[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Yashwant Ramchandra Dangey on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
Reserved On : -20.02.2026
Pronounced On : 17/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2167 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
YASHWANT RAMCHANDRA DANGEY
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.09.2010, passed by
the learned Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Sessions
Case No.29/2009, for the offences punishable under Sections
498A and 306 of the India 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 Sessions Court is that, the deceased-complainant
Lilaben Yashwant Ramchandra Dangey, had lodged a
complaint, at Fatehganj Police Station, registered as I-CR No.
240/08, alleging commission of offences punishable under
Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
case of the prosecution that the marriage of deceased Lilaben
with the present accused was solemnized about twelve years
prior to the incident and she resided at her matrimonial
home with the accused and their two children. During the
subsistence of marriage, the accused is alleged to have
harboured suspicion over her character and subjected her to
continuous physical and mental harassment, often taunting
her by saying "You are of bad character and immoral",
thereby causing cruelty to such an extent that she was left
with no option but to commit suicide. It is alleged that due
to the persistent harassment over the last two years, on
23/08/2008 at about 12:45 hours, the deceased poured
kerosene over her body at her matrimonial home and set
herself ablaze. During the course of treatment, on 28/08/2008
at around 06:00 hours, she succumbed to the burn injuries.
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.29/2009. The charge was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
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 are as under;
Oral Evidences
Sr. No. Exh. No. Oral Evidence
1. 10 Rajeshbhai Pravinbhai Sharma
2. 11 Jagatbhai Harivadan Thakkar
3. 12 Hansraj Goyal
4. 20 Rajeshbhai Bhanubhai
5. 21 Medical Officer Dr. Bijaysinh
Ganpatsinh Rathod
6. 23 Executive Magistrate
Jaswantlal Ratilal Dana
7. 33 Arvindbhai Mohanbhai Jaiswal
8. 36 Govindbhai Dhanjibhai Vasava
9. 39 Hushenbhai Rahimbhai
10. 42 Baban Dhodiya Jadav
11. 43 Namdev Mahadev Saluke
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
12. 45 Ronabhai Shakrabhai Rathod
13. 49 Medical Officer Ramprakash
Ramsevak Gupta
14. 52 I.O. DYSP Chandubhai
Shanabhai
Documentary evidences
Sr. No. Exh. No. Documentary Evidence
1. 13 Yadi to the Medical
Officer by the PSI,
Fatehganj to inform about
the discharge of the
accused as he is under
treatment.
2. 14 Yadi written to the
Executive Magistrate for
inquest.
3. 15 Yadi to the Medical
Officer for conducting the
PM of the deceased.
4. 16 Posthumous Form
5. 17 Receipt of handling the
body
6. 18 Receipt of handing over
the body
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
7. 22 Postmortem Note
8. 24 DD of the deceased
9. 25 Yadi written to let the
medical examiner know if
the patient is concsious
or not.
10. 27 Yadi to the Executive
Magistrate for recording
the DD.
11. 28 Yadi to add Section 306
of IPC.
12. 29 Treatment certificate of
accused from S.S.G
hospital.
13. 30 Yadi sent to FSL.
14. 31 Dispatch Note to FSL.
15. 32 Received receipt of the
Muddammal by the FSL.
16. 35 Extract from Station
Diary.
17. 36 Vardhi of the Hospital.
18. 37 Extract from Station
Diary.
19. 38 Extract from Station
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
Diary.
20. 40 Extract from Station
Diary.
21. 41 Yadi to the PSO for
registering the offence.
22. 45 Panchnama of place of
offence.
23. 46 Dispatch note of
Muddammal to the FSL
and the analysis report of
the FSL.
24. 47 Inquest panchnama.
25. 48 FSL Scientific Officer.
26. 53 Complaint given by the
deceased.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
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. Though served, none appears on behalf of the
respondent/s.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
the Court:
8.1 The case of the prosecution is that on 23.08.2008,
there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused.
When the deceased had asked the accused for his phone to
call, and the complainant refused to give his phone,
thereafter, there was an exchange of words between the
complainant and the accused, and the accused had told the
deceased that she was of a bad character and had started
abusing the deceased and had pushed the deceased, and
therefore the deceased went inside the kitchen and poured
kerosene on herself and committed suicide.
8.2 The fact of the present case is that the incident
took place on 23.08.2008, at around 12:45 hours and the
deceased lived till 28.08.2008. The marriage span of the
deceased and the accused was 12 years, and from the
marriage they had two children.
8.3 The prosecution has examined vide Exhibit-49, Dr.
Ramprakash Gupta as PW-13. He was a Medical Officer at
S.S.G. hospital on 23.08.2008 when the deceased was brought
for treatment. In his deposition he has also stated that he
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
had treated the accused when the accused had tried to save
the deceased and he had 20% burn on his hands and the
accused was admitted in the hospital, till 10.09.2008, with
20% injury on both of his hands. In the history, the said
doctor has stated that the accused burnt his hands while he
tried to save the deceased when she had poured kerosene on
herself and tried to commit suicide. The said doctor had also
treated the deceased and while giving history to the said
doctor the deceased had informed that she had poured
kerosene on herself for some reason. The detailed reason was
not given by the deceased at the time when she was
admitted at the hospital.
8.4 The medical papers of the treatment of the
accused by the said doctor at S.S.G. hospital has been
produced vide Exhibit-50. The medical document with respect
to the treatment that was given to the deceased is produced
vide Exhibit-51. Thereafter, the prosecution has produced vide
Exhibit-25, the communication sent by the Police Inspector,
Fatehganj Police Station, to the Executive Medical Officer to
state whether the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give
a statement, and in that letter the doctor has stated that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
the patient is conscious, and the said endorsement is noted
therein. The timing in the said endorsement of the doctor is
dated 23.08.2008 is at 3:30 pm. The prosecution has produced
vide Exhibit-27, the communication issued by the Police Sub
Inspector, Fatehganj Police Station to the special executive
magistrate that the deceased was in a fit condition to give
statement.
8.5 Thereafter, the prosecution has produced a
dying declaration, vide Exhibit-24, and the said dying
declaration is in Gujarati and is stated to have been started
at 17:45 hours, and the said dying declaration ended at 18:05
hours. If the said dying declaration is taken into
consideration, there are lot of words that have been struck
off from the said dying declaration, and in the dying
declaration it has been stated by the deceased that, as the
accused was doubting her character, she poured kerosene on
herself and she has also narrated the fact that the accused
had tried to save her after she put kerosene on herself and
lit the fire on herself.
8.6 The prosecution has thereafter examined the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
Executive Magistrate Jaswantbhai Ratilal Rana vide Exhibit-
23 as PW-6. The complaint has been taken by the
Investigating Officer which is produced vide Exhibit-53, which
is dated 25.08.2008.
8.7 The deceased expired on 28.08.2008, and the post
mortem report of the deceased is produced vide Exhibit-22,
and the cause of death is stated to be due to shock following
burns and its effects. Doctor Bijay Singh Rathod who had
conducted the post mortem has been examined as PW-5 vide
Exhibit-21.
8.8 The father of the deceased Baban Jadav has been
examined as PW-10 vide Exhibit-42. In his deposition he has
stated that there were no fights between the deceased and
the accused, and that the matrimonial life of the deceased
with the accused was good. He has also stated that the
deceased was unconscious all throughout till the time she
expired. He has also stated that as and when the deceased
used to come to her parental house, at that point of time
also she had never stated that there was any fight between
the deceased and the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
The father of the deceased had turned hostile and has not
supported the case of the prosecution. He had also denied
the statements made by him in his police statements.
8.9 The prosecution has thereafter examined the brother-in-
law of the deceased Namdev Saluke as PW-11 vide Exhibit-
43, who also turned hostile and has not supported the case
of the prosecution. He has stated that there was no dispute
in the matrimonial life of the deceased and the accused. He
has also stated that the deceased was unconscious, and had
denied the fact that the deceased had informed him that the
accused used to doubt the character of the deceased and used
to physically and mentally harass the deceased.
8.10 The prosecution has thereafter produced the
panchnama of scene of incident vide Exhibit-45, and the
panch witness of the said panchnama Rajeshbhai Sharma has
been examined as PW-1 vide Exhibit-10, and the other panch
of the scene of offence, Jagatbhai Thakkar has been
examined vide Exhibit-11, and as PW-2. Both have turned
hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution.
8.11 The prosecution has also examined Surendra
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
Hansraj Goyal as PW-3 vide Exhibit-12, who was the
employer of the accused and he also has turned hostile and
has not supported the case of the prosecution and has also
denied his statement before the police. The prosecution has
produced vide Exhibit-13, the intimation by the police.
8.12 In view of the fact that the accused was
hospitalised for his treatment of burns. Therefore, an
intimation was sent by the police to the medical officers that
the police be informed as and when the accused was to be
discharged from the hospital. The said communication is
dated 25.08.2008. The prosecution has also examined Mr.
Rajesh B. Parikh as PW-4, who was working with the
accused vide Exhibit-20, and he has also turned hostile and
has not supported the case of the prosecution.
8.13 The prosecution has also examined vide Exhibit-29,
the report given by medical officer S.S.G. Baroda, with
respect to the history and injury on the accused and in the
history it has been stated that the burn was due to
preventing his wife i.e. the deceased from burning.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
8.14 The prosecution has examined PW-7 Arvind Jaiswal, the
A.S.I. who was on duty at S.S.G. hospital vide Exhibit-33.
The station diary at Raopura, Police Station is produced vide
Exhibit-34. The note of the station diary of note of death of
the deceased has been produced vide Exhibit-35. The
prosecution has examined the A.S.I. at Fatehganj, Police
Station, Govindbhai Vasava Exhibit-36 as PW-8 and has
produced the station diary. The A.S.I. at Fatehganj, who had
noted in the station diary after registration of offence has
been examined vide Exhibit-39 as PW-9 and the station diary
has been produced vide Exhibit-40. The P.S.I. at Fatehganj,
who had been assigned the investigation Rathod has been
examined as PW-12 vide Exhibit-44. The A.C.P. before whom
the complaint which is given on 25.08.2008 which is produced
vide Exhibit-55, and has been examined as PW-14 Chandulal
Baranda.
8.15 If the entire evidence is taken into consideration
though in the present case the dying declaration is placed on
record vide Exhibit-24, but there are a lot of lines which
have been struck off from the dying declaration, neither the
Executive Magistrate nor the prosecution has been able to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
state as to why the said words and lines have been struck
off from the dying declaration. Moreover, the other factor
which also has been taken into consideration by the learned
Sessions Court is that though vide Exhibit-25, the Medical
Officer has stated that the patient is conscious on 23.08.2008,
and the timing that has been mentioned is 3:30 pm, but the
fact remains that the dying declaration has started on 17:45
hours and the prosecution has not been able to prove the
fact that between 3:30 pm to 17:45 pm the said deceased
was in a good conscious condition to give a dying declaration.
Moreover, though there is no specific form for recording the
dying declaration but what was required is that the person
who records the dying declaration must be satisfied that, the
deceased was in a fit state of mind, and the certification by
the doctor is essentially a rule of caution, but in the present
case neither the dying declaration produced, vide Exhibit-24,
states that the deceased at the time when the said dying
declaration was taken was in a fit state of mind, nor is the
document produced vide Exhibit-25, endorsement states that
the deceased was in fit state of mind. Moreover, as stated
hereinabove, there is neither any justification given by the
Executive Magistrate or the prosecution as to why some of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
the words and lines that have been stated in the dying
declaration have been struck off.
8.16 Moreover, the Session Court has also taken into
consideration the deposition of the Investigating Officer who
has been examined vide Exhibit-52, Chandubhai Barnda as
PW-14, who stated that when he had gone to take the
statement of the deceased on 23.08.2008, the deceased was
not in a position to give the statement and therefore, the
state statement was not given. In the cross-examination it
has been stated that when he had gone on 23.08.2008, the
deceased was being treated and bandage was applied on her.
But the fact remains that there is nothing on record to prove
and show that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to
give deposition at 17:45 hours. As stated in above, the said
dying declaration is also completely silent on the same issue.
8.17 Moreover, while considering the deposition of the
Executive Magistrate, who has been examined as PW-6 vide
Exhibit- 23, in his entire deposition he has also relied on the
yadi containing the doctor's opinion that the deceased was
conscious. He himself has also not stated in his deposition
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
Exhibit-23, that the deceased was fit and competent to give
dying declaration. The fact remains that the deposition of the
Investigating Officer, who has been examined vide Exhibit-53,
himself states that the deceased was not in a position to
give a statement itself suggests that there is a contradiction
in the deposition of the Investigating Officer and Executive
Magistrate.
8.18 Moreover, the other fact also that has weighed
with the Sessions Court while acquitting the accused was
that if there was any dispute between the deceased and the
accused the said fact would definitely have been informed by
the deceased to her family and relatives, but the fact
remains that the family members who have been examined
vide Exhibit- 42 and 43 have turned hostile and have not
supported the case of the prosecution. The father himself has
come forward and stated that there was no dispute between
the deceased and the accused, and has denied statement
before the police. Though the father of the deceased has also
stated that there was some dispute, but he has not given
any details of the dispute and a general statement was made
with respect to the dispute between the deceased and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
accused. The father of the deceased has also stated that as
the deceased was unconscious during her hospitalization, she
has not given any details of the alleged quarrel between the
deceased and the accused. The same fact has also not been
proved by prosecution witness Namdev Saulke PW-11 vide
Exhibit- 43. The employee of the accused who have been
examined by the prosecution vide Exhibit-12, PW-3 and
Rajendra Parekh PW-4, have also not supported the case of
the prosecution and turned hostile.
8.19 The other factor which also has been taken into
consideration by the Sessions Court is that the accused
actively tried to help the victim during the said incident and
the said action strongly suggest a lack of intent to instigate
or aid in the suicide. The prosecution has not been able to
prove and establish the direct role to facilitate the suicide
and by the act of the accused of trying to save the deceased
clearly acts in favor of the accused to show a sense of an
encouragement.
8.20 In the present case the accused himself was being
treated by the same doctor, and from the medical certificate
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
it is shown that he was treated of the burn injuries on his
hands. The prosecution has not been able to prove that the
deceased was being mentally and physically harassed by the
accused.
8.21 In view of the fact that the said dying declaration
has a lot of alterations and deletions and the prosecution has
not been able to prove that the deceased was mentally fit to
give the statement before the Executive Magistrate which is
produced vide Exhibit-24. In view of the fact that the doctor
had stated at Exhibit-24, that the deceased was conscious but
has not stated anything on the fact that she was mentally
fit to give deposition, nor in the said statement coming
forward in the deposition of the Executive Magistrate, who
has been produced vide Exhibit-25, though the doctor who
has treated the deceased, examined as PW-13, at paragraph
3 of his deposition has stated that the deceased was
conscious and was in a capacity of giving statement, but the
said fact is also contrary to the deposition of the
Investigating Officer, who has been examined as PW-14.
8.22 Even in the police statement given by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
deceased, which is produced vide Exhibit-53, only a general
acquisitions have been made against the accused and the
prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has been
instigating the deceased and intentionally aiding the deceased
in committing suicide and the prosecution has failed to prove
a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid
in committing suicide.
8.23 From the entire evidence, the prosecution has not
been able to prove that there is a direct or indirect act of
incitement to the commission of suicide. The prosecution has
also not been able to prove that the instigation and
provocation was such that the deceased had no other option
but to commit suicide. The prosecution has also not been
able to prove the alarming incitement by the accused leaving
no option, but to commit suicide. Even on careful analysis
and scrutiny of the dying declaration there is a lot of
discrepancies in the said dying declaration produced vide
Exhibit-24, the prosecution has not been able to prove that
who had struck off certain words and lines in the said dying
declaration. The statement made in the said dying declaration
of the deceased, there was no positive action proximate to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
the time of suicide on the part of the accused that led or
compelled the deceased to take extreme step of committing
suicide. Moreover, none of the witnesses of the prosecution
had spoken that the accused had with a clear mens rea to
call the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution has
also failed to prove that there was a direct link between the
accused's action and the suicide.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
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
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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
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.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
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
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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
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.
10.5 The prosecution has not been able to prove that
the abetment to commit suicide which involves a mental
process of instigating a deceased or intentionally aiding a
deceased in the doing of a thing without a positive proximate
act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide. There are merely allegations of
harassment without there being any positive action proximate
to the time of occurrence on the part of accused which led or
compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Moreover, the word
uttered in the heat of anger or emotion without intending
the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be
instigation. The prosecution has not been able to prove that
there was active act or direct act which led the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no other option and the prosecution
has not been able to prove that the act of the accused was
with the intention to push the deceased into such a position
that he/she committed suicide.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
10.6 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
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.
10.7 The prosecution has also not been able to prove
the direct proximity i.e. live link between the accused action
and victim's death. Moreover, the prosecution has also failed
to prove the act of alleged instigation was near the time of
suicide. The prosecution has also not been able to prove any
evidence of positive, direct act that forced a deceased into a
situation with no other option but to take her life. The
prosecution has not been able to prove a specific incident and
or a recent and direct act of the accused that triggered the
immediate suicide.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC
1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija
Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC
1124) that it is not the duty of the
appellate court when it agrees with the
view of the trial court on the evidence to
repeat the narration of the evidence or to
reiterate the reasons given by the trial
court expression of general agreement with
the reasons given by the Court the decision
of which is under 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
appeal from order of acquittal to reassess
the evidence and reach its own conclusions
under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as
extensive as in any appeal against the
order of conviction. But as a rule of
prudence, it is desirable that the High
Court should give proper weight and
consideration to the view of the Trial Court
with regard to the credibility of the
witness, the presumption of innocence in
favour of the accused, the right of the
accused to the benefit of any doubt and the
slowness of appellate Court in justifying a
finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who
had the advantage of seeing the witness. It
is settled law that if the 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing
with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the trial
Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.
It is further observed that High Court's interference in such
appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by
the trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court
should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the
belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have
taken a different view.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
no limitation, restriction or condition on
exercise of such power and an appellate
court on the evidence before it may reach
its own conclusion, both on questions of fact
and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as,
"substantial and compelling reasons", "good
and sufficient grounds", "very strong
circumstances", "distorted conclusions",
"glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to
curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of
"flourishes of language" to emphasise the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere
with acquittal than to curtail the power of
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2167/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2026
undefined
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
deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. Record
& Proceedings be remitted to the concerned trial Court
forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
ADITYA SINGH
