Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Arunbhai Babubhai Bin Virabhai Solanki ... on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 17/04/2026
Pronounced On : 30/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1276 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ARUNBHAI BABUBHAI BIN VIRABHAI SOLANKI (ROHIT) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.04.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anand, in Sessions Case No.4 of 2010, 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").
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court is that the complainant, Kanjibhai Trikambhai Makwana, filed a complaint regarding the death of his daughter, Minaben (the deceased). Minaben married respondent-accused no. 1 on 07.05.2009. Following the marriage, she resided with her husband and her in-laws (the Page 1 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined other accused parties). It is alleged that after the marriage, the accused persons, on various pretexts, began subjecting Minaben to constant mental and physical torture. This treatment included physical assaults. The prosecution contends that due to this persistent harassment at the hands of the accused, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. 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.4 of 2010. 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 10 witnesses and also produced 24 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under: Page 2 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined ORAL EVIDENCE Exhibit No. Witness Name Relation / Role No. I Complainant & Witnesses Father of the Kanjibhai Trikambhai (1) deceased 13 Makwana, Witness No.1 (Complainant) Maniben Kanjibhai Mother of the (2) 22 Makwana, Witness No.3 deceased Sunilbhai Kanjibhai Brother of the (3) 23 Makwana, Witness No.4 deceased Kailashben w/o Hitishbhai Sister of the (4) 24 Khushalbhai, Witness No.5 deceased II Medical Witnesses Dr. Ambalal Hirabhai (1) Medical Officer 16 Patel, Witness No.2 III Panch Witnesses Ganpatsinh Harisinh (1) Panch Witness 28 Solanki, Witness No.6 Page 3 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined Exhibit No. Witness Name Relation / Role No. IV Police Witnesses Hamedaben Mansinh, P.S.O. (Police (1) 33 Witness No.7 Sub-Officer) Poonambhai Dhanabhai (2) D.Y.S.P. 35 Baranda, Witness No.8 Yogendrasinh Khumansinh (3) P.S.O. 37 Raulji, Witness No.9 P.S.I. Mahendrasinh Deepsinh (4) (Investigating 39 Puvar, Witness No.10 Officer) Documentary Evidence No. Description of Document Exhibit No. (1) Original Complaint 14 (2) Panchnama of the Scene of Offense 29 (3) Inquest Panchnama 31 (4) Panchnama of the Clothes of the Deceased 26 Page 4 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined No. Description of Document Exhibit No. Note to the Executive Magistrate, Anand (5) 40 Rural (6) F.S.L. Mobile Van Officer's Report 41 (7) Post-Mortem (PM) Form 42 (8) Note for conducting Post-Mortem 17 (9) Post-Mortem Note 18 (10) Certificate from Medical Officer, Vasad 19 (11) Letter written by Medical Officer, Vasad 20 (12) Certificate showing Cause of Death 21 Note to register Accidental Death based on (13) 43 information (14) Note for registering the Offense 36 (15) Note from Taluka Circle Inspector, Anand 44 (16) Forwarding Letter by Circle Inspector, Anand 45 (17) Map of the Scene of Offense 27 Report to delete IPC Sec 302 and add IPC (18) 46 Sec 306 (19) Muddamal (Evidence) Dispatch Note 47 Page 5 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined No. Description of Document Exhibit No. (20) F.S.L. Receipt 48 49-51, 53-
(21) F.S.L. Forwarding Letter
55
(22) F.S.L. Report 50-52
(23) Biology Department Report 54-56
(24) Serology Analysis Report 57
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.
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 Page 6 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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. Though learned advocate Ms.Khyati Bhati has appeared on behalf of Nanavati and Company for respondent nos.1 to 4, no arguments have been made by learned advocate Ms.Khyati Bhati.
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 that Page 7 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined has been filed vide exhibit-14, which has been filed by the father of the deceased Meenaben. It is the case of the complainant that the deceased was married to accused no.1 Arun Solanki on 07.05.2009 and after the marriage, the deceased was staying at Village Mogar, District Anand along with accused nos.2 to 4 and in the said house, along with accused nos.2 to 4, her sister-in-law Neetaben and her husband were also staying and the husband i.e. accused no.1 was working at Jhagadia School and at around 13.15 hours on 03.10.2009, the complainant got information that his daughter Meenaben has expired and thereafter he reached the village and on reaching the matrimonial home of the deceased, he found that on the first floor room, the dead body of deceased Meenaben was there and none from the family of the in-laws of the deceased were present at the said time and he could see that, there were black spots near the neck region of the deceased and in the complaint, it has been stated that somebody had tried to strangle the deceased and the entire complaint is based on the allegation that the accused have strangled the deceased from her neck and killed her. It has also been stated in the complaint that just prior to one day from the date of incident i.e. on 02.10.2009 at around 6.00 p.m., he received a telephonic message from his daughter that accused no.1 had come from Village Jhagadia, i.e. the place where he was working to his parents' house at Page 8 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined Mogar.
8.2. It has also been alleged that whenever the complainant tried to talk to the accused no.1 on his mobile, he would not take the said call and there was a constant harassment by the accused on the deceased, but the deceased was not informing the said fact to the complainant and the accused no.1, would never talk to the complainant and though there was a facility of a residence at the workplace of accused no.1, he was not taking the deceased to his workplace to reside with him and the entire complaint is based on the fact that the accused in collusion with each other have murdered the deceased.
8.3. The prosecution has examined Kanji Makwana vide Exhibit-13 as P.W.1. He is a complainant and the father of the deceased. It is the case of the complainant that, there was mental harassment from accused no.1 to the deceased.
The deceased was not permitted to reside with accused no.1 at his workplace at Jhagadia and after 05.08.2009, the deceased was not residing at the workplace of the accused no.1 and the complainant states that the said fact was a harassment to the deceased that the accused no.1 did not take the deceased with him at village Jhagadia and made her stay with the in-laws of the deceased. It also transpires Page 9 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined in his oral evidence that, just before one day from the date of incident, i.e. 02.10.2009, the accused no.1 had reached his parental house at Mogar at 06.30, was informed through message by the deceased and on the next date, the deceased had taken the aforesaid step of hanging herself. It has been stated that the deceased had taken the step as there was a constant harassment from the accused nos.2 to 4. 8.4. It is also stated that the deceased was not kept properly at her matrimonial house. In cross-examination, it has been admitted that, after the marriage on 21.06.2009, the deceased had gone to reside at Ranipur with the accused no.1 till 05.08.2009 and after 05.08.2009, the deceased was staying at her in-laws' house at Mogar. The complainant also admits that after completion of 15 days of Raksha Bandhan in the year 2009, the accused nos.2 and 4 had come to take the deceased from her parental house.
8.5. It has also been stated that the deceased had stayed at Ranipur with accused no.1 at his workplace for 40 days. He has also admitted that within that 40 days, the deceased had never sent him any message and that the complainant does not know that what had transpired at Ranipur, where the deceased was staying with her husband i.e. accused no.1. In cross-examination, at paragraph no.6, he has admitted that Page 10 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined the complaint was filed by him only to find out the reason for the cause of death of the deceased. He has also admitted in the said paragraph that it is true that after reaching the matrimonial home of the deceased at 04.30 and after filing the complaint at 07.15 hours, till that time he was not aware what was the reason of the cause of death of the deceased. At paragraph no.7 of his deposition, he has stated that he has only suspicion that either deceased was killed by the accused or the deceased had herself taken the said step and to find the answer to the said fact, he had filed a complaint. He has also admitted that in his police statement, he had only mentioned that deceased was killed by the accused and other than that there was no other reason given by the complainant to the Police Officers. 8.6. The prosecution has examined Dr. Ambalal Patel vide exhibit-16 as P.W.2. He was a Medical Officer at Primary Health Center, Vadod and who had conducted the post- mortem and the post-mortem report is produced vide Exhibit 18 and the cause of death as per the said post-mortem report which was given was provisional cause of death is asphyxia following hanging.
8.7. The questions that were placed by the in-charge Police officer to the Medical Officer were answered by the said Page 11 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined Medical Officer and were produced vide Exhibit-19, which states that the time at which the deceased had expired was 18 to 36 hours. There were no injury marks on the neck of the deceased. He had also opined that the death was because of suicide. There were no marks of fight that might had taken place before the incident. He has also opined that the odhani i.e. the dress was used to hang herself. 8.8. The FSL report was produced vide Exhibit-50 and there was no poison found in the body of the deceased. The forensic report was also conducted with respect to the dress of the deceased, which is produced vide Exhibit-54. The blood sample also does not state that any poison is found in the body of the deceased.
8.9. The certificate of cause of death as given by the Medical Officer, PHC Vadod, Taluka and District Anand is produced vide Exhibit-21 and the final cause of death is Asphyxia following hanging.
8.10. The mother of the deceased Maniben Makwana has been examined vide Exhibit-22 as P.W.3. She has reiterated what has been stated by the complainant in the complaint. She has stated the fact that the accused no.1 did not want to stay with the deceased was informed by accused no.1, to Page 12 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined the sister of the deceased-Kailash. In a cross-examination, the said witness has stated that, the deceased had never informed her about any harassment, which was done by the accused on the deceased and accused no.1 was never talking to the state witness and therefore, she suspected that accused no.1 has killed the deceased.
8.11. The mother of the deceased had in her cross- examination stated that, other than the fact that the accused has killed the deceased, she has not stated anything to the Police Department and at paragraph no.10 of her deposition, she has stated that only on the ground of suspicion, she has filed the complaint.
8.12. The prosecution has thereafter examined the brother of the deceased Sunil Makwana vide Exhibit 23 as P.W.4. He has stated that the deceased had informed him that the nature of accused no.1 was short tempered and the deceased did not inform him or anybody about the harassment that was done on the accused to save the reputation of her father.
8.13. At paragraph no.4 of his examination-in-chief, the said witness states that he is not aware as to what could be the cause of the death of the deceased but as his sister i.e. Page 13 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined Meenaben is not alive, he considers the accused liable for the same. At paragraph no.5 of his cross-examination he has again reiterated that till his cross-examination, he is not aware of the real cause of the death of his sister. The prosecution has thereafter examined, the sister of the deceased Kailashben who P.W.3 states that accused no.1 had informed Kailashben that she does not want to stay with the deceased. Kailashben has been examined vide Exhibit 24 as P.W.5. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that the Principal of the School where accused no.1 has been working was informed about the harassment of accused no.1 on the deceased and the said Principal had also scolded the accused no.1, but the prosecution has neither examined the said School Principal working at Jhagadia nor his statement is filed before this Court.
8.14. In her cross-examination at paragraph no.1, she has stated that from her discussion with the deceased, she could realize that the deceased wanted to stay at her matrimonial home and the deceased had never informed her that her life is endangered, if she stays with her in-laws. She has also informed that from her talks with the deceased, she could only realize that there were domestic issues on travel matters and that the said witness had never informed the complainant of not sending the deceased back to her Page 14 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined matrimonial home.
8.15. Tha panchnama of scene of offence is produced vide Exhibit-29. The inquest Panchnama is produced vide exhibit-
39. The panch witness Ganpatsinh Solanki has been examined as P.W.6 vide Exhibit-28. The P.S.O. at Vasad Police Station Amitaben has been examined as P.W.7 vide Exhibit 33. The Station Diary in which, it is noted that there was an accidental death is produced vide Exhibit 34. 8.16. The D.Y.S.P. Anand Division, Poonambhai Bharda has been examined as P.W.8 vide Exhibit 35. Initially a case of accidental death was registered and it was before the D.Y.S.P. that a complaint has been filed by the complainant. The prosecution has examined vide Exhibit 37, Yogendra Ravalji as P.W.9 who was the Head Constable who had registered the Station Diary, which is produced vide Exhibit- 38, to register a case under Section 302, 498A and 114 and forwarded to Inspector Pawar who has been examined as P.W. 10 vide Exhibit 39 who was the Police Sub-Inspector. In his deposition he has also stated that accused no.4 i.e. the mother-in-law of the deceased had given intimation about the death of the deceased even before the complaint is filed. At paragraph no.2 of his cross-examination, he has stated that considering the statement given by P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 Page 15 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined before the Police Station, there was no complaint of deceased committing suicide because of the harassment of the accused. At paragraph no.5 of the cross-examination, it transpires that the said Investigating Officer had taken statement of the neighbours at the Matrimonial Home of the deceased and from none of the said statement, the case of the prosecution could be proved. He has also admitted that, there is no evidence as to giving details of how, what and when the accused have harassed the deceased. The Sessions Court has taken into consideration the oral evidence of all the witnesses and from the entire evidence of the prosecution, the said case is on the ground that there was suspicion on the minds of the family members of the deceased that the accused have killed the deceased. The said witnesses have not narrated any incident which indicates that the accused did not have any other option but to commit suicide.
8.17. All the family members have only narrated the fact that the deceased was killed by the accused. But the fact remains that the charge is under Section 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the prosecution has not been able to prove even from the medical evidence, the evidence of the Police Officer and the family members that the accused had instigated and abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
Page 16 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 8.18. suicide meaning:
As per "Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th Edition, p.686." "A finding of suicide must be on evidence of intention. Every act of self destruction is, in common language described by the word 'suicide' provided it is an intentional act of a party knowing the probable consequence of what he is about. Suicide is never to be presumed. Intention is the essential legal ingredient." Therefore, while considering this aspect, the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 regarding the abetment and the suicide has to be considered. There has to be evidence, by which it could be said that the respondent accused had instigated the deceased in such a manner or by creating the circumstances, which has led the deceased to commit suicide. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 - Gangula Mohan Reddy v.
State of Andhra Pradesh has observed: "The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no Page 17 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined explanation. 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing', thus implying an act of self killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. The provision of abetment is defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The ingredients are required to be established. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this judgment has observed that 'This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words 'instigation' and 'goading'. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances."
Page 18 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 9.1 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.
9.2 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 Page 19 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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.
9.3 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 Page 20 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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.
9.6 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 21 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 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 Page 22 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the Page 23 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest Page 24 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija Page 25 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give Page 26 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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. 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 Page 27 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", Page 28 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined "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 possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by Page 29 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Page 30 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026 undefined
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.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) URIL RANA Page 31 of 31 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 04:59:04 IST 2026