaint is taken into consideration, the allegation that has been made is against accused no's 1, 4 and 5.
8.3. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased had an illicit relation with respondent no. 3, and as per the deposition of the neighbour i.e. Meenaben Solanki, deceased was found in a compromising position with respondent no.3 and at that time respondent no. 2, Madhuben, along with her juvenile daughter Sonal, barged into the house, and there was an altercation between the deceased and accused no.2 and her daughter, and because of the said incident, as the deceased was afraid of her reputation, she committed suicide.
If the complaint is taken into consideration, there are no such allegations stated in the complaint, and there are no allegations against accused no. 2 and 3, even the mother of the deceased who has been examined vide Exh-64 as PW-8 has also not made any allegations against respondent no. 2 and 3, and the neighbours who have been examined as PW- Page 7 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 3, PW-4 and PW-5 have not made any allegations against respondent no. 1, 4 and 5. Therefore, there are totally contradictory statements with respect to the allegation of abatement of suicide, because of the alleged harassment of respondent no. 1, 4 and 5 and of respondent no. 2 and 3. 8.4. The prosecution has examined the complainant brother, Shaileshbhai Manilal Parmar, vide Exh-51, he in his deposition has stated that he does not know who respondent no. 2 and 3 are. He is also not aware that respondent no.3, Bikhabhai, was residing next to the matrimonial home of the deceased. He has also deposed that the maternal uncle and maternal aunt of the deceased, Chanchal Ben, who is respondent no. 4 and 5 herein, were residing in a separate house, and were not residing with accused no.1 and deceased. The said witness Shaileshbhai Manilal has deposed in his examination-in-chief that his sister used to frequently come to his house after quarrels and complained that accused no. 1 used to assault her, consume alcohol and indulge in gambling, and that their mother, in order to preserve her matrimonial life, would pacify her and send her back after giving money. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that no such allegations regarding drinking or gambling were stated in the complaint, and that neither he nor the deceased had Page 8 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined lodged any police complaint during the entire span of seventeen years of marriage; that even on the day of the incident no complaint was given either at the spot or at the police station; and that despite the presence of police officials, including Jamadar Vitthalbhai, no grievance was raised, thereby indicating material omissions and improvements in his version.
8.5. The prosecution has thereafter examined Dr. Nareshbhai Prahladbhai Patel, who was the Medical Officer at Patan, vide Exh- 56 as PW-2. He has conducted the post-mortem, which is produced vide Exh-23. The cause of death was shock due to burns 80-85%, but the same was subject to final report of forensic laboratory. The report of the forensic laboratory has been produced vide Exh-40 and 42, wherein it has been stated that the cause of death was burn because of kerosene.
8.6. The prosecution has thereafter examined PW-3, Minaben Mahdenrabhai Solanki, vide Exh-59, who in her examination-in-chief has stated that through hearsay, she came to know that the deceased had an illicit relation with Bhikhabhai i.e. respondent no.3, and husband of respondent no. 2, and as the deceased was afraid that her illicit relation will be known to the society at large, she Page 9 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined committed suicide. The said fact is neither stated by the complainant in his complaint, nor in his cross-examination. She has also stated that there was no quarrel between the deceased and the accused husband. She has deposed that she was a neighbour of the deceased Rekhaben at Malund village, and that the deceased was allegedly having an illicit relationship with accused no. 3, due to which frequent quarrels used to occur between the deceased and accused no.2 i.e. the wife of accused no. 3, she has further stated that on the night of the incident, upon being informed by accused no.2, she and her husband went to the house of the accused no.1, i.e. the husband of the deceased, where they found accused no. 3 in a semi-nude condition with the deceased, following which accused no.2 and her daughter allegedly dragged the deceased out of the house by holding her hair and a quarrel ensured, and thereafter, later that night, upon hearing screams, she saw the deceased coming out of her house in a burnt condition and collapsing, while accused no.1 was not present at the house at that time.
8.7 In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that no quarrel had ever taken place between accused no. 1 and the deceased Rekhaben, that accused no. 1 was engaged in labour work and maintained the deceased Page 10 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined properly, and that even her in-laws were residing with her, she has further deposed that accused no. 1 had no vices, and that accused no's. 4 and 5 were merely neighbours having no connection with Accused No. 1, and has categorically denied that the death of the deceased Rekhaben was on account of any harassment or cruelty inflicted by accused no's. 1, 4 and 5. In further cross- examination, the witness has admitted that she had personally seen the deceased Rekhaben and accused no. 3, Bhikhabhai, in any compromising condition, nor had she witnessed the alleged quarrel, and she has also admitted that she had not seen the deceased pouring kerosene upon herself at the relevant time.
8.8. The prosecution has thereafter examined Babiben Manabhai vide Exh-60 as PW-4, she is the neighbour at the matrimonial home of the deceased. She has deposed in her examination-in-chief that on the day of the incident accused no. 3 was present at the house of the deceased Rekhaben, and upon the door being opened at the instance of the daughter of accused no. 3, a quarrel and physical altercation took place between accused no. 2 and the deceased, during which people from the neighbourhood gathered, however, she has in her cross-examination stated that she did not see accused no. 3 fled from the place, and Page 11 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined has further admitted that she had no knowledge about any alleged relationship between the deceased and accused no. 3, and accordingly, she has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. 8.9. The prosecution has thereafter examined Sunilbhai Bhalabhai Solanki vide Exh-61 as PW-5, who is also the neighbour, who has blamed accused no.2 and the daughter of accused no. 2 Sonal, for the offence.
8.10. The prosecution has thereafter examined the other neighbour Dhanjibhai Balabhai vide Exh-62 as PW-6. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and accordingly, he was declared hostile.
8.11. The prosecution has thereafter examined PW-7 vide Exh-63, Ganeshbhai Devabhai, he has deposed in his examination-in-chief that Chanchalben, the mother of the deceased Rekhaben, is his neighbour and that the deceased, who was married to accused no. 1, used to frequently return to her parental home complaining of harassment in her matrimonial life, and that he had also reprimanded accused no. 1 in this regard, however, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that such allegations of harassment and frequent visits were not stated by him in his police Page 12 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined statement, thereby indicating material omissions. 8.12. The mother of the deceased Sunil i.e. Chanchalben Manilal has been examined as PW-8 vide Exh-64, she has also not made any allegations against respondent no's 2 and
3. She has deposed, that the deceased Rekhaben committed suicide due to harassment by accused no. 1, who allegedly used to demand money and spend the same on gambling, it is noteworthy that such allegations regarding drinking and gambling do not find place in the complaint lodged by the complainant Shaileshbhai, and even the Investigating Officer has admitted the absence of such facts in the investigation, and thus, it can be said that these interested witnesses have made material exaggerations in respect of the allegations of cruelty.
8.13. The prosecution has thereafter examined the Police Officer Hargovanbhai Kalabhai Desai vide Exh-66 as PW-9, he was a P.S.O at the relevant point of time, and he has registered external death in the Station Diary which is produced vide Exh-68. The P.I. i.e. Patel Natvarlal Bechardas, who had registered the complaint under Juvenile Act, against the daughter of respondent no's 2 and 3 (Sonal) is examined as PW-10 vide Exh-71.The Head Constable i.e. Vithaldas Page 13 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined Shivabhai, who had prepared the Inquest Panchnama has been produced as PW11, vide Exh-72.
8.14. The Police Inspector Ramdevsinh Fatehsinh Gohil has been examined as PW-12 vide Exh-74, he had taken the statement, and in his cross examination he has stated that he had taken statements of the neighbouring person residing at the matrimonial home of the deceased, wherein, it was found that there was no harassment by accused no.1. Moreover, in his deposition, he has also admitted that as per his investigation the accused no's 1, 4 and 5 were staying separately. The Police Inspector has also deposed in his cross- examination that during the course of investigation it was revealed that accused no. 1 was not present at the scene of offence at the relevant time, and that he had neither recorded the statement of the son of the deceased nor found any statements of neighbouring witnesses disclosing harassment by accused no. 1 or his alleged habits of drinking and gambling, he has further admitted that the complaint was lodged with a delay of about 28 hours, and that his investigation revealed an alleged love relationship between the deceased Rekhaben and accused no. 3 since two years, along with frequent quarrels in that regard, and that accused no. 3 was present at the house and had fled from the spot, and it was also found that accused no. 4 was residing separately Page 14 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined and accused no. 5 had no relation with accused no. 1. Moreover, the complainant has not clarified as to how accused no's. 4 and 5 are related, whether they are paternal uncle and aunt or otherwise, nor has he specified the exact nature or degree of their relationship with the accused family.
8.15. Considering the facts of the case, there are lot of contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witness, whereas, the neighbour have categorically stated that there is no harassment by respondent no's 1, 4 and 5, and it has been alleged that the deceased had committed suicide due to the apprehension of harm to her reputation, as it has been alleged that the deceased was caught in a compromising position with respondent no.3 wherein, the neighbours had reached the place and respondent no.3 had to flee from the place, and the family members of the deceased have categorically stated that they don't know about respondent no. 2 and 3, and have alleged that the deceased has committed suicide only because of the harassment and demand of dowry by respondent no's 1, 4 and 5. If the allegations made against respondent no's 1, 4 and 5 are taken into consideration, the prosecution has failed to prove by any evidence that respondent no's 1, 4 and 5 have committed offence under Sections 498(A), 306, 323, 504, 506, 114 of the Page 15 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined IPC and u/s 3, 7 of the Prohibition of the Dowry Act. 8.16. Moreover, if the evidence against respondent no.3 is taken into consideration, the role of respondent no.3 was that he was having an illicit relation with the deceased, but the prosecution has failed to prove the same. Moreover, it has been alleged that respondent no.2 had caught the deceased with her husband i.e. respondent no.3 in a compromising position, and therefore respondent no.2, and thereafter along with her daughter physically assaulted the deceased, but the said fact has not been proved by the prosecution. Moreover, the fact remains that, even from the evidence of the neighbour Minaben, who has been examined as PW-3, it transpires that when they knocked the door of the house of the deceased they found respondent no. 3 half naked, and thereafter, respondent no.2 and her daughter Sonal had physically assaulted the deceased but the fact remains that the post-mortem report does not state that the deceased was physically assaulted before she poured kerosene upon herself.
8.17. Moreover, it has also come on record that at the time when the deceased had poured kerosene on herself, neither respondent no.1, 4 or 5 were present at the place of incident, nor is there anything on record that has been Page 16 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined proved by the prosecution that the accused have instigated the deceased.
9. The evidence on record and the glaring omission 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.
9.1. 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 Page 17 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 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.
9.2. 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. 9.3. 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. Page 18 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 9.4. It is therefore not sufficient to show that the deceased was unhappy, distressed, or subjected to unpleasant 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.
9.5. 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 Page 19 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined with the suicide that it can reasonably be said to have triggered the fatal act.
9.6. 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.
9.7. 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 Page 20 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 21 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 22 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 23 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija
Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
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 Page 24 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is 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 Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. Page 25 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 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.Page 26 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined (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 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 Page 27 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined
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 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 Page 28 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) ADITYA SINGH Page 29 of 29 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:58:23 IST 2026