[Cites 20, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Arunbhai Babubhai Bin Virabhai Solanki ... on 30 April, 2026

                                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.A/1276/2010                                                 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

                                                                                                                             undefined




                                                                                      Reserved On   : 17/04/2026
                                                                                      Pronounced On : 30/04/2026

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                            R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1276 of 2010

                      ==========================================================
                                             STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                    Versus
                             ARUNBHAI BABUBHAI BIN VIRABHAI SOLANKI (ROHIT) & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                                            CAV JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.04.2010, passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Anand, in Sessions Case No.4 of

2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306

and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant - State of

Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the

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

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial

before the trial Court is that the complainant, Kanjibhai

Trikambhai Makwana, filed a complaint regarding the death

of his daughter, Minaben (the deceased). Minaben married

respondent-accused no. 1 on 07.05.2009. Following the

marriage, she resided with her husband and her in-laws (the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

other accused parties). It is alleged that after the marriage,

the accused persons, on various pretexts, began subjecting

Minaben to constant mental and physical torture. This

treatment included physical assaults. The prosecution contends

that due to this persistent harassment at the hands of the

accused, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself.

Therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-

accused.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence

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

sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the

offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively

triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate

committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Sessions Case No.4 of 2010. The charge was

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

guilty and came to be tried.

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

documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are

described in the impugned judgment as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

ORAL EVIDENCE

Exhibit No. Witness Name Relation / Role No.

I Complainant & Witnesses

Father of the Kanjibhai Trikambhai

Makwana, Witness No.1 (Complainant)

Maniben Kanjibhai Mother of the

Makwana, Witness No.3 deceased

Sunilbhai Kanjibhai Brother of the

Makwana, Witness No.4 deceased

Kailashben w/o Hitishbhai Sister of the

Khushalbhai, Witness No.5 deceased

II Medical Witnesses

Dr. Ambalal Hirabhai (1) Medical Officer 16 Patel, Witness No.2

III Panch Witnesses

Ganpatsinh Harisinh (1) Panch Witness 28 Solanki, Witness No.6

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

Exhibit No. Witness Name Relation / Role No.

IV Police Witnesses

Hamedaben Mansinh, P.S.O. (Police

Witness No.7 Sub-Officer)

Poonambhai Dhanabhai

Baranda, Witness No.8

Yogendrasinh Khumansinh

Raulji, Witness No.9

P.S.I. Mahendrasinh Deepsinh

Puvar, Witness No.10 Officer)

Documentary Evidence

No. Description of Document Exhibit No.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

No. Description of Document Exhibit No.

Note to the Executive Magistrate, Anand

Rural

(10) Certificate from Medical Officer, Vasad 19

(11) Letter written by Medical Officer, Vasad 20

Note to register Accidental Death based on

information

(15) Note from Taluka Circle Inspector, Anand 44

(16) Forwarding Letter by Circle Inspector, Anand 45

Report to delete IPC Sec 302 and add IPC

Sec 306

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

No. Description of Document Exhibit No.

49-51, 53-

                        (21) F.S.L. Forwarding Letter


                        (22) F.S.L. Report                                                       50-52

                        (23) Biology Department Report                                           54-56

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis

of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial

Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the

charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed

to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has

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

through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before

the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial

Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and

perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in

acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial

Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and

ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the

accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that

the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the

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

is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen

that the evidence produced on record is reliable and

believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that

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

therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by

appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

7. Though learned advocate Ms.Khyati Bhati has

appeared on behalf of Nanavati and Company for respondent

nos.1 to 4, no arguments have been made by learned advocate Ms.Khyati Bhati.

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral

as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and

dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and

order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with

the Court :

8.1. The prosecution has mainly relied on the complaint that

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

has been filed vide exhibit-14, which has been filed by the

father of the deceased Meenaben. It is the case of the

complainant that the deceased was married to accused no.1

Arun Solanki on 07.05.2009 and after the marriage, the

deceased was staying at Village Mogar, District Anand along

with accused nos.2 to 4 and in the said house, along with

accused nos.2 to 4, her sister-in-law Neetaben and her

husband were also staying and the husband i.e. accused no.1

was working at Jhagadia School and at around 13.15 hours

on 03.10.2009, the complainant got information that his

daughter Meenaben has expired and thereafter he reached

the village and on reaching the matrimonial home of the

deceased, he found that on the first floor room, the dead

body of deceased Meenaben was there and none from the

family of the in-laws of the deceased were present at the said time and he could see that, there were black spots near

the neck region of the deceased and in the complaint, it has

been stated that somebody had tried to strangle the deceased

and the entire complaint is based on the allegation that the

accused have strangled the deceased from her neck and killed

her. It has also been stated in the complaint that just prior

to one day from the date of incident i.e. on 02.10.2009 at

around 6.00 p.m., he received a telephonic message from his

daughter that accused no.1 had come from Village Jhagadia,

i.e. the place where he was working to his parents' house at

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

Mogar.

8.2. It has also been alleged that whenever the complainant

tried to talk to the accused no.1 on his mobile, he would not

take the said call and there was a constant harassment by

the accused on the deceased, but the deceased was not

informing the said fact to the complainant and the accused

no.1, would never talk to the complainant and though there

was a facility of a residence at the workplace of accused

no.1, he was not taking the deceased to his workplace to

reside with him and the entire complaint is based on the

fact that the accused in collusion with each other have

murdered the deceased.

8.3. The prosecution has examined Kanji Makwana vide Exhibit-13 as P.W.1. He is a complainant and the father of

the deceased. It is the case of the complainant that, there

was mental harassment from accused no.1 to the deceased.

The deceased was not permitted to reside with accused no.1

at his workplace at Jhagadia and after 05.08.2009, the

deceased was not residing at the workplace of the accused

no.1 and the complainant states that the said fact was a

harassment to the deceased that the accused no.1 did not

take the deceased with him at village Jhagadia and made

her stay with the in-laws of the deceased. It also transpires

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

in his oral evidence that, just before one day from the date

of incident, i.e. 02.10.2009, the accused no.1 had reached his

parental house at Mogar at 06.30, was informed through

message by the deceased and on the next date, the deceased

had taken the aforesaid step of hanging herself. It has been

stated that the deceased had taken the step as there was a

constant harassment from the accused nos.2 to 4.

8.4. It is also stated that the deceased was not kept properly

at her matrimonial house. In cross-examination, it has been

admitted that, after the marriage on 21.06.2009, the deceased

had gone to reside at Ranipur with the accused no.1 till

05.08.2009 and after 05.08.2009, the deceased was staying at

her in-laws' house at Mogar. The complainant also admits

that after completion of 15 days of Raksha Bandhan in the year 2009, the accused nos.2 and 4 had come to take the

deceased from her parental house.

8.5. It has also been stated that the deceased had stayed at

Ranipur with accused no.1 at his workplace for 40 days. He

has also admitted that within that 40 days, the deceased had

never sent him any message and that the complainant does

not know that what had transpired at Ranipur, where the

deceased was staying with her husband i.e. accused no.1. In

cross-examination, at paragraph no.6, he has admitted that

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

the complaint was filed by him only to find out the reason

for the cause of death of the deceased. He has also admitted

in the said paragraph that it is true that after reaching the

matrimonial home of the deceased at 04.30 and after filing

the complaint at 07.15 hours, till that time he was not

aware what was the reason of the cause of death of the

deceased. At paragraph no.7 of his deposition, he has stated

that he has only suspicion that either deceased was killed by

the accused or the deceased had herself taken the said step

and to find the answer to the said fact, he had filed a

complaint. He has also admitted that in his police statement,

he had only mentioned that deceased was killed by the

accused and other than that there was no other reason given

by the complainant to the Police Officers.

8.6. The prosecution has examined Dr. Ambalal Patel vide

exhibit-16 as P.W.2. He was a Medical Officer at Primary

Health Center, Vadod and who had conducted the post-

mortem and the post-mortem report is produced vide Exhibit

18 and the cause of death as per the said post-mortem

report which was given was provisional cause of death is

asphyxia following hanging.

8.7. The questions that were placed by the in-charge Police

officer to the Medical Officer were answered by the said

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

Medical Officer and were produced vide Exhibit-19, which

states that the time at which the deceased had expired was

18 to 36 hours. There were no injury marks on the neck of

the deceased. He had also opined that the death was because

of suicide. There were no marks of fight that might had

taken place before the incident. He has also opined that the

odhani i.e. the dress was used to hang herself.

8.8. The FSL report was produced vide Exhibit-50 and there

was no poison found in the body of the deceased. The

forensic report was also conducted with respect to the dress

of the deceased, which is produced vide Exhibit-54. The blood

sample also does not state that any poison is found in the

body of the deceased.

8.9. The certificate of cause of death as given by the Medical

Officer, PHC Vadod, Taluka and District Anand is produced

vide Exhibit-21 and the final cause of death is Asphyxia

following hanging.

8.10. The mother of the deceased Maniben Makwana has

been examined vide Exhibit-22 as P.W.3. She has reiterated

what has been stated by the complainant in the complaint.

She has stated the fact that the accused no.1 did not want

to stay with the deceased was informed by accused no.1, to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

the sister of the deceased-Kailash. In a cross-examination, the

said witness has stated that, the deceased had never

informed her about any harassment, which was done by the

accused on the deceased and accused no.1 was never talking

to the state witness and therefore, she suspected that accused

no.1 has killed the deceased.

8.11. The mother of the deceased had in her cross-

examination stated that, other than the fact that the accused

has killed the deceased, she has not stated anything to the

Police Department and at paragraph no.10 of her deposition,

she has stated that only on the ground of suspicion, she has

filed the complaint.

8.12. The prosecution has thereafter examined the brother of the deceased Sunil Makwana vide Exhibit 23 as P.W.4. He

has stated that the deceased had informed him that the

nature of accused no.1 was short tempered and the deceased

did not inform him or anybody about the harassment that

was done on the accused to save the reputation of her

father.

8.13. At paragraph no.4 of his examination-in-chief, the said

witness states that he is not aware as to what could be the

cause of the death of the deceased but as his sister i.e.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

Meenaben is not alive, he considers the accused liable for the

same. At paragraph no.5 of his cross-examination he has

again reiterated that till his cross-examination, he is not

aware of the real cause of the death of his sister. The

prosecution has thereafter examined, the sister of the

deceased Kailashben who P.W.3 states that accused no.1 had

informed Kailashben that she does not want to stay with the

deceased. Kailashben has been examined vide Exhibit 24 as

P.W.5. In her examination-in-chief she has stated that the

Principal of the School where accused no.1 has been working

was informed about the harassment of accused no.1 on the

deceased and the said Principal had also scolded the accused

no.1, but the prosecution has neither examined the said

School Principal working at Jhagadia nor his statement is

filed before this Court.

8.14. In her cross-examination at paragraph no.1, she has

stated that from her discussion with the deceased, she could

realize that the deceased wanted to stay at her matrimonial

home and the deceased had never informed her that her life

is endangered, if she stays with her in-laws. She has also

informed that from her talks with the deceased, she could

only realize that there were domestic issues on travel matters

and that the said witness had never informed the

complainant of not sending the deceased back to her

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

matrimonial home.

8.15. Tha panchnama of scene of offence is produced vide

Exhibit-29. The inquest Panchnama is produced vide exhibit-

39. The panch witness Ganpatsinh Solanki has been

examined as P.W.6 vide Exhibit-28. The P.S.O. at Vasad

Police Station Amitaben has been examined as P.W.7 vide

Exhibit 33. The Station Diary in which, it is noted that

there was an accidental death is produced vide Exhibit 34.

8.16. The D.Y.S.P. Anand Division, Poonambhai Bharda has

been examined as P.W.8 vide Exhibit 35. Initially a case of

accidental death was registered and it was before the

D.Y.S.P. that a complaint has been filed by the complainant.

The prosecution has examined vide Exhibit 37, Yogendra Ravalji as P.W.9 who was the Head Constable who had

registered the Station Diary, which is produced vide Exhibit-

38, to register a case under Section 302, 498A and 114 and

forwarded to Inspector Pawar who has been examined as

P.W. 10 vide Exhibit 39 who was the Police Sub-Inspector. In

his deposition he has also stated that accused no.4 i.e. the

mother-in-law of the deceased had given intimation about the

death of the deceased even before the complaint is filed. At

paragraph no.2 of his cross-examination, he has stated that

considering the statement given by P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

before the Police Station, there was no complaint of deceased

committing suicide because of the harassment of the accused.

At paragraph no.5 of the cross-examination, it transpires that

the said Investigating Officer had taken statement of the

neighbours at the Matrimonial Home of the deceased and

from none of the said statement, the case of the prosecution

could be proved. He has also admitted that, there is no

evidence as to giving details of how, what and when the

accused have harassed the deceased. The Sessions Court has

taken into consideration the oral evidence of all the witnesses

and from the entire evidence of the prosecution, the said case

is on the ground that there was suspicion on the minds of

the family members of the deceased that the accused have

killed the deceased. The said witnesses have not narrated

any incident which indicates that the accused did not have any other option but to commit suicide.

8.17. All the family members have only narrated the fact

that the deceased was killed by the accused. But the fact

remains that the charge is under Section 306, 498(A) and

114 of the Indian Penal Code and the prosecution has not

been able to prove even from the medical evidence, the

evidence of the Police Officer and the family members that

the accused had instigated and abetted the deceased to

commit suicide.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

8.18. suicide meaning:

As per "Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th Edition, p.686." "A finding of suicide must be on evidence of intention. Every act of self destruction is, in common language described by the word 'suicide' provided it is an intentional act of a party knowing the probable consequence of what he is about. Suicide is never to be presumed. Intention is the essential legal ingredient." Therefore, while considering this aspect, the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 regarding the abetment and the suicide has to be considered. There has to be evidence, by which it could be said that the respondent accused had instigated the deceased in such a manner or by creating the circumstances, which has led the deceased to commit suicide. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 - Gangula Mohan Reddy v.

State of Andhra Pradesh has observed: "The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

explanation. 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing', thus implying an act of self killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. The provision of abetment is defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The ingredients are required to be established. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this judgment has observed that 'This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words 'instigation' and 'goading'. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

9.1 The evidence on record and the glaring omission

on the prosecution as pointed out above leaves no room of

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

The trial Court has rightly held that there was no positive

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

conduct or spoken words, overtly or covertly, actually aided

and abetted or instigated the deceased in such a manner

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

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

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

offence of abatement. There is also no close connection

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

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

not been able to prove that the accused have stimulated the

deceased to commit suicide.

9.2 The prosecution has not proved that there was a

clear motive to commit the offence of abatement. The

prosecution has also not proved that the accused proceeded to

encourage and/or irritate the deceased through words or

insults and that the accused intended to urge the deceased to

end it all by committing suicide. The prosecution has also

not been able to prove the direct connection between the

incitement and committal of suicide. The prosecution has also

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

the commitment of suicide. The prosecution has also not been

able to prove by accusation of harassment without any

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

of occurrence that led and forced the deceased to commit

suicide.

9.3 The present matter turns on whether the conduct

attributed to the accused satisfies the legal threshold of

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

said that mere occurrence of a suicide does not automatically

trigger rigours of the Section. The penal consequences under

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code arise when the

prosecution is able to establish that the accused abetted and

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

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

9.4 Abetment, as understood in criminal jurisprudence,

is not a broad moral expression but a term of precise

statutory meaning. Section 107 IPC delineates its contours:

instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding. Each of these

modes presupposes active involvement. The law does not

punish omission except in some cases, it punishes intentional

encouragement or positive facilitation of a prohibited act.

9.5 It is therefore not sufficient to show that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

deceased was unhappy, distressed, or subjected to unpleasant

treatment. The jurisprudence developed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has consistently underscored that routine

domestic disagreements, suspicion between spouses, or

episodes of harassment do not ipso facto amount to

instigation. Rigours of this Section intervene only where there

is clear evidence of mens rea and a direct causal link

between the accused's conduct and the decision of the

deceased to commit suicide.

9.6 The concept of instigation demands something more

than mere reproach or accusation. It connotes an active

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

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

toward this drastic and unfortunate step. The prosecution therefore, must demonstrate either a deliberate intention to

drive the deceased to suicide or knowledge that the conduct

in question was likely to produce that consequence. Equally

indispensable is the requirement of proximity. The law insists

on a live and immediate nexus between the acts complained

of and the suicide. A remote or generalized allegation is

insufficient. There must be evidence showing that the accused

engaged in conduct so closely connected in time and effect

with the suicide that it can reasonably be said to have

triggered the fatal act.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

9.7 No material has been brought on record

demonstrating any proximate act immediately preceding the

suicide which could be construed as instigation. Nor is there

evidence of a positive act amounting to intentional aid. The

essential ingredients of abetment -namely, culpable mental

state coupled with active or proximate conduct-are not

established.

9.8 On an overall assessment of the evidence, the

prosecution has failed to demonstrate the existence of the

foundational elements necessary to sustain a conviction under

Section 306 IPC.

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

Karnataka and another, [(2022) 2 SCC 129], it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the essence of abetment

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

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

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

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

is not necessary that actual words must be used to that

effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and

specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable

certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

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

without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot

be said to be instigation.

10.1 In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of

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

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

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

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

of said offence, person who is said to have abetted

commission of suicide must have played active role by act of

instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate commission of

suicide. It has been further observed that the act of

abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved

and established by prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. It is further observed that to satisfy

requirement of instigation, accused by his act or omission or

by a continued course of conduct should have created such

circumstances that deceased was left with no other option,

except to commit suicide.

10.2 In the case of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu versus

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

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment

without there being any positive action proximate to the time

of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or

compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms

of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable.

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

15 SCC 359, after considering the provisions of Sections 306

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

306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment

without there being any positive action proximate to the time

of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or

compelled the person to commit suicide.

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

it was held that there has to be an act of incitement on the part of the accused proximate to the date on which the

deceased committed suicide. The act attributed should not

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

of such a nature that the deceased was left with no

alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide.

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

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

the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court

below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above

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

that the Court below was completely justified in passing

impugned judgment and order.

12. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial

Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence

connecting the accused with the incident and there are

contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.

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

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

of the accused behind the incident is not established. The

trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record

and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.

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

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

judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons

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

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

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

1417 wherein it is held as under:

"... This court has observed in Girija

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

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

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

discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.

15. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as

under:

"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same

cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged

or demolished, the High Court should not

disturb the order of acquittal."

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

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

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

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

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

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

appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

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

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

taken a different view.

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

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

observed as under:

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

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

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

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances",

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

"distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.

Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

the trial court."

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

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

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

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

19. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

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

while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of

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

interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1276/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026

undefined

20. In view of above facts and circumstances of the

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

found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the

findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under