Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Narshibhai Somabhai Boricha on 6 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 29/04/2026
Pronounced On : 06/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1619 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NARSHIBHAI SOMABHAI BORICHA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT,APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NIKHILESH J SHAH(3007) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
1,2,3,4,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present Appeal presents a difficult but pertinent question. Difficult in its human dimension, yet one that must be examined strictly within the framework of criminal law when it comes to court proceedings. It arises from a case of suicide, where the line between personal despair and legally attributable conduct to an accused for such an act is very thin often blurred. The Court is, therefore, required to carefully assess whether the material on record discloses not merely a tragic end, but a case of Page 1 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined abetment, as understood under Section 306 of the IPC. Sympathy, however compelling, cannot substitute the standard of proof mandated in law. This predicament finds an echo in the lines of a well-known song:
"Hello darkness, my old friend, I've come to talk with you again..."
-- The Sound of Silence by Simon & Garfunkel The song is mainly about loneliness, isolation, and the failure of people to truly communicate with each other. The "darkness" referred to therein may well mirror the silent and personal struggles of the human mind. Yet, the law draws a clear distinction -- it intervenes not in the existence of such darkness, but only where another's conduct has intentionally driven the deceased towards that irreversible act.
2. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.04.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhoraji, in Sessions Case No.5/2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(c), 306 of the IPC, and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Dowry Act, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"). Page 2 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
3. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court is that the complainant's sister, Nirupaben, was married to the accused about nine years prior to the incident and had two sons from the marriage. It is alleged that she was subjected to continuous physical and mental harassment by the accused persons, who frequently taunted her regarding dowry. Unable to tolerate such persistent harassment, she became distressed and consumed poison. During the course of treatment, she succumbed. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s- accused.
4. 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 were 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. 05/2012. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
Page 3 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
5. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and 26 documentary evidences before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment are as under;
Oral Evidences
Sr.
Exhibit. No. Particulars
No.
Babulal Bhagwanjibhai Tilala, (Witness of local spot 1 13 Panchnama at Mark-14) Manojbhai Shivabhai Dabhi, (Witness of Inquest 2 15 Panchnama at Mark-16) 3 17 Ashwinbhai Balvantray Parmar, (Complainant) 4 19 Dhanaben Balvantray Parmar, (Witness) 5 20 Balvantbhai Punjabhai Parmar, (Witness) 6 21 Vipulbhai Balvantray Parmar, (Witness) 7 22 Muljibhai Karabhai Rathod, (Witness) 8 23 Kanjibhai Punjabhai Parmar, (Witness) Ashokkumar Lakshmidas Samani, (P.M. Performing 9 25 Medical Officer) Vikrambhai Shankarbhai Vanzara, (Investigating 10 30 Officer) Documentary Evidences Sr. Exhibit No. Description of Document No. Local Spot Panchnama (Record of the scene of the 1 14 incident) 2 16 Inquest Panchnama 3 18 Complaint Page 4 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Sr. Exhibit No. Description of Document No. 4 26 P.M. Note (Post-Mortem Note) 5 27 Final Cause of Death Certificate 6 31 Complaint 7 32 Report for filing of the crime 8 33 Copy of the F.I.R. from Manavadar Police Station Yadi (Official Memo) sent to the Medical Officer, 9 34 Junagadh 10 35 Yadi written by the P.S.O. (Police Station Officer) 11 36 Yadi made by Constable K.A. Kadri 12 37 Yadi made by Constable K.A. Kadri 13 38 Civil Surgeon's Report 14 39 Extract of Radio Message Receipt of handing over possession of the dead 15 40 body 16 41 Arrest Panchnama of the accused 17 42 Arrest Panchnama of the accused 18 43 Arrest Panchnama of the accused 19 44 Yadi to record the arrest of the accused 20 45 Yadi regarding receipt of P.M. Note and Viscera 21 46 Extract of the Station Diary 22 47 Yadi regarding sending Viscera for analysis 23 48 Letter from the Medical Officer, Junagadh Receipt of mudda-maal (seized property/evidence) 24 49 received by F.S.L. 25 50 Letter from the F.S.L. (Forensic Science Laboratory) Analysis Report of the mudda-maal (seized property/ 26 51 evidence) Page 5 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined
6. 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.
7. 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 Page 6 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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.
8. 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 accused. The trial Court has taken a 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.
9. 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:
9.1. The prosecution has mainly relied on the complaint that has been filed by the complainant, i.e., the brother of the deceased Nirupaben wherein, it is the case of Page 7 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined the prosecution that the deceased married Accused No. 2, 9 years ago, and the Accused No.1 is the father-in-law of the deceased, Accused Nos.3 and 4 are the brother-in-law of the deceased, Accused No.5 is the mother-in-law of the deceased and the Accused No.6 is the sister-in-law of the deceased.
After the marriage, the deceased was staying at her in-law's house along with the accused and from the marriage, the deceased had two children Mihir and Harsh. Initially, there were cordial relations between the deceased and the accused, however, only 9 months from the date of incident, the accused often taunted the deceased, and thereby physically and mentally harassed the deceased. Consequently, such a situation was created that the deceased had to leave the matrimonial home. It has been stated that earlier, there were three instances when the deceased had come to her parental house because of the said harassment. The complainant, thinking that there will be an amicable settlement, used to send his sister, i.e., the deceased, back to her matrimonial home. Prior to 20-22 days from the date of incident, the deceased had called her father and mother, and at that time, the deceased had come and stayed at her parental house for 15 days.
Page 8 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 9.2. Thereafter, the Accused No. 2 had come to the parental house of the deceased in view of the amicable settlement, and the deceased had gone with Accused No. 2 to her matrimonial home. On 22-04-2010 at 6:00 p.m., the complainant, i.e., the brother of the deceased, received a phone call from Accused No. 2, that the deceased has consumed poison and is being taken to the hospital for treatment, and the deceased succumbed to the injuries and because of the same, it has been alleged in the complaint that the deceased consumed poison because of the mental and physical harassment of the accused.
98.3. The prosecution has produced the panchnama of the place of offense vide Exhibit-14, and the panch witness Babulal Bhagwanjibhai Tilala, the panch witness to the panchnama of place of offence, has been examined as PW-1, vide Exhibit-13. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has only signed on the panchnama, and that he had gone to the house of Ramnikbhai Bikhabhai Boriya and inside the house, he found one woman who had consumed some medicine. The inquest panchnama is produced vide Exhibit-16, and the panch witness Manojbhai Shivabhai Dabhi has been Page 9 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined examined as PW-2 vide Exhibit-15.
9.4. The brother of the deceased and the complainant i.e., Ashwnibhai Balwantrai Parmar, has been examined as PW-3 vide Exhibit-17, he has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. In his examination-in- chief, he has stated that the accused used to take good care of the deceased, and the deceased was not harassed by the accused, and that he is not aware as to why the deceased, i.e., his sister, had committed suicide. He has also denied of giving a police statement making allegations against the accused of mentally and physically harassing the deceased. In his cross-examination, he has stated that it is not true that the deceased was harassed at her matrimonial home. 9.5. The mother of the deceased Dhanaben Balwantrai Parmar, has been examined as PW-4 vide Exhibit-19, she has also turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. In her deposition, she has stated that her daughter i.e., the deceased Nirupaben, had no difficulty at her matrimonial home from her in-laws. She has also stated that the deceased had never informed her of any harassment Page 10 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined done by the in-laws, and the accused used to keep the deceased properly.
9.6. The prosecution has thereafter examined the father of the deceased, Balwantbhai Punjabhai Parmar, who has been examined as PW-5 vide Exhibit-20, he has also turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. In his deposition, he has stated that there was no harassment on the deceased at her matrimonial home, and that the deceased had never informed him about any alleged harassment during her lifetime. He has denied giving any statement to the police about any harassment that was done by the accused on the deceased.
9.7. The prosecution has thereafter examined the other brother of the deceased i.e., Vipul Parmar vide Exhibit-21 as PW-6, he has also turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has also stated that the accused used to keep the deceased without any harassment, and also there was no harassment from the accused during the lifetime of the deceased.
Page 11 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 9.8. The neighbour at the parental house of the deceased, Muljibhai Rathore, has been examined as PW-7 vide Exhibit-22, he has also not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. He has stated that the deceased was not harassed by the accused at her matrimonial home, and that the deceased was kept properly at her matrimonial home.
9.9. The uncle of the deceased, Kanjibhai Punjabhai Parmar, has been examined vide Exhibit-23 as PW-8, he has also turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution, and has stated that the accused was not harassing the deceased during her lifetime. 9.10. The prosecution has thereafter examined Dr. Ashokkumar Lakshmidas Samani as PW-9 vide Exhibit-25, he is the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and was a Medical Officer at Government Hospital, Junagadh.
9.11. The post-mortem report is produced vide Exhibit- 26, and the cause of death is stated at Exhibit-27, which states that the deceased had died of shock due to Page 12 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined "cardiorespiratory failure resulting endosulfan poisoning." 9.12. The investigating officer at Kuttada Sanghani Police Station, Vikrambhai Shankarbhai Vanzara has been examined vide Exhibit-30 as PW-10.
9.13. The Sessions Court has taken into consideration the fact that the prosecution has not been able to prove the offense against the accused. Moreover, the family members of the deceased, who would be aware of the harassment and abetment that caused the deceased to commit suicide, have all turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
10. The word suicide has not been defined, and the word suicide means the intentional killing of one self. 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 Page 13 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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 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 Page 14 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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."
11. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs The State Of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2025, Live Law (SC) 812, after relying on the various judgments of the Apex Court as held at "Para 22, 23, 24" which are as under;
"22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein before cited is that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life. Figuratively, 'the straw that broke the camel's back'; that final event, in a series, that occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act of suicide.Page 15 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024 to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim.
23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true Page 16 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024 there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.
24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to "go, kill yourself"; often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306."
12. The evidence on record and the glaring omission on the prosecution as pointed out above leaves no room of Page 17 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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.
12.1. 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 incitement and committal of suicide. The prosecution has also Page 18 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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.
12.2. 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. 12.3. 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 Page 19 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined punish omission except in some cases, it punishes intentional encouragement or positive facilitation of a prohibited act.
12.4. Abetment means a mental process where a person provokes, encourages or intentionally helps another person to do something. Therefore, unless there is a clear and active role of the accused in instigating or assisting the deceased to commit suicide, the offence cannot be proved and conviction cannot be sustained.
12.5 It becomes clear that even if there are allegations of continuous harassment over a long time, that alone is not enough to prove an offence under Section 306 read with Section 107. There must be a direct and immediate act closely connected to the suicide, showing that the death was the result of such harassment. There should be some final incident which pushed the person to take the extreme step of ending their life. It is true that different individuals react differently depending on their nature but the important question is whether the accused, by a specific act, clearly provoked or pushed the victim towards suicide. Mere proof of harassment and the fact that the victim later committed suicide is not sufficient to establish abetment. The intention Page 20 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined (mens rea) of the accused cannot be assumed only from the mental condition of the victim.
12.6 A victim may feel that there is no other option except to commit suicide because of the behaviour of another person, but this feeling alone does not prove that the other person had the required intention (mens rea) to abet the act.
Mens rea depends on the intention and purpose of the accused, which must be gathered from their actions, words, and surrounding circumstances that could likely lead to such a result. The key question is whether the accused intended, or could reasonably be said to have intended, to push the victim towards suicide. This has to be decided based on the facts of each case. Factors like the social background, relationship between the parties, and surrounding circumstances may differ from case to case. Even if the harassment is serious, unless it is shown that the accused had a clear and deliberate intention to drive the victim to commit suicide, the offence of abetment under Section 306 cannot be established.
12.7. It is therefore not sufficient to show that the Page 21 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 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.
12.8. 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 Page 22 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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.
12.9. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 Page 23 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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 without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
14.1. 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 Page 24 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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.
14.2. 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 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. 14.3. 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. Page 25 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 14.4. 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.
15. 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 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.
16. 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. Page 26 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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.
17. 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 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 Page 27 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
18. 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.
19. 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 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 Page 28 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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."
20. 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 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.
21. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
Page 29 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined "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", "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 Page 30 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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 the trial court."
22. 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:
Page 31 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined "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."
23. 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.
24. 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 Page 32 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 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.
25. 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 33 of 33 Uploaded by ADITYA SINGH(HC02376) on Wed May 06 2026 Downloaded on : Wed May 06 23:04:05 IST 2026