[Cites 24, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Solanki Uttambhai @ Babubhai Maghabhai on 30 April, 2026

                                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                          R/CR.A/1185/2010                                               CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

                                                                                                                             undefined




                                                                                          Reserved On: -06/04/2026
                                                                                        Pronounced On: 30/04/2026

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1185 of 2010

                       ==========================================================
                                                 STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                       Versus
                                   SOLANKI UTTAMBHAI @ BABUBHAI MAGHABHAI & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS. MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR BHUVNESH GAHLOT(10286) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
                       1,2,3,4
                       NON BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
                       No. 1,2,3,4,5
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                                               CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.04.2010, passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Patan, in Sessions Case

No.29/2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A),

306, 323, 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and

under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Dowry

Prohibition Act, the appellant - State of Gujarat has

preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial

before the trial Court is that the deceased was married to

accused No.1 and, during her matrimonial life, she was

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

allegedly subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the

accused persons on account of suspicion regarding her

character and demands for dowry. It is alleged that, unable

to bear such harassment, the deceased committed suicide by

pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself ablaze. The

complaint was filed by the brother of the deceased with this

regard. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the

respondent/s-accused.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence

was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-

sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the

offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively

triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate

committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to

be registered as Sessions Case No.29/2008. The charge was

framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not

guilty and came to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution

documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are as

under;

Oral Evidences

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

Exh.

                        No.                                 Oral Evidence
                                                                                                               No.
                        1.      Deposition of Complainant Shaileshbhai Manilal Parmar                          51

Dr. Nareshbhai Prahladbhai Patel (who performed the Post-

Mortem)

3. Deposition of Minaben Mahendrabhai Solanki 59

5. Deposition of Sunilbhai Bhalabhai Solanki 61

9. Deposition of P.S.O. Hargovanbhai Kalabhai Desai 66

10. Deposition of Investigating Officer Patel Natvarlal Bechardas 71 Deposition of Investigating Officer Vithaldas Shivabhai

Parmar Deposition of Investigating Officer Ramdevsinh Fatehsinh

Gohil

Documentary Evidences No. Documentary Evidence Exh.No.

3 Written Complaint by the Complainant Shaileshbhai 73 4 Investigation order for Accidental Death No. 14/07 22

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

No. Documentary Evidence Exh.No.

11 Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Officer's Report 30 Requisition to Executive Magistrate for Conducting

Inquest 13 Forwarding Memo for Viscera Examination to FSL 32

15 Receipt of handing over the body for final rites 29

18 Muddamal (Seized Property) dispatch note 36

25 Order by Police Superintendent to register the offense 43

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis

of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial

Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the

charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed

to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has

pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court

through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before

the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial

Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and

perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in

acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial

Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the

contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and

ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the

accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that

the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It

is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen

that the evidence produced on record is reliable and

believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that

the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,

therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by

appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

7. As against that, learned advocate for the

respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by

the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned

trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal

by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by

the learned trial Court.

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral

as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and

dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and

order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with

the Court:

8.1. The prosecution has mainly relied on the

complaint, which is filed vide Exh-73, and the said complaint

is dated 05.08.2007 with respect to the incident that has

taken place on 03.08.2007, at 11.30 p.m. As per the said

complaint, which has been filed by the brother of the

deceased, it is the case of the prosecution, that the accused

no.1 and the deceased were married, before 17 years from

the date of incident and from the said marriage a son

namely Hardik, was born.

8.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused

no.1 used to physically harass the deceased for seeking

dowry, and at that time the mother of the deceased used to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

give money so that the accused no.1 does not harass the

deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.07.2007,

deceased had come to her parental house, and informed that

accused no.1 was not doing any work, and he used to

physically and mentally harass her, and demand money, and

at that time also the amount was given to the deceased. If

the entire complaint is taken into consideration, the

allegation that has been made is against accused no's 1, 4

and 5.

8.3. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased

had an illicit relation with respondent no. 3, and as per the

deposition of the neighbour i.e. Meenaben Solanki, deceased

was found in a compromising position with respondent no.3

and at that time respondent no. 2, Madhuben, along with her

juvenile daughter Sonal, barged into the house, and there

was an altercation between the deceased and accused no.2

and her daughter, and because of the said incident, as the

deceased was afraid of her reputation, she committed suicide.

If the complaint is taken into consideration, there are no

such allegations stated in the complaint, and there are no

allegations against accused no. 2 and 3, even the mother of

the deceased who has been examined vide Exh-64 as PW-8

has also not made any allegations against respondent no. 2

and 3, and the neighbours who have been examined as PW-

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

3, PW-4 and PW-5 have not made any allegations against

respondent no. 1, 4 and 5. Therefore, there are totally

contradictory statements with respect to the allegation of

abatement of suicide, because of the alleged harassment of

respondent no. 1, 4 and 5 and of respondent no. 2 and 3.

8.4. The prosecution has examined the complainant

brother, Shaileshbhai Manilal Parmar, vide Exh-51, he in

his deposition has stated that he does not know who

respondent no. 2 and 3 are. He is also not aware that

respondent no.3, Bikhabhai, was residing next to the

matrimonial home of the deceased. He has also deposed

that the maternal uncle and maternal aunt of the deceased,

Chanchal Ben, who is respondent no. 4 and 5 herein, were

residing in a separate house, and were not residing with

accused no.1 and deceased. The said witness Shaileshbhai

Manilal has deposed in his examination-in-chief that his

sister used to frequently come to his house after quarrels

and complained that accused no. 1 used to assault her,

consume alcohol and indulge in gambling, and that their

mother, in order to preserve her matrimonial life, would

pacify her and send her back after giving money. However,

in his cross-examination, he has admitted that no such

allegations regarding drinking or gambling were stated in

the complaint, and that neither he nor the deceased had

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

lodged any police complaint during the entire span of

seventeen years of marriage; that even on the day of the

incident no complaint was given either at the spot or at

the police station; and that despite the presence of police

officials, including Jamadar Vitthalbhai, no grievance was

raised, thereby indicating material omissions and

improvements in his version.

8.5. The prosecution has thereafter examined Dr.

Nareshbhai Prahladbhai Patel, who was the Medical Officer

at Patan, vide Exh- 56 as PW-2. He has conducted the

post-mortem, which is produced vide Exh-23. The cause of

death was shock due to burns 80-85%, but the same was

subject to final report of forensic laboratory. The report of

the forensic laboratory has been produced vide Exh-40 and

42, wherein it has been stated that the cause of death was

burn because of kerosene.

8.6. The prosecution has thereafter examined PW-3,

Minaben Mahdenrabhai Solanki, vide Exh-59, who in her

examination-in-chief has stated that through hearsay, she

came to know that the deceased had an illicit relation with

Bhikhabhai i.e. respondent no.3, and husband of respondent

no. 2, and as the deceased was afraid that her illicit

relation will be known to the society at large, she

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

committed suicide. The said fact is neither stated by the

complainant in his complaint, nor in his cross-examination.

She has also stated that there was no quarrel between the

deceased and the accused husband. She has deposed that

she was a neighbour of the deceased Rekhaben at Malund

village, and that the deceased was allegedly having an

illicit relationship with accused no. 3, due to which

frequent quarrels used to occur between the deceased and

accused no.2 i.e. the wife of accused no. 3, she has further

stated that on the night of the incident, upon being

informed by accused no.2, she and her husband went to

the house of the accused no.1, i.e. the husband of the

deceased, where they found accused no. 3 in a semi-nude

condition with the deceased, following which accused no.2

and her daughter allegedly dragged the deceased out of the

house by holding her hair and a quarrel ensured, and

thereafter, later that night, upon hearing screams, she saw

the deceased coming out of her house in a burnt condition

and collapsing, while accused no.1 was not present at the

house at that time.

8.7 In her cross-examination, this witness has stated

that no quarrel had ever taken place between accused no.

1 and the deceased Rekhaben, that accused no. 1 was

engaged in labour work and maintained the deceased

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

properly, and that even her in-laws were residing with her,

she has further deposed that accused no. 1 had no vices,

and that accused no's. 4 and 5 were merely neighbours

having no connection with Accused No. 1, and has

categorically denied that the death of the deceased

Rekhaben was on account of any harassment or cruelty

inflicted by accused no's. 1, 4 and 5. In further cross-

examination, the witness has admitted that she had

personally seen the deceased Rekhaben and accused no. 3,

Bhikhabhai, in any compromising condition, nor had she

witnessed the alleged quarrel, and she has also admitted

that she had not seen the deceased pouring kerosene upon

herself at the relevant time.

8.8. The prosecution has thereafter examined Babiben

Manabhai vide Exh-60 as PW-4, she is the neighbour at

the matrimonial home of the deceased. She has deposed in

her examination-in-chief that on the day of the incident

accused no. 3 was present at the house of the deceased

Rekhaben, and upon the door being opened at the instance

of the daughter of accused no. 3, a quarrel and physical

altercation took place between accused no. 2 and the

deceased, during which people from the neighbourhood

gathered, however, she has in her cross-examination stated

that she did not see accused no. 3 fled from the place, and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

has further admitted that she had no knowledge about any

alleged relationship between the deceased and accused no.

3, and accordingly, she has turned hostile and has not

supported the case of the prosecution.

8.9. The prosecution has thereafter examined Sunilbhai

Bhalabhai Solanki vide Exh-61 as PW-5, who is also the

neighbour, who has blamed accused no.2 and the daughter of

accused no. 2 Sonal, for the offence.

8.10. The prosecution has thereafter examined the other

neighbour Dhanjibhai Balabhai vide Exh-62 as PW-6. He has

not supported the case of the prosecution and accordingly, he

was declared hostile.

8.11. The prosecution has thereafter examined PW-7 vide

Exh-63, Ganeshbhai Devabhai, he has deposed in his

examination-in-chief that Chanchalben, the mother of the

deceased Rekhaben, is his neighbour and that the deceased,

who was married to accused no. 1, used to frequently return

to her parental home complaining of harassment in her

matrimonial life, and that he had also reprimanded accused

no. 1 in this regard, however, in his cross-examination, he

has admitted that such allegations of harassment and

frequent visits were not stated by him in his police

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

statement, thereby indicating material omissions.

8.12. The mother of the deceased Sunil i.e. Chanchalben

Manilal has been examined as PW-8 vide Exh-64, she has

also not made any allegations against respondent no's 2 and

3. She has deposed, that the deceased Rekhaben committed

suicide due to harassment by accused no. 1, who allegedly

used to demand money and spend the same on gambling, it

is noteworthy that such allegations regarding drinking and

gambling do not find place in the complaint lodged by the

complainant Shaileshbhai, and even the Investigating Officer

has admitted the absence of such facts in the investigation,

and thus, it can be said that these interested witnesses have

made material exaggerations in respect of the allegations of

cruelty.

8.13. The prosecution has thereafter examined the Police

Officer Hargovanbhai Kalabhai Desai vide Exh-66 as PW-9,

he was a P.S.O at the relevant point of time, and he has

registered external death in the Station Diary which is

produced vide Exh-68. The P.I. i.e. Patel Natvarlal Bechardas,

who had registered the complaint under Juvenile Act, against

the daughter of respondent no's 2 and 3 (Sonal) is examined

as PW-10 vide Exh-71.The Head Constable i.e. Vithaldas

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

Shivabhai, who had prepared the Inquest Panchnama has

been produced as PW11, vide Exh-72.

8.14. The Police Inspector Ramdevsinh Fatehsinh Gohil

has been examined as PW-12 vide Exh-74, he had taken the

statement, and in his cross examination he has stated that

he had taken statements of the neighbouring person residing

at the matrimonial home of the deceased, wherein, it was

found that there was no harassment by accused no.1.

Moreover, in his deposition, he has also admitted that as per

his investigation the accused no's 1, 4 and 5 were staying

separately. The Police Inspector has also deposed in his cross-

examination that during the course of investigation it was

revealed that accused no. 1 was not present at the scene of

offence at the relevant time, and that he had neither

recorded the statement of the son of the deceased nor found

any statements of neighbouring witnesses disclosing

harassment by accused no. 1 or his alleged habits of drinking

and gambling, he has further admitted that the complaint

was lodged with a delay of about 28 hours, and that his

investigation revealed an alleged love relationship between the

deceased Rekhaben and accused no. 3 since two years, along

with frequent quarrels in that regard, and that accused no. 3

was present at the house and had fled from the spot, and it

was also found that accused no. 4 was residing separately

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

and accused no. 5 had no relation with accused no. 1.

Moreover, the complainant has not clarified as to how

accused no's. 4 and 5 are related, whether they are paternal

uncle and aunt or otherwise, nor has he specified the exact

nature or degree of their relationship with the accused

family.

8.15. Considering the facts of the case, there are lot of

contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witness,

whereas, the neighbour have categorically stated that there is

no harassment by respondent no's 1, 4 and 5, and it has

been alleged that the deceased had committed suicide due to

the apprehension of harm to her reputation, as it has been

alleged that the deceased was caught in a compromising

position with respondent no.3 wherein, the neighbours had

reached the place and respondent no.3 had to flee from the

place, and the family members of the deceased have

categorically stated that they don't know about respondent no.

2 and 3, and have alleged that the deceased has committed

suicide only because of the harassment and demand of dowry

by respondent no's 1, 4 and 5. If the allegations made

against respondent no's 1, 4 and 5 are taken into

consideration, the prosecution has failed to prove by any

evidence that respondent no's 1, 4 and 5 have committed

offence under Sections 498(A), 306, 323, 504, 506, 114 of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

IPC and u/s 3, 7 of the Prohibition of the Dowry Act.

8.16. Moreover, if the evidence against respondent no.3

is taken into consideration, the role of respondent no.3 was

that he was having an illicit relation with the deceased, but

the prosecution has failed to prove the same. Moreover, it

has been alleged that respondent no.2 had caught the

deceased with her husband i.e. respondent no.3 in a

compromising position, and therefore respondent no.2, and

thereafter along with her daughter physically assaulted the

deceased, but the said fact has not been proved by the

prosecution. Moreover, the fact remains that, even from the

evidence of the neighbour Minaben, who has been examined

as PW-3, it transpires that when they knocked the door of

the house of the deceased they found respondent no. 3 half

naked, and thereafter, respondent no.2 and her daughter

Sonal had physically assaulted the deceased but the fact

remains that the post-mortem report does not state that the

deceased was physically assaulted before she poured kerosene

upon herself.

8.17. Moreover, it has also come on record that at the

time when the deceased had poured kerosene on herself,

neither respondent no.1, 4 or 5 were present at the place of

incident, nor is there anything on record that has been

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

proved by the prosecution that the accused have instigated

the deceased.

9. The evidence on record and the glaring omission

on the prosecution as pointed out above leaves no room of

doubt that the order passed by the trial Court is as per law.

The trial Court has rightly held that there was no positive

evidence on record to prove that the accused by way of the

conduct or spoken words, overtly or covertly, actually aided

and abetted or instigated the deceased in such a manner

that it leaves no other option for the deceased but to commit

suicide. In the present case, the prosecution has also not

been able to prove the clear motive of the accused to commit

offence of abatement. There is also no close connection

between the accused's action and the deceased's choice to

commit suicide. In view of the said fact, the prosecution has

not been able to prove that the accused have stimulated the

deceased to commit suicide.

9.1. The prosecution has not proved that there was a

clear motive to commit the offence of abatement. The

prosecution has also not proved that the accused proceeded to

encourage and/or irritate the deceased through words or

insults and that the accused intended to urge the deceased to

end it all by committing suicide. The prosecution has also

not been able to prove the direct connection between the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

incitement and committal of suicide. The prosecution has also

not been able to prove direct or indirect act of incitement to

the commitment of suicide. The prosecution has also not been

able to prove by accusation of harassment without any

positive action on the part of the accused close to the time

of occurrence that led and forced the deceased to commit

suicide.

9.2. The present matter turns on whether the conduct

attributed to the accused satisfies the legal threshold of

abetment of suicide. Therefore, read as a whole, it can be

said that mere occurrence of a suicide does not automatically

trigger rigours of the Section. The penal consequences under

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code arise when the

prosecution is able to establish that the accused abetted and

had a role in provoking or facilitating that suicide. Therefore,

this twin test distinction is required to be borne in mind.

9.3. Abetment, as understood in criminal jurisprudence,

is not a broad moral expression but a term of precise

statutory meaning. Section 107 IPC delineates its contours:

instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding. Each of these

modes presupposes active involvement. The law does not

punish omission except in some cases, it punishes intentional

encouragement or positive facilitation of a prohibited act.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

9.4. It is therefore not sufficient to show that the

deceased was unhappy, distressed, or subjected to unpleasant

treatment. The jurisprudence developed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has consistently underscored that routine

domestic disagreements, suspicion between spouses, or

episodes of harassment do not ipso facto amount to

instigation. Rigours of this Section intervene only where there

is clear evidence of mens rea and a direct causal link

between the accused's conduct and the decision of the

deceased to commit suicide.

9.5. The concept of instigation demands something more

than mere reproach or accusation. It connotes an active

suggestion, an incitement, or conduct of such intensity that it

operates upon the mind of the victim and pushes him or her

toward this drastic and unfortunate step. The prosecution

therefore, must demonstrate either a deliberate intention to

drive the deceased to suicide or knowledge that the conduct

in question was likely to produce that consequence. Equally

indispensable is the requirement of proximity. The law insists

on a live and immediate nexus between the acts complained

of and the suicide. A remote or generalized allegation is

insufficient. There must be evidence showing that the accused

engaged in conduct so closely connected in time and effect

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

with the suicide that it can reasonably be said to have

triggered the fatal act.

9.6. No material has been brought on record

demonstrating any proximate act immediately preceding the

suicide which could be construed as instigation. Nor is there

evidence of a positive act amounting to intentional aid. The

essential ingredients of abetment -namely, culpable mental

state coupled with active or proximate conduct-are not

established.

9.7. On an overall assessment of the evidence, the

prosecution has failed to demonstrate the existence of the

foundational elements necessary to sustain a conviction under

Section 306 IPC.

10. In the case of Mahendra K.C. v. State of

Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it has been held

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the essence of abetment

lies in instigating a person to do a thing or the intentional

doing of that thing by an act or illegal omission. Instigation

is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do

"an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it

is not necessary that actual words must be used to that

effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable

certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being

spelt out. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion

without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot

be said to be instigation.

10.1 In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of

Madhya Pradesh, 2025 (1) Crimes 347 (SC), the observations

are made with regard to abetment of suicide. It has been

held that in order to bring a case within purview of Section

306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in commission

of said offence, person who is said to have abetted

commission of suicide must have played active role by act of

instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of

suicide. It has been further observed that the act of

abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved

and established by prosecution before he could be convicted

under Section 306 IPC. It is further observed that to satisfy

requirement of instigation, accused by his act or omission or

by a continued course of conduct should have created such

circumstances that deceased was left with no other option,

except to commit suicide.

10.2 In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus

State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, it has been held

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be

proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the

commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment

without there being any positive action proximate to the time

of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or

compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms

of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.

10.3 In the case of Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2020)

15 SCC 359, after considering the provisions of Sections 306

and 107 of IPC, the Court held that conviction under Section

306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment

without there being any positive action proximate to the time

of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or

compelled the person to commit suicide.

10.4 In the case of Amudha v. State, 2024 INSC 244,

it was held that there has to be an act of incitement on the

part of the accused proximate to the date on which the

deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not

only be proximate to the time of suicide but should also be

of such a nature that the deceased was left with no

alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.

11. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that

the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest

illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court

below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above

view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion

that the Court below was completely justified in passing

impugned judgment and order.

12. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial

Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence

connecting the accused with the incident and there are

contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.

In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that

the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive

of the accused behind the incident is not established. The

trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record

and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has

rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.

13. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal

appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the

judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons

assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.

Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of

State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

1417 wherein it is held as under:

                                                  "...      This       court            has    observed      in      Girija
                                                  Nandini            Devi             V.     Bigendra           Nandini
                                                  Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC
                                                  1124)       that     it        is    not    the     duty      of     the

appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

14. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the

reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the

discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.

15. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,

reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as

under:

"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and

effectively be dislodged or demolished, the

High Court should not disturb the order

of acquittal."

16. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of

Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial

Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

It is further observed that High Court's interference in such

appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by

the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court

should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the

belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have

taken a different view.

17. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,

reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

observed as under:

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

                                                  (5)   If      two       reasonable         conclusions         are






                                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                          R/CR.A/1185/2010                                         CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

                                                                                                                       undefined

possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in

the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s

State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held in paragraph 24 as under:

"24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."

19. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1185/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to

interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

20. In view of above facts and circumstances of the

case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I

found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the

findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under