[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ravibhai Sundarlal Kahar on 4 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 09/04/2026
Pronounced On : 04/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 366 of 2012
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAVIBHAI SUNDARLAL KAHAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ABHIRAJ R TRIVEDI(5576) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.12.2011, passed by
the learned 9
th
Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in
Sessions Case No.76/2011, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498(A), 306, 504, 114 of the IPC, 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 got married to
Accused No.1 on 22.02.2002, and out of the said wedlock, two
daughters and one son were born. It is alleged that Accused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
No.1, along with Accused No.2 (mother-in-law), subjected the
deceased to continuous physical and mental harassment on
trivial domestic issues. The deceased was allegedly taunted
and ill-treated, and at one point, the mother-in-law even
stated that even if the deceased poured kerosene on herself,
they would not be concerned. Due to such persistent
harassment, the deceased, being unable to bear the same,
committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting
herself ablaze. 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.76/2011. The charge was
framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not
guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution
has examined 15 witnesses and 20 documentary evidences
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned
judgment are as under;
Evidences
P.W
. Exhibit Name Documentary Evidence
No.
Panch: Dilipbhai Bhikhabhai
Exh-14: Inquest
1 13 Parmar (Inquest Panchnama
Panchnama
witness)
Panch: Manoj Hariprasad
2 15 Kahar (Inquest Panchnama --
witness No. 2)
Panch: Dhaval Devendrabhai
Exh-17: Panchnama of
3 16 Patel (Panchnama of the scene of
the scene of occurrence
occurrence) - Hostile Witness
Panch: Hardikbhai
Hemantbhai Patel (Panchnama
4 18 --
of the scene of occurrence No. 2) -
Fully Hostile Witness
Witness: Riteshbhai
Ganpatbhai Patel (Independent
witness, neighbor of deceased.
5 19 Tried to save deceased --
immediately after the incident.
Does not provide significant
evidence.)
Witness: Sanjaybhai Kanubhai
Kahar (Brother of deceased.
6 20 Heard about harassment from --
relatives, no personal knowledge
of important facts.)
7 21 Witness: Kalubhai @ Kaka
Prasad Bhagwandas Kahar
--
(Father of deceased. gave oral
evidence regarding harassment.)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
P.W
. Exhibit Name Documentary Evidence
No.
Witness: Ashokbhai
Bhagwandas Kahar (Uncle of
8 22 -
deceased. Heard about
harassment from others.)
Exh-24: Post-Mortem
Dr. Ashok Krishnalal Mahajan Report
9 23 (Conducted post-mortem of the
body, SSG Hospital, Vadodara)
Exh-25: Police Yadi
Witness: Kashiben Kalubhai
Kahar (Mother of deceased.
10 26 Details harassment. Deceased --
gave details of the incident to her
in person.)
Dr. Deepak Chimanbhai
Exh-28: Medical
Parekh (Medico-Legal Officer,
11 27 certificate regarding burn
Global Hospital, Vadodara. First
injuries
doctor to treat the deceased.)
Witness: Bhavanaben
Dineshkkumar Upadhyay
12 28 (Independent witness, neighbor. --
Does not provide specific details
about the incident.)
Exh-33: Dying
Executive Magistrate Shri
13 32 Declaration (D.D.) of the
Bijalbhai Jesingbhai Vasava
deceased
14 34 Witness: Dalpatsinh Ratansinh Exh-35: Global Hospital
Chauhan, P.S.O. Gorwa P.S. Wardhi
(A.S.I. who received hospital
'wardhi' and noted it in the Station
Diary.) Exh-36: Telephone
Wardhi from Global
Hospital and list of crime
registration
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
P.W
. Exhibit Name Documentary Evidence
No.
Exh-37: Extract of
Station Diary
15 38 Investigating Officer: Exh-39: Original
Maganbhai Kalabhai Desai, Complaint
P.S.I. Gorwa P.S. (Recorded the
complaint/dying declaration in
person from the deceased.) Exh-40: Public Report of
the crime incident
Exh-41: List for taking
D.D. from Exec.
Magistrate
Exh-42: List written to
Medical Officer, Global
Hospital for opinion on
patient's condition
Exh-43: Global Hospital
treatment and death
report
Exh-44: Vehicle for FSL
officer's spot visit
Exh-45: FSL officer's
primary report of spot
visit
Exh-46: Receipt of
handing over the dead
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
P.W
. Exhibit Name Documentary Evidence
No.
body
Exh-47: Report to add
Section 302
Exh-48: FSL Dispatch
letter
Exh-49: FSL Dispatch
note
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
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 relied on the complaint which
is produced vide Exhibit-39, and the dying declaration of the
deceased which is produced vide Exhibit-33. The fact remains
that the statement given by the deceased, which is produced
vide Exhibit-39 has been taken into consideration as a
complaint. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased-
complainant Gayatriben, was married to accused No. 1, and
out of the wedlock they had children. Accused No. 2, being
the mother-in-law of the deceased, used to subject her to
verbal abuse and speak ill about her parental family soon
after the marriage. The deceased resided in a joint family
after marriage. Accused No. 2 subjected her to mental
harassment, and accused No. 1 supported such conduct.
Accused No. 2 frequently picked quarrels with the deceased
over trivial issues. Due to such harassment, the deceased
once left the matrimonial home, and started residing at her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
parental house. However, after the birth of a son, a
compromise was arrived at, and she resumed cohabitation
with the accused. On the day prior to the incident, a quarrel
took place between the deceased and accused No. 2 regarding
the studies of the deceased daughter. On the 07.12.2010 at
about 7:30 p.m., being fed up with continuous physical and
mental harassment by the accused, the deceased poured
kerosene over herself and set herself ablaze. She succumbed
to burn injuries during the course of treatment after about
15 days.
8.2. It has been stated in the said complaint, that one
day prior to the date of incident, as the daughter of the
complainant was preparing for her English test instead of
E.S.T, there was a quarrel between the deceased and accused
no. 2, and because of the said quarrel, the deceased had left
the house, and thereafter the friend of the brother-in-law of
the deceased Anilbhai, had intervened and called the
deceased from Sahyog Chowki, and after having dinner she
went to sleep, and on the next day, i.e., on 07.12.2010 at
around 6:00 p.m., the incident took place, after minor
daughter Surbhi was getting ready for her school, there was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
a quarrel between the deceased and accused no. 2 for
washing the clothes of the minor daughter, and at that time
the accused no.1 informed the deceased not to quarrel, but at
that time the deceased stated that she didn't want quarrel,
and it was accused no. 2 who was quarrelling, at that time,
accused no. 2 told the deceased to leave the house along
with her three minor children, and at that time the accused
went to the Police Station to register a complaint against the
deceased, and because of the said harassment, the deceased
poured kerosene upon herself and set herself ablaze, and on
hearing her screams, the father-in-law of the deceased and
Hiteshbhai tried to extinguish the fire by pouring water on
her, and thereafter after the accused came, she was taken to
Vadodara Hospital for treatment.
8.3. In the said complaint, which is produced vide
Exhibit-39, the deceased had put a thumb impression in view
of the fact that she was under treatment. Thereafter, a letter
was given by the Investigating Officer to the doctor at Global
Hospital, Vadodara, to inquire whether the deceased was
conscious, and was fit to give deposition. The doctor at
Global Hospital, Vadodara, had opined on 07.12.2010, at 10.40
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
a.m., that the deceased was conscious and fit to give a
statement. A yadi was sent to the Executive Magistrate
which is produced vide Exhibit-41.
8.4. The prosecution has examined Dilipbhai Bhikabhai
Parmar, as PW-1, vide Exhibit-13, who is the panch witness
of the inquest panchnama which is produced vide Exhibit-14,
the relative of the deceased i.e, the brother-in-law, who was
also the panch witness of the inquest panchnama which is
produced vide Exhibit-15, as PW-2, i.e Manojbhai Kahar. The
oral evidence of PW-2, is available on record at Exhibit-15.
In his cross-examination, he has admitted that from the day
Gayatriben sustained burn injuries, she remained unconscious,
and he has no knowledge as to how the incident of burning
occurred. Furthermore, this witness has not stated any
specific instance of harassment caused to the deceased. It
has also come on record that the said witness has
categorically stated that he has never gone to the
matrimonial home of the deceased.
8.5. The prosecution has produced the panchnama of
the scene of offence vide Exhibit-17, and the panch witnesses
of the said panchnama, Dhaval Patel has been examined, as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
PW-3 vide Exhibit-16, and Hardik Patel as PW-4 vide
Exhibit-18, both have turned hostile and have not supported
the case of the prosecution.
8.6. The prosecution has thereafter examined the
neighbour at the matrimonial home of the deceased, Ritesh
Patel, as PW-5 vide Exhibit-19, he has turned also hostile,
and has not supported the case of the prosecution. In his
cross-examination, he stated that he has never seen any
quarrel between the deceased and the accused. In the said
cross-examination, he has again contradicted his own
statement by saying, that it is not true that he was not
informed that there was some quarrel going on between the
deceased and the accused.
8.7. The brother of the deceased, Sanjay Kahar has
been examined as PW-6, vide Exhibit-20. In his cross
examination, he has stated that he had never gone to the
matrimonial home of the deceased. He also reveals that he
had come to know from relatives that the deceased was
subjected to harassment by the accused, and that frequent
quarrels used to take place over trivial issues, which
allegedly led to the incident. Thus, the allegations of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
harassment stated by this witness are based on hearsay
information received from others, and are not supported by
any direct evidence. Moreover, this witness has not deposed
that the deceased had ever personally complained to him
regarding any harassment.
8.8. The father of the deceased Kalubhai Kahar has
been examined vide Exhibit-21 as PW-7. In his deposition, he
stated that due to his leg injury, he could not go to the
hospital on the day the deceased was admitted. He has also
stated that, as on date there is good relation between his
son, his son's wife and the in-laws of the deceased. He has
also admitted that the deceased had gone to stay separately
from her family just before few days prior to the date of
incident, and thereafter had come and resided in the joint
family at her in-laws house. He also reveals that whenever
the deceased visited her parental home, she used to state
that accused No. 2 would quarrel with her regarding
household work and issues relating to the children, and in
that manner she was subjected to harassment. However, the
witness has also admitted that he continues to maintain
cordial relations with the accused and that they frequently
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
visit his house. From the oral evidence of this witness, it
emerges that there used to be quarrels between the deceased
and her mother-in-law over trivial issues such as household
work and the education of the children. The same facts are
consistently reflected in the complaint in the nature of a
dying declaration at Exhibit-39 as well as in the dying
declaration recorded before the Executive Magistrate at
Exhibit-33.
8.9. The uncle of the deceased Ashok Kahar has been
examined as PW-8, vide Exhibit-22, however, nothing much
transpires from his evidence. He has stated that he had
hardly visited the matrimonial home of the deceased, and as
and whenever the deceased used to come to his house she
used to inform about the happy and sad moments that took
place at her matrimonial home.
8.10. The Medical Officer, Dr. Ashok Krishnalal
Mahajan at Sayaji Hospital, who had conducted the post-
mortem, has been examined as PW-9 vide Exhibit-23. The
post-mortem report is produced vide Exhibit-24, and the letter
by the police for conducting the post-mortem has been
produced vide Exhibit-25. As per the post-mortem report, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
cause of death is septicemia and its complications following
burns and its effects. As per the oral evidence of PW-9, Dr.
Ashok Mahajan, the deceased had sustained burn injuries on
her body, and the cause of death was opined to be due to
such burn injuries followed by septicemia in the blood. The
said witness has supported the contents of the post-mortem
report at Exhibit-24. Thus, the death of the deceased was
unnatural in nature, and is established to be a case of
suicidal death.
8.11. The mother of the deceased Kashiben Kahar has
been examined as PW-10, vide Exhibit-26. She has stated
that frequent quarrels used to take place between the
deceased and the accused No. 2, and that proceedings were
also initiated before the Mahila Mandal as well as a criminal
court. However, the witness has not provided any specific
details regarding such allegations and has merely stated
general domestic discord. She further deposed that when she
visited the hospital, her daughter was wrapped with bandages
and was on oxygen support. Upon being asked as to why she
had taken such a step, the deceased allegedly stated that her
mother-in-law used to abuse and harass her, and that she
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
was fed up with such treatment. It is also stated that the
deceased was taunted for having daughters. However, this
testimony appears to be self-contradictory and unreliable, as
the deceased was on oxygen support at the relevant time.
Moreover, it is an admitted position that the deceased had a
three-year-old son, which contradicts the allegation that she
was harassed for having only daughters. Thus, the evidence
of this witness suffers from material improvements and lacks
consistency.
8.12. The treating doctor at Global Hospital Vadodara,
who had treated the deceased has been examined as PW-11,
Dr. Deepak Chimanbhai Parekh vide Exhibit-27. The letter
from his deposition transpires that the endorsement on the
yadis sent by the police to the Executive Magistrate for
taking dying declaration, that the deceased was conscious,
and fit to give statement was given by Dr. Amiben, and not
by the said treating doctor. The prosecution has not
examined Dr. Amiben, and a letter written by Global
Hospital, Vadodara, that said Dr. Amiben is not traceable is
produced vide Exhibit-31, wherein, it has been stated that
Dr. Amiben is not available in the hospital, and that they do
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
not know about her whereabouts.
8.13. The prosecution has examined the neighbour of the
deceased at her matrimonial home, Bhavanaben Upadhyay
vide Exhibit-29, as PW-12. She has turned hostile and denied
her statement before the police.
8.14. The prosecution has thereafter examined the
Executive Magistrate, who has recorded the dying declaration
Bijalbhai Vasava as PW-13 vide Exhibit-32, that clearly
indicates that on 07.12.2010 at about 4:00 p.m., he recorded
the dying declaration of Gayatriben, which is available on
record at Exhibit-33. In his deposition he has relied on the
Medical Officer's endorsement that the patient i.e, the
deceased was conscious and fit to give statement.
8.15. The prosecution has thereafter examined Dalpat
Chauhan as PW-14, vide Exhibit-34, who was the P.S.I., who
had received the information and the station diary which is
produced vide Exhibit-37.
8.16. The prosecution has thereafter examined
Investigating Officer as PW-15 vide Exhibit-38, the deceased
Gayatriben had herself lodged a complaint before him at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
Global Hospital, Vadodara. Subsequently, Gayatriben
succumbed to her injuries.
8.17. As the complaint was taken on 07.12.2010,
initially, the complaint was under Section 498A, read with
Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, on
22.12.2010, when the deceased expired, the additional Section
306 of the said offence was added.
8.18. Upon considering the dying declarations available
on record, particularly the complaint in the nature of a dying
declaration at Exhibit-39, the deceased has clearly stated that
within the 15 days of the marriage, accused no. 2 used to
hurl filthy abuses, and used derogatory language towards her.
As the marital alliance of her brother-in-law did not
materialize, accused No. 2 subjected the deceased to mental
harassment. Frequent quarrels used to take place over trivial
issues. On the day of the incident, a dispute arose between
the deceased and accused No. 2 regarding preparation for her
daughter's examination, wherein instead of E.S.T., she was
made to prepare for English, leading to a quarrel in which
her husband also supported accused No. 2. Being fed up with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
continuous physical and mental harassment by the accused,
the deceased committed suicide. Thus, in the first dying
declaration, such allegations have been levelled against the
accused.
8.19. In the second dying declaration at Exhibit-33, the
deceased has narrated facts which materially differ from
those stated in the first dying declaration. In this declaration,
the deceased has stated that her mother-in-law (accused No.
2) used to abuse and harass her, demand a house, quarrel
with her, and threaten to drive her out of the matrimonial
home as well as to give her divorce. It is further stated that
accused No. 2 questioned her for approaching the police
station and, during the quarrel, threatened to throw her out
of the house and even told her that she may pour kerosene
and set herself ablaze if she wished. It is alleged that, being
instigated by such words of her mother-in-law, the deceased
poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire.
8.20. Considering the entire case on record, it is
evident that there are no allegations about any demand of
dowry or harassment on account of the same, the main
quarrel is over trivial domestic disputes like not cleaning the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
clothes, seeking divorce, and why the deceased filed the police
complaint. Though, in the complaint it has not been stated,
but in the dying declaration it has been stated that the
mother-in-law has also stated that even if she pours kerosene
on herself they will see. Therefore, the allegations are with
respect to the day to day domestic work between the
deceased and the mother-in-law. The fact also remains that
there are allegations that the husband also used to physically
harass the deceased on couple of occasions and used to
support the accused no.2 i.e., her mother. Therefore, on
considering the evidence it reveals that there was domestic
quarrel over trivial matters regarding domestic work. In this
background, if the provisions for the offence under Section
306 are to be considered, it is clear that the basic
ingredients regarding the intentional instigation are required
to be proved and established. Therefore, even if the facts
stated in Exhibit-39, i.e., the complainant and the dying
declaration produced vide Exhibit-33 are taken into
consideration, the said allegations are without any reference
to any particular incidence.
8.21. The word suicide has not been defined, and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
word suicide means the intentional killing of one self. 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
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."
8.22. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of Abhinav
Mohan Delkar vs The State Of Maharashtra and Others
reported in 2025, Live Law (SC) 812, after relying on the
various judgments of the Apex Court as held at "Para 22,
23, 24" which are as under;
"22. What comes out essentially from the various
decisions herein before cited is that, even if there
is allegation of constant harassment, continued
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of
Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has
to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that
the suicide was the direct consequence of such
continuous harassment, the last proximate
incident having finally driven the subject to the
extreme act of taking one's life. Figuratively, 'the
straw that broke the camel's back'; that final
event, in a series, that occasioned a larger,
sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable act
of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme
act, often depends on individual predilections; but
whether it is goaded, definitively and
demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is
the test to find mens rea. Merely because the
victim was continuously harassed and at one
point, he or she succumbed Criminal Appeal Nos.
2177-85 of 2024 to the extreme act of taking his
life cannot by itself result in finding a positive
instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot
be gleaned merely by what goes on in the mind
of the victim.
23. The victim may have felt that there was no
alternative or option, but to take his life, because
of what another person did or said; which cannot
lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant
abetment on that other person. What constitutes
mens rea is the intention and purpose of the
alleged perpetrator as discernible from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
conscious acts or words and the attendant
circumstances, which in all probability could lead
to such an end. The real intention of the accused
and whether he intended by his action to at least
possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure
test. Did the thought of goading the victim to
suicide occur in the mind of the accused or
whether it can be inferred from the facts and
circumstances arising in the case, as the true test
of mens rea would depend on the facts of each
case. The social status, the community setting,
the relationship between the parties and other
myriad factors would distinguish one case from
another. However harsh or severe the harassment,
unless Criminal Appeal Nos. 2177-85 of 2024
there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens
rea, to drive another person to suicidal death,
there cannot be a finding of abetment under
Section 306.
24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to
"go, kill yourself"; often a rustic expression
against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be
found to have the ingredients to charge an
offence of abetment to suicide. There is no
uniformity in how different individuals respond
and react under pressure. Many stand up, some
fight back, a few runaway and certain people
crumble and at times take the extreme step of
suicide. To put the blame on the pressure
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
imposed and the person responsible for it, at all
times, without something more to clearly discern
an intention, would not be the proper application
of the penal provisions under Section 306."
8.23. Therefore, considering the facts of the present
case, and the fact that even from the dying declaration
produced vide Exhibit-39 before the police, and Exhibit-33
dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate. There are
certain contradiction, wherein the fact that, in the first
complaint produced vide Exhibit-39, the deceased had not
stated that the mother-in-law had informed her to go and
kill herself, but the said fact is stated in the dying
declaration. Moreover, the Sessions Court has also taken into
consideration that, even from the deposition of the family
members of the deceased, i.e., the father of the deceased who
has been examined as PW-7 vide Exhibit-21, the uncle of the
deceased was been examined as PW-8 vide Exhibit 22, the
mother of the deceased who has been examined as PW-10
vide Exhibit 26, and the brother of the deceased who has
been examined as PW-6 vide Exhibit-20. The prosecution has
failed to prove that the accused had provoked, encouraged
and intentionally held the deceased to do something. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
prosecution has not been able to prove that there is a clear
and active role of the accused in instigating or assisting the
deceased to commit suicide. From the facts stated by the
prosecution, there is no direct or immediate act closely
connected to the suicide, showing that the death was result
of such harassment.
8.24. If the facts of the present case are taken into
consideration, i.e., dispute was with respect to washing the
clothes of the minor daughter Surbhi and therefore, there is
no vital incident which pushed the deceased to take the
extreme step of ending her life. The fact remains that mere
proof of harassment, and the fact that the deceased later
committed suicide is not sufficient to establish abetment. The
intention of the accused cannot be assumed only from the
mental condition of the deceased. A victim may feel that
there is no option except to commit suicide because of the
behaviour of another person. But the said feeling alone does
not prove that the other person had the required intention to
abet the act, as the same depends on the intention and
purpose of the accused, which must be gathered from their
actions, words and surrounding circumstances that could
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
likely lead to such a result. In the present case, the
prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused had
a clear and deliberate intention to drive the victim to commit
suicide and therefore, the offence of abetment under Section
306 could not be established by the prosecution.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
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/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
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. Abetment means a mental process where a person
provokes, encourages or intentionally helps another person to
do something. Therefore, unless there is a clear and active
role of the accused in instigating or assisting the deceased to
commit suicide, the offence cannot be proved and conviction
cannot be sustained.
9.5 It becomes clear that even if there are allegations
of continuous harassment over a long time, that alone is not
enough to prove an offence under Section 306 read with
Section 107. There must be a direct and immediate act
closely connected to the suicide, showing that the death was
the result of such harassment. There should be some final
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
incident which pushed the person to take the extreme step of
ending their life. It is true that different individuals react
differently depending on their nature but the important
question is whether the accused, by a specific act, clearly
provoked or pushed the victim towards suicide. Mere proof of
harassment and the fact that the victim later committed
suicide is not sufficient to establish abetment. The intention
(mens rea) of the accused cannot be assumed only from the
mental condition of the victim.
9.6 A victim may feel that there is no other option
except to commit suicide because of the behaviour of another
person, but this feeling alone does not prove that the other
person had the required intention (mens rea) to abet the act.
Mens rea depends on the intention and purpose of the
accused, which must be gathered from their actions, words,
and surrounding circumstances that could likely lead to such
a result. The key question is whether the accused intended,
or could reasonably be said to have intended, to push the
victim towards suicide. This has to be decided based on the
facts of each case. Factors like the social background,
relationship between the parties, and surrounding
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
circumstances may differ from case to case. Even if the
harassment is serious, unless it is shown that the accused
had a clear and deliberate intention to drive the victim to
commit suicide, the offence of abetment under Section 306
cannot be established.
[
9.7. 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.
9.8. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
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.
9.9. 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.
10. 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/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
11. 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.
11.1. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
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.
11.2. 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.
11.3. In the case of Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2020)
15 SCC 359, after considering the provisions of Sections 306
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
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.
11.4. 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.
12. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
13. 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.
14. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal
appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the
judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.
Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC
1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija
Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini
Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967
SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
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."
15. 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.
16. 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 proper weight
and consideration to the view of the Trial
Court with regard to the credibility of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
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."
17. 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
should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have
taken a different view.
18. 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", "distorted conclusions",
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
"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
the trial court."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
19. 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."
20. 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/366/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
21. 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.
22. 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
