[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Girjaben Hiralal Buddhsing Prajapati on 29 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 15/04/2026
Pronounced On : 29/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2164 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GIRJABEN HIRALAL BUDDHSING PRAJAPATI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MOHINI J BHAVSAR(3071) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3
NON BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 2,3
RULE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.04.2008, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5,
Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No.69 of 2007, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian
Penal Code, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial
before the trial Court is that the daughter of the
complainant viz., Shyamshree alias Bhuriben got married with
Vinodbhai Hiralal Prajapati - accused No.2 three years prior
to the alleged incident; that her marriage life was smooth for
one year; but thereafter, the accused i.e. father-in-law,
mother-in-law used to quarrel with the deceased and also
instigated accused No.2 (husband), due to which, he used to
beat her; that whenever the deceased used to visit the house
of the complainant - Ramlakhan Patiram Prajapati, she
complained of ill-treatment at the hands of the accused
persons, the parents of the deceased went to the house of
the accused and scolded them; but the accused continued
giving physical and mental torture to her as she was not
able to conceive a child; that on 11.05.2007, when the
complainant was at his work, he received a phone call and
he was informed that his daughter - Bhuriben received burn
injuries and instructed him to come immediately; therefore,
the complainant and his wife reached the matrimonial home
of their daughter, where they were informed that she was
taken to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad; therefore, they
reached the Civil Hospital, and upon making inquiry, the
deceased - their daughter - Bhuriben informed them that the
in-laws were giving mental and physical torture and also
taunting her, and therefore, she sprinkled kerosene on her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
body and set ablaze. Accordingly, the complaint was filed.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence
was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-
sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the
offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to
be registered as Sessions Case No.69 of 2007. The charge
was framed against the accused person/s. The accused
pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution
has examined 9 witnesses and also produced 10 documentary
evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the
impugned judgment.
: ORAL EVIDENCE :
P.W. Exh Name of the witness Description
No. .
1 19 Chunilal Jujalal Medical Officer
Kumavat C.H.Gandhinagar who
performed the P.M. of the
dead body
2 23 Dr.Sumeet Asharam Doctor who treated
accused No.2 Vinodbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
for burn injuries
3 33 Ramlakhan Patiram Complainant /father of
the deceased
4 38 Parvatiben Ramlakhan Mother of the deceased /
wife of the complainant
5 39 Bhalabhai Jivabhai Panch No.1 of the
panchanama of scene of
offence at Exh.40.
6 41 Rajubhai Tulsibhai Panch No.2 of the above
stated panchanama aat
Exh.40
7 42 Navinchandra H Joshi Dy.S.P., Kalol the person
who registered the
complaint
8 43 Prakash K Patel Investigating officer /
P.S.I Adalaj Police
Station
9 46 Nitinkumar D Chauhan Investigating Officer /
P.S.I.
: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE :
Sr.No. Exh. Particulars
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
1 15 Analysis report of the FSL muddammal
produced vide list
2 20 P.M.note of the deceased
3 21 Yadi by the investigating officer for performing
the P.M.of the dead body of the deceased
4 22 The certificate of the doctor of the
C.H.hospital for seizure of the viscera
5 34 Complaint
6 36 Inquest panchanama of the dead body of the
deceased
7 37 Panchanama of the seizure of necessary
sample from the place of offence by the FSL
officer
8 30 Panchanama of scene of offence
9 44 Telephone vardhi
10 45 Yadi written to the Executive Magistrate for
recording the D.D. of the deceased by the
investigating officer
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis
of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial
Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the
charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has
pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court
through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before
the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and
perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in
acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial
Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the
contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and
ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the
accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that
the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It
is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen
that the evidence produced on record is reliable and
believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,
therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by
appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the
respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by
the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the
accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal
by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned trial Court.
8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral
as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and
dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with
the Court :
8.1 If the complaint produced vide Exh.34 is taken
into consideration, the complaint has been filed by the father
of the deceased viz., Ramlakhan Patiram Prajapati on
11.05.2007, wherein it has been stated that the marriage of
the deceased (his daughter viz., Shyamshree @ Bhuriben) and
accused No.2 viz., Vinodbhai Hiralal Prajapati had taken
place before three years of the incident; and that initial one
year of the marriage, the relations were cordial, but on
trivial matters, there was a dispute between the deceased
and accused No.1 i.e. mother-in-law, who used to instigate
the father-in-law i.e. accused No.3 and as and when the
deceased used to come to her parental house, she would
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
inform about the said incidents to the complainant and his
wife. It has been stated that the said incident was informed
by the complainant to his brother-in-law viz., Manjuram and
his wife - Kamla and thereafter, his brother-in-law went to
the matrimonial home of the deceased and scolded the
accused. The settlement had taken place and the said
complainant also states that the complainant has also tried
to make her understand and thereafter sent her to the
matrimonial home.
It has been also stated that accused No.2 was in
a habit of consuming alcohol and after consuming alcohol,
he used to physically abuse the deceased and just before four
days of the incident, the mother-in-law i.e. accused Nos.1 and
2 had taunted the deceased for not conceiving a child and
has stated her to be unlucky and at that time, the
complainant had consoled the deceased that they will get the
deceased treated and so saying, had sent the deceased back
to her matrimonial home. It has been stated that the
deceased had expired due to the constant harassment of the
accused.
The deceased used to narrate such incidents to the
complainant upon visiting her parental home, whereupon the
complainant, his wife, and his brother-in-law - Manchharam
had once visited the matrimonial home of the deceased and
admonished the accused. However, the ill-treatment continued,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
but no complaint was lodged to preserve the matrimonial life
of the deceased. It is further alleged that about four days
prior to the incident, the deceased informed the complainant
that accused Nos.1 and 2 were taunting and harassing her
on the ground that she was unable to conceive a child. On
11.02.2007, upon receiving information that the deceased had
sustained burn injuries, the complainant reached the Civil
Hospital, Ahmedabad, where the deceased stated that due to
continuous harassment by her husband and mother-in-law,
and as they had told her to die, she poured kerosene on
herself and set herself ablaze.
8.2 Prosecution Witness No. 1 viz., Dr.Chunilal Jujalal
Kumawat, who was serving as a Medical Officer at Civil
Hospital, Ahmedabad, has been examined vide Exh.19. He
deposed that on 12.05.2007, while he was on duty, the dead
body of the deceased - Bhuriben was brought for postmortem.
He conducted the postmortem between 1:20 p.m. and 2:30
p.m. He observed second and third-degree burn injuries on
the body, which were ante-mortem in nature. In his opinion,
the cause of death was 'shock due to burn injuries'. The
postmortem report is produced vide Exh.20.
8.3 The prosecution has thereafter examined Dr.Sumeet
Asharam Agrawal as P.W.2, vide Exh.23, who was a Resident
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Medical Officer and who had treated accused No.2 -
Vinodbhai (husband). From his evidence, it appears that on
13.05.2007, he had examined accused No.2 - Vinodbhai, who
had given a history that he sustained burn injuries while
attempting to save his wife - Bhuriben (deceased). The case
papers regarding treatment of accused No.2 - Vinodbhai were
produced vide Exhs.25 to 30. It appears from the said case
papers that the said patient, i.e., accused No.2 - Vinodbhai,
had left the hospital against medical advice. In cross-
examination, the witness stated that the patient - Vinodbhai
had sustained second and third-degree burn injuries. It was
also stated that the burn injuries had been treated earlier at
the Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar.
8.4 The prosecution has thereafter examined the
complainant viz., Ramlakhan Patiram Prajapati as P.W.3, vide
Exh.33. He deposed that on 11.05.2007, at about 5:00 p.m.,
while he was at his work (colour work) near Vijay Cross
Roads, he received information that his daughter had
sustained burn injuries. He first went to Motera, where he
found that his daughter was admitted to the Civil Hospital,
Ahmedabad; he thereafter went to the Civil Hospital,
Ahmedabad, where he found that his daughter was admitted
in a severely burnt condition. He stated that upon inquiry,
his daughter informed him that due to harassment by her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
husband and in-laws, she had poured kerosene on herself and
set herself ablaze. He further stated that she was being
harassed on account of not having any children and over
trivial household issues.
In cross-examination, he admitted that he reached
the hospital ward at about 9:00 p.m., where his daughter
was under treatment, her body fully bandaged except the
face, and she was screaming in pain. He further stated that
the police recorded his statement at the hospital while his
daughter was alive, and thereafter, he was informed by the
doctor that his daughter had passed away. In cross-
examination, the witness also stated that he believed the
complaints made by his daughter. He further stated that
about four days before the incident, when his daughter had
come to him, she had complained of harassment on account
of not conceiving a child, whereupon he consoled her by
assuring her that she would be given proper medical
treatment and would be advised by a good doctor, and
thereafter sent her back to her matrimonial home.
8.5 The inquest panchanama is produced vide Exh.36
and the panchanama of sample collected by the FSL is
produced vide Exh.37.
8.6 The prosecution has thereafter examined the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
mother of the deceased viz., Parvatiben Ramlakhan Prajapati
as P.W.4, vide Exh.38. She deposed that for about one year
after the marriage, her daughter was treated well by the in-
laws; however, thereafter accused No.2 - Vinodbhai developed
a habit of consuming alcohol and, under its influence, used to
assault her daughter. She further stated that the in-laws also
instigated such conduct and subjected her daughter to
harassment. She further deposed that when she met the
deceased - Bhuriben at the hospital, the deceased informed
her that due to continuous mental harassment by her
husband and mother-in-law, she poured kerosene on herself
and set herself on fire.
In cross-examination, the witness admitted that at
the time of marriage, as her daughter was of a young age,
she was not sent to her matrimonial home for about four
years and was sent there only about one year before the
incident. She further stated that upon receiving information
about the burn incident, she and her husband first went to
the matrimonial home of the deceased at Motera and, upon
inquiry, learnt that the deceased - Bhuriben had been taken
to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, where they proceeded
immediately.
8.7 There is a contradiction in the deposition of the
said witness (P.W.4). The father of the deceased and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
mother of the deceased, both have stated that as soon as
they came to know about the said incident, they had left
their residence, but if the deposition of the mother of the
deceased P.W.4 is taken into consideration, she has stated
that they had directly gone to the hospital. Whereas, the
father of the deceased i.e. the complainant (P.W.3) has stated
that they had first gone to the matrimonial home of the
deceased and thereafter had gone to the hospital.
8.8 The prosecution has produced the panchnama of
the place of offence vide Exh.40. The panch witnesses thereto
viz., Bhalabhai Jivabhai Rabari and Rajubhai Tulsibhai
Marathi were examined at Exhs.39 and 41, respectively.
However, from their evidence, it appears that both the panch
witnesses have merely admitted their signatures on the
panchnama and have stated that they signed the document
at the instance of the police. Accordingly, both these
witnesses were declared hostile.
8.9 Deputy Superintendent of Police viz., Navinchandra
H. Joshi was examined as P.W.7, vide Exh.42. He deposed
that on 11.05.2007, upon receiving a message from Adalaj
Police Station, he proceeded to the Civil Hospital,
Ahmedabad. On visiting the burn ward, he found the
deceased - Bhuriben in a serious condition and upon inquiry,
she was only able to respond by gestures. He contacted the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
doctor, who informed him that she was not in a position to
speak. In the ward, he met the father of the deceased, who
identified her and stated that his daughter had sustained
burn injuries due to harassment by her in-laws. Accordingly,
the complaint of the complainant - Ramlakhan was recorded
as per his narration.
In cross-examination, the said witness admitted
that he had attempted to ascertain from the deceased how
she had sustained the burns, but as she was unable to
provide any information, he relied upon the opinion of the
doctor that she was not in a condition to speak. He further
admitted that after recording a complaint, he did not take
the statements of any person.
8.10 The prosecution has examined Prakash K. Patel,
P.S.I., Adalaj Police Station as P.W.8, vide Exh.43. He was
the Investigating Officer. He deposed that he got the
postmortem of the deceased conducted, prepared the inquest
panchnama, obtained the postmortem report, and thereafter
handed over the dead body to the father of the deceased (the
complainant). He further stated that the muddamal articles
were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the
panchnama of the place of offence was prepared in presence
of the panch witnesses. He also obtained the medical
certificate regarding burn injuries sustained by accused No.2 -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Vinodbhai at the time of the incident. Thereafter, on
18.06.2007, he handed over further investigation to P.S.I. -
N.D.Chauhan.
In cross-examination, the witness admitted that
though an attempt was made during the investigation to
record the dying declaration of the deceased, no such
statement was obtained. He further admitted that any
statement, if made by the deceased - Bhuriben before a
doctor or nurse while she was alive, was not collected or
taken into custody during the investigation. He also admitted
that it had come on record during the investigation that
while attempting to save the deceased, her husband -
Vinodbhai (accused No.2) had also sustained burn injuries
and was initially treated at the Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar,
and thereafter at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad; however,
the medical certificates regarding such treatment were not
taken into custody during the investigation. He further
admitted that during the course of the investigation, no
suicide note of the deceased or any material evidence relating
thereto was found.
8.11 The prosecution has produced the yadi for
preparing the dying declaration vide Exh.45. The endorsement
on the said document clearly states that the deceased was
not conscious and was unable to give a statement.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
8.12 The prosecution has examined Nitinkumar D.
Chauhan, P.S.I., Gandhinagar, as P.W.9, vide Exh.46. He
deposed that on 18.06.2007, he took over the investigation of
the offence and addressed a requisition to the Executive
Magistrate for recording the dying declaration of the
deceased. In his cross-examination, he admitted that,
considering the condition of the deceased with burn injuries,
steps were taken to have her dying declaration recorded.
During the course of investigation, it was revealed that while
attempting to save the deceased, her husband - accused No.2
- Vinodbhai had also sustained burn injuries and was
initially treated at the Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar, and
thereafter at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad.
8.13 It is most significant to note here that Dr. D.S.
Mehta, who treated the deceased - Bhuriben, has not been
examined by the prosecution, nor have any case papers of
the treatment been produced on record. In the absence of
such evidence, it remains unestablished whether, during the
course of treatment, the deceased was in a condition to speak
or was mentally fit to comprehend and communicate.
8.14 If the document produced vide Exh.45 i.e. the yadi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
sent to the Executive Magistrate for taking dying declaration,
is taken into consideration, the endorsement on the said yadi
states that at 8:30 p.m., the patient is conscious and the
said endorsement is made by Dr.Sumeet (P.W.2) and the said
doctor has again made an endorsement at 10:45 p.m. that
the patient is not conscious and is unable to give the
statement. The fact remains that the said doctor has been
examined as PW.2 Exh.23. The prosecution has examined the
said doctor only for the treatment that was given to accused
No.2 for his burn injury which is alleged to be received
while trying to save the deceased; and that the prosecution
has not placed any material on record to show that what
treatment was given to the deceased at the hospital when
she was under treatment and/or whether Dr.Sumeet, who has
made an endorsement on the yadi (Exh.45), was actually the
treating doctor or not. Moreover, though the father and
mother of the deceased, who have been examined vide Exh.33
as P.W.3 and Exh.38 as P.W.4, respectively, have stated that
the patient had informed them at the hospital that she took
such a step due to the harassment by the in-laws and
husband, but the fact that at 8:30 p.m., the doctor stated
that the patient is conscious but does not state that the
patient is a fit to give statement.
9.1 The evidence on record and the glaring omission
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
on the prosecution as pointed out above leaves no room of
doubt that the order passed by the trial Court is as per law.
The trial Court has rightly held that there was no positive
evidence on record to prove that the accused by way of the
conduct or spoken words, overtly or covertly, actually aided
and abetted or instigated the deceased in such a manner
that it leaves no other option for the deceased but to commit
suicide. In the present case, the prosecution has also not
been able to prove the clear motive of the accused to commit
offence of abatement. There is also no close connection
between the accused's action and the deceased's choice to
commit suicide. In view of the said fact, the prosecution has
not been able to prove that the accused have stimulated the
deceased to commit suicide.
9.2 The prosecution has not proved that there was a
clear motive to commit the offence of abatement. The
prosecution has also not proved that the accused proceeded to
encourage and/or irritate the deceased through words or
insults and that the accused intended to urge the deceased to
end it all by committing suicide. The prosecution has also
not been able to prove the direct connection between the
incitement and committal of suicide. The prosecution has also
not been able to prove direct or indirect act of incitement to
the commitment of suicide. The prosecution has also not been
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
able to prove by accusation of harassment without any
positive action on the part of the accused close to the time
of occurrence that led and forced the deceased to commit
suicide.
9.3 The present matter turns on whether the conduct
attributed to the accused satisfies the legal threshold of
abetment of suicide. Therefore, read as a whole, it can be
said that mere occurrence of a suicide does not automatically
trigger rigours of the Section. The penal consequences under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code arise when the
prosecution is able to establish that the accused abetted and
had a role in provoking or facilitating that suicide. Therefore,
this twin test distinction is required to be borne in mind.
9.4 Abetment, as understood in criminal jurisprudence,
is not a broad moral expression but a term of precise
statutory meaning. Section 107 IPC delineates its contours:
instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding. Each of these
modes presupposes active involvement. The law does not
punish omission except in some cases, it punishes intentional
encouragement or positive facilitation of a prohibited act.
9.5 It is therefore not sufficient to show that the
deceased was unhappy, distressed, or subjected to unpleasant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
treatment. The jurisprudence developed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has consistently underscored that routine
domestic disagreements, suspicion between spouses, or
episodes of harassment do not ipso facto amount to
instigation. Rigours of this Section intervene only where there
is clear evidence of mens rea and a direct causal link
between the accused's conduct and the decision of the
deceased to commit suicide.
9.6 The concept of instigation demands something more
than mere reproach or accusation. It connotes an active
suggestion, an incitement, or conduct of such intensity that it
operates upon the mind of the victim and pushes him or her
toward this drastic and unfortunate step. The prosecution
therefore, must demonstrate either a deliberate intention to
drive the deceased to suicide or knowledge that the conduct
in question was likely to produce that consequence. Equally
indispensable is the requirement of proximity. The law insists
on a live and immediate nexus between the acts complained
of and the suicide. A remote or generalized allegation is
insufficient. There must be evidence showing that the accused
engaged in conduct so closely connected in time and effect
with the suicide that it can reasonably be said to have
triggered the fatal act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
9.7 No material has been brought on record
demonstrating any proximate act immediately preceding the
suicide which could be construed as instigation. Nor is there
evidence of a positive act amounting to intentional aid. The
essential ingredients of abetment -namely, culpable mental
state coupled with active or proximate conduct-are not
established.
9.8 On an overall assessment of the evidence, the
prosecution has failed to demonstrate the existence of the
foundational elements necessary to sustain a conviction under
Section 306 IPC.
10. In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of
Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it has been held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the essence of abetment
lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional
doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. Instigation
is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
"an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it
is not necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being
spelt out. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation.
10.1 In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (1) Crimes 347 (SC), the observations
are made with regard to abetment of suicide. It has been
held that in order to bring a case within purview of Section
306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in commission
of said offence, person who is said to have abetted
commission of suicide must have played active role by act of
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of
suicide. It has been further observed that the act of
abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved
and established by prosecution before he could be convicted
under Section 306 IPC. It is further observed that to satisfy
requirement of instigation, accused by his act or omission or
by a continued course of conduct should have created such
circumstances that deceased was left with no other option,
except to commit suicide.
10.2 In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus
State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, it has been held
that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
without there being any positive action proximate to the time
of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or
compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms
of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.
10.3 In the case of Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2020)
15 SCC 359, after considering the provisions of Sections 306
and 107 of IPC, the Court held that conviction under Section
306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to the time
of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or
compelled the person to commit suicide.
10.4 In the case of Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC 244,
it was held that there has to be an act of incitement on the
part of the accused proximate to the date on which the
deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not
only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be
of such a nature that the deceased was left with no
alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.
11. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show
any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that
the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest
illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above
view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the Court below was completely justified in passing
impugned judgment and order.
12. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial
Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence
connecting the accused with the incident and there are
contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.
In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that
the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive
of the accused behind the incident is not established. The
trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record
and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has
rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
13. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal
appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the
judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.
Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC
1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija
Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967
SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the
appellate court when it agrees with the
view of the trial court on the evidence
to repeat the narration of the evidence
or to reiterate the reasons given by the
trial court expression of general
agreement with the reasons given by the
Court the decision of which is under
appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
14. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the
reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the
discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
15. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,
reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as
under:
"The powers of the High Court in an
appeal from order of acquittal to
reassess the evidence and reach its own
conclusions under Sections 378 and 379,
Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any
appeal against the order of conviction.
But as a rule of prudence, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
desirable that the High Court should
give proper weight and consideration to
the view of the Trial Court with regard
to the credibility of the witness, the
presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused, the right of the accused to
the benefit of any doubt and the
slowness of appellate Court in justifying
a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge
who had the advantage of seeing the
witness. It is settled law that if the
main grounds on which the lower Court
has based its order acquitting the
accused are reasonable and plausible,
and the same cannot entirely and
effectively be dislodged or demolished,
the High Court should not disturb the
order of acquittal."
16. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of
Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing
with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.
It is further observed that High Court's interference in such
appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by
the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court
should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the
belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have
taken a different view.
17. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed as under:
"42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general
principles regarding powers of the
appellate court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
puts no limitation, restriction or
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
condition on exercise of such power and
an appellate court on the evidence before
it may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as,
"substantial and compelling reasons",
"good and sufficient grounds", "very
strong circumstances", "distorted
conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are
not intended to curtail extensive powers
of an appellate court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are
more in the nature of "flourishes of
language" to emphasise the reluctance of
an appellate court to interfere with
acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to
come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must
bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of
his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial
court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial court."
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in
the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s
State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held
in paragraph 24 as under:
"24. It could thus be seen that it is a
settled legal position that the interference
with the finding of acquittal recorded by
the learned trial Judge would be
warranted by the High Court only if the
judgment of acquittal suffers from patent
perversity; that the same is based on a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record; and that no two
reasonable views are possible and only the
view consistent with the guilt of the
accused is possible from the evidence
available on record."
19. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
20. In view of above facts and circumstances of the
case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I
found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the
findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under
the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly
acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons
stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the
view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the
acquittal.
21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the present Criminal Appeal fails and the same
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2164/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record
& Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court
forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
SRILATHA
