Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Somabhai Ratabhai Damor on 7 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 261 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SOMABHAI RATABHAI DAMOR & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3
SHRIKAR H BHATT(2573) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 07/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State
under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the
order dated 28.02.2007 in Sessions Case No.110 of 2006 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court,
Modasa (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court'),
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents -
accused from the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306
and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the
IPC'). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'
as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake
of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. During pendecy of the present appeal, the respondent
No.2 - original accused No.2 Ratabhai Lalubhai Damor has
expired on 25.10.2017. Copy of the death certificate is produced
and the same is taken is taken on record, and hence, the present
appeal qua respondent No.2 herein - original accused No.2 stands
disposed of as abated.
3. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present
appeal are as under:
3.1. The accused No.1 was married to deceased Laliben and
the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father in-law and mother in-law
of deceased Laliben. The accused were physically and mentally
harassing the deceased as the accused No.1 had illicit relation with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
Lilaben, wife of Raman Harji Patel, resident of village Sajjanpura
Kampa and as the deceased was restraining the accused No.1 from
maintaining the illicit relationship, all the accused were mentally
and physically harassing the deceased. On 23.01.2002 at around
7:00am, the deceased got burnt and expired, and hence, the
complainant Bhathibhai Jalambhai Thakarda, the brother of the
deceased, filed the complaint on 24.01.2002 with Meghraj Police
Station, which was registered at I-C.R.No.8 of 2002 under Section
498(A), 306, 114 of the IPC.
3.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was
carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having
sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be
filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case
was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions therefore, after
completion of process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case
was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered
as Sessions Case No. 110 of 2006.
3.3. The accused were duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided
to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and
a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.2 and the
statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.3, 4 and 5
respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on
record. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and has
produced 9 documentary evidence in support of the case.
3.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned
APP at Exh.28, the further statement of the accused under Section
313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the
learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after
perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the
impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the IPC.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the
appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that
the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
Court is contrary to law, evidence on record. The learned Trial
Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to
establish the case beyond the reasonable doubts. The learned Trial
Court has erred in evaluating the evidence on record of the case
and without appreciating the evidence in its real perspective, has
acquitted the accused. The learned Trial Court has, without giving
any specific reason, not discussed the evidence of the witnesses in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and has discarded
the evidence of the witnesses. The learned Trial Court has erred in
considering the fact that the deceased was being harassed by the
accused and was being given mental and physical torture time and
again and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the
important evidence in its real spirit and has acquitted the accused.
The learned Trial Court has erred in considering the evidence of
the complainant and other witnesses which was fully
corroborated. The learned Trial Court has passed the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal without giving any cogent and
convincing reasons and therefore, the same requires to be quashed
and set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
5. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the
appellant - State and learned advocate Mr.Shrikar Bhatt for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Perused the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of
the prosecution on record of the case.
6. Learned APP Mr.Bhargav Pandya for the appellant -
State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced
by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned
Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the
prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the the case
and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the
learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted
the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles
of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned
Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case
and also on presumptions, not permitted by law. Learned APP
has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
the said offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the
present appeal and impose maximum sentence on the accused.
7. Learned advocate Mr.Shrikar Bhatt for the respondent
Nos. 1 and 3 - original accused Nos. 1 and 3 has submitted that the
learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in true
perspective and has not committed any error in acquitting the
accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court is required in the
impugned judgement and the order of acquittal passed by the
learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal.
8. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present
case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the
Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, the Apex Court has
observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 :
AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against
acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power
exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of
appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one
significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered
with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is
based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a
different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind
that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and
the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it
decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the
decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied)
........ From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following
general principles regarding powers of 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 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 emphasize 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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
8.1 The Apex Court in yet another recent decision in case
of Sri Dattatraya Vs. Sharanappa arising out of Criminal Appeal
No. 3257 of 2024 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13179 of 2023) observed as
under:
31. The instant case pertains to challenge against concurrent
findings of fact favouring the acquittal of the respondent, it
would be cogent to delve into an analysis of the principles
underlining the exercise of power to adjudicate a challenge
against acquittal bolstered by concurrent findings. The
following broad principles can be culled out after a
comprehensive analysis of judicial pronouncements:
i) Criminal jurisprudence emphasises on the fundamental
essence of liberty and presumption of innocence unless
proven guilty. This presumption gets emboldened by
virtue of concurrent findings of acquittal. Therefore, this
court must be extracautious while dealing with a
challenge against acquittal as the said presumption gets
reinforced by virtue of a well-reasoned favourable
outcome. Consequently, the onus on the prosecution
side becomes more burdensome pursuant to the said
double presumption.
ii) In case of concurrent findings of acquittal, this Court
would ordinarily not interfere with such view
considering the principle of liberty enshrined in Article
21 of the Constitution of India 1950, unless perversity is
blatantly forthcoming and there are compelling reasons.
iii) Where two views are possible, then this Court would
not ordinarily interfere and reverse the concurrent
findings of acquittal. However, where the situation is
such that the only conclusion which could be arrived at
from a comprehensive appraisal of evidence, shows that
there has been a grave miscarriage of justice, then,
notwithstanding such concurrent view, this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
would not restrict itself to adopt an oppugnant view.
[Vide State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dan Singh]
iv) To adjudge whether the concurrent findings of acquittal
are 'perverse' it is to be seen whether there has been
failure of justice. This Court in Babu v. State of Kerala
clarified the ambit of the term 'perversity' as
"if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring
or excluding relevant material or by taking into
consideration irrelevant/admissible material. The
finding may also be said to be perverse if it is
'against the weight of evidence', or if the finding
so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the
vice of irrationality."
v) In situations of concurrent findings favoring accused,
interference is required where the trial court adopted an
incorrect approach in framing of an issue of fact and the
appellate court whilst affirming the view of the trial
court, lacked in appreciating the evidence produced by
the accused in rebutting a legal presumption. [Vide
Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh]
vi) Furthermore, such interference is necessitated to
safeguard interests of justice when the acquittal is based
on some irrelevant grounds or fallacies in re-appreciation
of any fundamental evidentiary material or a manifest
error of law or in cases of non-adherence to the
principles of natural justice or the decision is manifestly
unjust or where an acquittal which is fundamentally
based on an exaggerated adherence to the principle of
granting benefit of doubt to the accused, is liable to be set
aside. Say in cases where the court severed the
connection between accused and criminality committed
by him upon a cursory examination of evidences. [Vide
State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh and Others and Rajesh
Prasad v. State of Bihar.]
9. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against
acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after
appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial
Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality of
perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the
Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the
Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of
acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of
innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of
acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are
possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e.
(i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in
favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has
taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court
should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate
Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only
when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is
clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to
conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
10. The accused has been charged with the offence under
Section 306 of the IPC and at this juncture it would be fit to
reproduce the observations of the Apex Court in the case of
Prakash and others versus State of Maharashtra in the order
passed in Criminal Appeal No.5543 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP
(Cri.) No. 1073 of 2023 on 20 December 2024 in paras 12 to 22
which are as under:
"12. The relevant provisions of the IPC that fall for consideration are
as under:
"306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
107. Abetment of a thing--A person abets the doing of a
thing, who--
First.-- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.-- Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation-1: A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or
by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is
bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or
attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said
to instigate the doing of that thing.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
Explanation 2: Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate
the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of
suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act
by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section
306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused
person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some
direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or
involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107
of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted,
time and again, and its principles are well- established. To
attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to
establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or
incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close
proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such
instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet
the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a
position that he/she would have no other option but to commit
suicide.
15. The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of
decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a 10
particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC,
the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating
or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide.
Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being
apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the
aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires
an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused
person which left the deceased with no other option but to
commit suicide.
16. This Court in the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar
Mahajan and Another12, had an occasion to consider the scope
of Section 306 of the IPC and the ingredients which are essential
for abetment, as set out in Section 107 of the IPC. It observed as
follows:
16. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere defined in the
Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
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.
...........
18. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence,
considering that the successful offender is beyond the
reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under
Section 309 IPC.
..........
21. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance
on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh V. State
of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] In
Mahendra Singh [1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 : 1995 SCC
(Cri) 1157] the allegations levelled were as under: (SCC p.
731, para 1)
"1. ... My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law
(husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They
beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra
wants to marry a second time. He has illicit
connections with my sister-in-law. Because of
these reasons and being harassed I want to die by
burning." The Court on the aforementioned
allegations came to a definite conclusion that by
no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted
on the statement of the deceased. According to the
appellant, the conviction of the appellant under
Section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the
aforementioned allegation of harassment of the
deceased is unsustainable in law.
... ...........
23. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal [(1994) 1 SCC 73 : 1994
SCC (Cri) 107] this Court has cautioned that: (SCC p.
90, para 17)
"17. ... The court should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each case
and the evidence adduced in the trial for the
purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out
to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
by committing suicide. If it [appears] to the court
that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
12 differences in domestic life quite common to
the society to which the victim belonged and such
petulance, discord and differences were not
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
individual in a given society to commit suicide,
the conscience of the court should not be satisfied
for basing a finding that the accused charged of
abetting the offence of suicide should be found
guilty."
24. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367]
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.
25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot
be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio
of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to
convict a person under Section 306IPC there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that
he committed suicide."
17. This Court held that abetment involves the mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of
a thing. Therefore, without a positive act on the part of the
accused to instigate or aid a person in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained. This Court further observed
that the intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit the offence. Abetment also requires an active act or
direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
other option and that act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
However, this Court has cautioned that since each person reacts
differently to the same provocation depending on a variety of
factors, it is impossible to lay down a straightjacket formula to
deal with such cases. Therefore, every such case has to be
decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
18. More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda
and Others v. State of Gujarat, this Court has relied on S.S.
Chheena (supra) to hold that the element of mens rea cannot
simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and
explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational
requirement for establishing abetment under the law, that is
deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke or contribute
to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled. This Court
observed as follows:
"18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-
established legal principle that the presence of clear mens
rea--the intention to abet the act--is essential. Mere
harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused
guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must
demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that
led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of
mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must
be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the
foundational requirement for establishing abetment
under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity
of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or
contribute to the act of suicide."
19. It is, therefore, evident that the positive act of instigation is a
crucial element of abetment. While dealing with an issue of a
similar nature, this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State
of Chhattisgarh laid down the parameters of what would be
constituted to be an act of instigation. This Court observed as
follows:-
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
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. The
present one is not a case where the accused had by his
acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit suicide in which
case an instigation may have been inferred. A word
uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending
the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation."
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that instigation is
to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an
act". It has been held that in order 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,
however, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the facts of
the case, this Court went on to hold that a word uttered in the
fit of anger or 16 emotion without intending the consequences
to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
21. Relying on the decision in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra),
this Court in the case of Ude Singh and Others v. State of
Haryana observed as follows:
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that
the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the
context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a
vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes
of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case
of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be
looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of
suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by
another person would not suffice unless there be such
action on the part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an offending action
ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by
another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted
commission of suicide by another, the consideration
would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation
of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this
Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means
to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been
hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise
not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be
safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by
his continuous course of conduct creates a situation
which leads the deceased perceiving no other option
except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the
four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an
active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of
the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit
suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of
suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with reference
to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts
and deeds are only of such nature where the accused
intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of
anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of
abetment of suicide.
However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying
the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased
reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of
abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate
analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be
examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the
surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and
psyche of the accused and the deceased.
16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected
and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's
action on the mind of another carries several
imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently
by different persons; and so far a particular person's
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is
no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the
same. Even in regard to the factors related with the
question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be
considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or
urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill
action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could
also vary for a variety of factors, including those of
background, self-confidence and upbringing. 18 Hence,
each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and
circumstances."
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that
in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It has been held that since the
cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence
of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and complex
attributes of human behaviour, the court would be
looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of
incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court
further observed that a mere allegation of harassment of
the deceased by another person would not suffice unless
there is such action on the part of the accused which
compels the person to commit suicide. This Court also
emphasised that such an offending action ought to be
proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further
clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with reference
to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It was further
held that if the acts and deeds are only of such nature
where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or a snap-show of 19 anger, a particular case
may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide,
however, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the
deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or
was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment
of suicide. This Court held that owing to the fact that the
human mind could be affected and could react in myriad
ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by
different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its
own facts and circumstances."
11. In light of the above, the evidence produced by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
prosecution on record is appreciated and the prosecution has
examined PW-1 Dr.Manubhai Hirabhai Solanki at Exh.8 and the
witness is the Medical Officer, who has conducted the post-
mortem on the dead body of deceased Laliben Somabhai Ratabhai
Damor. The witness has stated that while he was on duty at Civil
Hospital, Himmatnagar on 24.01.2002, the dead body of deceased
Laliben Somabhai Ratabhai Damor was brought for post mortem,
which was done by himself along with panel doctor Dr.P.K.Gohil.
As per Column No.17, there were deep burns over face and neck,
both upper limbs with palms and chest and abdomen (anterior
aspect), both lower limbs except soles, external genital region and
back of thorax and abdomen. The scalp hair frontal and right
temporal bone was partially burnt and there was redness over
several parts of the body. All the injury were antemortem and as
per their opinion, the cause of death is shock due to burns. The
witness has produced the post-mortem at Exh.10. During the
cross-examination, the witness has admitted that if there is an
accidental burn, the person would the same type of burn injury as
were found on the dead body of the deceased. The patient was
brought to the Civil Hospital for treatment and she expired during
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
treatment and Accidental Death No.0 of 2002 was registered at
Himmatnagar Town Police Station.
11.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Bhathibhai
Jalambhai Khant at Exh.11 and the witness is the brother of the
deceased and the complainant. The witness has stated that his
sister was married 10 years prior to the incident and for 7 years,
they had no problems during her marital life but, thereafter, the
accused No.1 developed illicit relationship with the wife of
Ramanbhai Hirjibhai Patel of village Sajjanpur Kampa and he does
not know the name of the person. That he was informed from the
Malpur Police Station that his sister had expired in Civil Hospital,
Himmatnagar at around 1:00am and he went to Malpur Police
Station and was sent to Civil Hospital, Himmatnagar where he
saw the dead body of his sister which was burnt. That 10 days
prior to the incident, his sister had come to his house and had
informed him about the illicit relationship of the accused No.1,
and thereafter, he explained to her that she had children and had
gone and had put her at her marital home. That he filed the
complaint, which is produced at Exh.27. During the cross-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
examination, the witness has stated that his sister and the accused
No.1 used to come to his house after marriage and he was
informed that his sister had suffered burn injuries while she was
putting water to heat. That his sister was taken to Meghraj,
Modasa and from there to the hospital at Himmatnagar and the
message was received on the previous night through his another
sister, who was married at village Sawan Bhunjari. That the
accused No.1 had taken his sister for treatment and was with his
sister throughout the treatment. That he has not filed any
complaint regarding the illicit relationship of the accused No.1 or
any ill-treatment of his sister, and whenever, he had gone to his
sister's house, they were residing happily.
11.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Kalabhai
Ladubhai Khant at Exh.12, who is the uncle of the deceased and
the witness has supported the case of the prosecution upto a
certain extent but has stated that he does not know how the
deceased expired. The witness has been declared hostile and has
been cross-examined by the learned APP, and during the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
has stated that they were informed that the deceased was burnt
while she was heating water and the dead body of the deceased
was given to the accused. The deceased was married before 15
years, and whenever, she would come to her parental home, she
did not have any talk with him. That his nephew had informed
him that the deceased had expired and he wanted to file a
complaint against her in-laws and his nephew had told him what
statement has to be given to the police.
11.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Akhuben Jalamji
Khant at Exh.13, who is the mother of the deceased and the
witness has supported the case of the prosecution. During the
cross-examination, the witness has stated that he was informed
that the deceased had sustained burn injuries while she was trying
to heat water and her in-laws taken her to the hospital for
treatment.
11.4. The prosecution has examined PW-5 Dr.Manishbhai
Amraji Suvera at Exh.15 and the witness is the Medical Officer,
who was on duty at Civil Hospital, Himmatnagar on 23.01.2002.
The witness has stated that at around 3:10pm, Lilaben Somabhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
Ratabhai was brought for treatment and in the history, she had
stated that at around 10:45am, she was putting water to heat on
the 'chula' and she sustained burn injuries, and on examination,
superficial to deep burn injuries were found all over the body,
smell of kerosene was present over the body and the total burns
about 100%. The patient was conscious and was treated as an
indoor patient and she expired on 23.01.2002 at about 6:00pm and
the PSO, Himmatnagar Town Police Station was informed about
the death. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated
that he had treated the patient for about 3:00 hours and the
officials from Himmatnagar Town Police Station had come.
11.5. The prosecution has examined PW-6 Somabhai
Nathabhai Khant at Exh.17 and the witness is the cousin of the
deceased, who has supported the case of the prosecution. During
the cross-examination, he has stated that when he had gone to
Civil Hospital, Himmatnagar, he met one policeman, who told
him that Laliben had suffered burn injuries while she was keeping
water to heat.
11.6. PW-7 Shanaji Laduji Khant examined at Exh.21 is the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
uncle of the deceased and has supported the case of the
prosecution but, during the cross examination, he had stated that
the deceased was married for more than 15 to 17 years and he had
not stated to the police that the deceased had told him that she was
to stay in the same place.
11.7. The prosecution has examined PW-8 Babaji Chanduji
Chauhan at Exh.22 and the witness is the Investigating officer,
who had narrated all the procedure that was undertaken by him
during investigation of the offence. During the cross-examination,
the witness has stated that the papers of Himmatnagar Town
Police Station Accidental Death No.0 of 2002 was received by him
during investigation and the inquest panchnama as well as the
dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate were sent
to him. That he had seen the dying declaration, in which, the
deceased had stated that she had sustained burn injuries while she
was keeping water to heat and there was no mention about any
physical or mental harassment to her.
11.8. The prosecution has examined PW-9 Kalaji Punjaji at
Exh.24 and the witness is the PSO, who had registered the FIR of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
the complainant. During the cross-examination, the witness has
stated that on the same day at Station Diary Entry No.19 at around
21:30 hours, the Medical Officer, Himmatnagar had informed him
that Laliben was heating water at her home and her clothes caught
fire and she was burnt and she expired during treatment at Civil
Hospital, Himmatnagar.
11.9. The panchnama of the place of offence is produced at
Exh.18 and the inquest panchnama is produced at Exh.19.
12. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, as per the case of the complainant, the deceased was
mentally and physically harassed as the accused No.1 had illicit
relation with one lady from village Sajjanpura Kampa. It is on
record that immediately after the incident, Accidental Death No. 0
of 2002 was registered at Himmatnagar Town Police Station,
wherein, the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded,
which has not been brought on record by the prosecution but, in
the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, it has come on
record that in the dying declaration, the deceased has stated that
she had sustained burn injuries while she was heating water at her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
home. Immediately after the incident, the deceased was taken to
the Civil Hospital, Himmatnagar and the Medical Officer, who has
treated her, at the first instance, has been examined as PW-5 Dr.
Manishbhai Amraji Suvera at Exh.15 and the medical certificate is
produced at Exh.16, which shows that in the history, the deceased
had herself stated that she had sustained burn injuries at around
10:45am, while she was heating water on the 'chula'. If the
panchnama produced at Exh.18 is perused, it shows that the
'chula' had a lot of ash and the dry grass was half burnt at that
place and certain portion of the kachcha door was freshly broken
for 1 ft. to 2 ft. to bring water from the adjacent room. No traces of
kerosene was found at the place of the incident and even in the
inquest panchnama, no traces of kerosene have been found.
12.1 The complainant and other family members have
made allegations about the illicit relation of the accused No.1 but
there is no iota of evidence to that effect and the Investigating
Officer has not investigated anything about this aspect. In the
entire evidence of the prosecution, it has also come on record that
the deceased and the accused No.1 were married before 15 years
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
and during the entire marital life, the deceased had not filed any
police complaint against the accused No.1 and even her brother,
the complainant, has not filed any complaint against the accused.
There is no iota of evidence that the accused had intentionally
provoked, incited or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide
and the prosecution has not proved that the deceased has died due
to suicide. The Medical Officer examined as PW-1 at Exh.8, who is
the doctor, who has conducted the post-mortem, has clearly
opined that the injuries could be accidental and when the deceased
herself in the dying declaration has pointed out to accidental
burns, it is clear that the incident has occurred due to an accident
while the deceased was heating water on the 'chula'.
13. In view of the above, the learned trial Court has
appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there
does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has
appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in
acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/261/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/02/2025
undefined
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just
and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by
the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement
with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of
acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the
present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is
dismissed.
14. The impugned judgment and the order dated
28.02.2007 in Sessions Case No.110 of 2006 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Modasa is hereby
confirmed.
15. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI
