[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Narshibhai Somabhai Boricha on 6 May, 2026

                                                                                                                       NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.A/1619/2012                                           CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

                                                                                                                          undefined




                                                                                    Reserved On : 29/04/2026
                                                                                  Pronounced On : 06/05/2026

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                             R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1619 of 2012


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
                       ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                           Yes             No

                       ==========================================================
                                                    STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                          Versus
                                            NARSHIBHAI SOMABHAI BORICHA & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR. YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT,APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR NIKHILESH J SHAH(3007) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
                       1,2,3,4,5,6
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER


                                                              CAV JUDGMENT

1. The present Appeal presents a difficult but

pertinent question. Difficult in its human dimension, yet one

that must be examined strictly within the framework of

criminal law when it comes to court proceedings. It arises

from a case of suicide, where the line between personal

despair and legally attributable conduct to an accused for

such an act is very thin often blurred. The Court is,

therefore, required to carefully assess whether the material

on record discloses not merely a tragic end, but a case of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

abetment, as understood under Section 306 of the IPC.

Sympathy, however compelling, cannot substitute the standard

of proof mandated in law. This predicament finds an echo in

the lines of a well-known song:

"Hello darkness, my old friend, I've come to talk with you again..."

-- The Sound of Silence by Simon & Garfunkel

The song is mainly about loneliness, isolation, and the

failure of people to truly communicate with each other. The

"darkness" referred to therein may well mirror the silent and

personal struggles of the human mind. Yet, the law draws a

clear distinction -- it intervenes not in the existence of such

darkness, but only where another's conduct has intentionally

driven the deceased towards that irreversible act.

2. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.04.2012, passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhoraji, in Sessions

Case No.5/2012, for the offences punishable under Sections

498(c), 306 of the IPC, and under Sections 3 and 4 of the

Prevention of Dowry Act, the appellant - State of Gujarat

has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

3. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial

before the trial Court is that the complainant's sister,

Nirupaben, was married to the accused about nine years

prior to the incident and had two sons from the marriage. It

is alleged that she was subjected to continuous physical and

mental harassment by the accused persons, who frequently

taunted her regarding dowry. Unable to tolerate such

persistent harassment, she became distressed and consumed

poison. During the course of treatment, she succumbed.

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

accused.

4. 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 were 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. 05/2012. The charge was

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

guilty and came to be tried.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

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

has examined 10 witnesses and 26 documentary evidences

before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned

judgment are as under;


                                                             Oral Evidences

                       Sr.
                                   Exhibit. No.         Particulars
                       No.

Babulal Bhagwanjibhai Tilala, (Witness of local spot

Panchnama at Mark-14) Manojbhai Shivabhai Dabhi, (Witness of Inquest

Panchnama at Mark-16) 3 17 Ashwinbhai Balvantray Parmar, (Complainant) 4 19 Dhanaben Balvantray Parmar, (Witness) 5 20 Balvantbhai Punjabhai Parmar, (Witness) 6 21 Vipulbhai Balvantray Parmar, (Witness) 7 22 Muljibhai Karabhai Rathod, (Witness) 8 23 Kanjibhai Punjabhai Parmar, (Witness) Ashokkumar Lakshmidas Samani, (P.M. Performing

Medical Officer) Vikrambhai Shankarbhai Vanzara, (Investigating

Officer)

Documentary Evidences

Sr. Exhibit No. Description of Document No. Local Spot Panchnama (Record of the scene of the

incident) 2 16 Inquest Panchnama 3 18 Complaint

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

Sr. Exhibit No. Description of Document No. 4 26 P.M. Note (Post-Mortem Note) 5 27 Final Cause of Death Certificate 6 31 Complaint 7 32 Report for filing of the crime 8 33 Copy of the F.I.R. from Manavadar Police Station Yadi (Official Memo) sent to the Medical Officer,

Junagadh 10 35 Yadi written by the P.S.O. (Police Station Officer) 11 36 Yadi made by Constable K.A. Kadri 12 37 Yadi made by Constable K.A. Kadri 13 38 Civil Surgeon's Report 14 39 Extract of Radio Message Receipt of handing over possession of the dead

body 16 41 Arrest Panchnama of the accused 17 42 Arrest Panchnama of the accused 18 43 Arrest Panchnama of the accused 19 44 Yadi to record the arrest of the accused 20 45 Yadi regarding receipt of P.M. Note and Viscera 21 46 Extract of the Station Diary 22 47 Yadi regarding sending Viscera for analysis 23 48 Letter from the Medical Officer, Junagadh Receipt of mudda-maal (seized property/evidence)

received by F.S.L. 25 50 Letter from the F.S.L. (Forensic Science Laboratory) Analysis Report of the mudda-maal (seized property/

evidence)

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

6. 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.

7. Learned APP for the appellant - State has

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

through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before

the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial

Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and

perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in

acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial

Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the

contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and

ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the

accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that

the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the

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

is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen

that the evidence produced on record is reliable and

believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

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.

8. 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 a 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.

9. 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:

9.1. The prosecution has mainly relied on the

complaint that has been filed by the complainant, i.e., the

brother of the deceased Nirupaben wherein, it is the case of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

the prosecution that the deceased married Accused No. 2, 9

years ago, and the Accused No.1 is the father-in-law of the

deceased, Accused Nos.3 and 4 are the brother-in-law of the

deceased, Accused No.5 is the mother-in-law of the deceased

and the Accused No.6 is the sister-in-law of the deceased.

After the marriage, the deceased was staying at her in-law's

house along with the accused and from the marriage, the

deceased had two children Mihir and Harsh. Initially, there

were cordial relations between the deceased and the accused,

however, only 9 months from the date of incident, the

accused often taunted the deceased, and thereby physically

and mentally harassed the deceased. Consequently, such a

situation was created that the deceased had to leave the

matrimonial home. It has been stated that earlier, there were

three instances when the deceased had come to her parental

house because of the said harassment. The complainant,

thinking that there will be an amicable settlement, used to

send his sister, i.e., the deceased, back to her matrimonial

home. Prior to 20-22 days from the date of incident, the

deceased had called her father and mother, and at that time,

the deceased had come and stayed at her parental house for

15 days.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

9.2. Thereafter, the Accused No. 2 had come to the

parental house of the deceased in view of the amicable

settlement, and the deceased had gone with Accused No. 2 to

her matrimonial home. On 22-04-2010 at 6:00 p.m., the

complainant, i.e., the brother of the deceased, received a

phone call from Accused No. 2, that the deceased has

consumed poison and is being taken to the hospital for

treatment, and the deceased succumbed to the injuries and

because of the same, it has been alleged in the complaint

that the deceased consumed poison because of the mental and

physical harassment of the accused.

98.3. The prosecution has produced the panchnama of

the place of offense vide Exhibit-14, and the panch witness

Babulal Bhagwanjibhai Tilala, the panch witness to the

panchnama of place of offence, has been examined as PW-1,

vide Exhibit-13. In his cross-examination, he has stated that

he has only signed on the panchnama, and that he had gone

to the house of Ramnikbhai Bikhabhai Boriya and inside the

house, he found one woman who had consumed some

medicine. The inquest panchnama is produced vide Exhibit-16,

and the panch witness Manojbhai Shivabhai Dabhi has been

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

examined as PW-2 vide Exhibit-15.

9.4. The brother of the deceased and the complainant

i.e., Ashwnibhai Balwantrai Parmar, has been examined as

PW-3 vide Exhibit-17, he has turned hostile and has not

supported the case of the prosecution. In his examination-in-

chief, he has stated that the accused used to take good care

of the deceased, and the deceased was not harassed by the

accused, and that he is not aware as to why the deceased,

i.e., his sister, had committed suicide. He has also denied of

giving a police statement making allegations against the

accused of mentally and physically harassing the deceased. In

his cross-examination, he has stated that it is not true that

the deceased was harassed at her matrimonial home.

9.5. The mother of the deceased Dhanaben Balwantrai

Parmar, has been examined as PW-4 vide Exhibit-19, she has

also turned hostile and has not supported the case of the

prosecution. In her deposition, she has stated that her

daughter i.e., the deceased Nirupaben, had no difficulty at

her matrimonial home from her in-laws. She has also stated

that the deceased had never informed her of any harassment

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

done by the in-laws, and the accused used to keep the

deceased properly.

9.6. The prosecution has thereafter examined the father

of the deceased, Balwantbhai Punjabhai Parmar, who has

been examined as PW-5 vide Exhibit-20, he has also turned

hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. In

his deposition, he has stated that there was no harassment

on the deceased at her matrimonial home, and that the

deceased had never informed him about any alleged

harassment during her lifetime. He has denied giving any

statement to the police about any harassment that was done

by the accused on the deceased.

9.7. The prosecution has thereafter examined the other

brother of the deceased i.e., Vipul Parmar vide Exhibit-21 as

PW-6, he has also turned hostile and has not supported the

case of the prosecution. He has also stated that the accused

used to keep the deceased without any harassment, and also

there was no harassment from the accused during the

lifetime of the deceased.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

9.8. The neighbour at the parental house of the

deceased, Muljibhai Rathore, has been examined as PW-7

vide Exhibit-22, he has also not supported the case of the

prosecution and has turned hostile. He has stated that the

deceased was not harassed by the accused at her matrimonial

home, and that the deceased was kept properly at her

matrimonial home.

9.9. The uncle of the deceased, Kanjibhai Punjabhai

Parmar, has been examined vide Exhibit-23 as PW-8, he has

also turned hostile and has not supported the case of the

prosecution, and has stated that the accused was not

harassing the deceased during her lifetime.

9.10. The prosecution has thereafter examined Dr.

Ashokkumar Lakshmidas Samani as PW-9 vide Exhibit-25, he

is the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem of the

deceased and was a Medical Officer at Government Hospital,

Junagadh.

9.11. The post-mortem report is produced vide Exhibit-

26, and the cause of death is stated at Exhibit-27, which

states that the deceased had died of shock due to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

"cardiorespiratory failure resulting endosulfan poisoning."

9.12. The investigating officer at Kuttada Sanghani

Police Station, Vikrambhai Shankarbhai Vanzara has been

examined vide Exhibit-30 as PW-10.

9.13. The Sessions Court has taken into consideration

the fact that the prosecution has not been able to prove the

offense against the accused. Moreover, the family members of

the deceased, who would be aware of the harassment and

abetment that caused the deceased to commit suicide, have

all turned hostile and not supported the case of the

prosecution.

10. The word suicide has not been defined, and the 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

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."

11. 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 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

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 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."

12. The evidence on record and the glaring omission

on the prosecution as pointed out above leaves no room of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

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.

12.1. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

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.

12.2. The present matter turns on whether the conduct

attributed to the accused satisfies the legal threshold of

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

said that mere occurrence of a suicide does not automatically

trigger rigours of the Section. The penal consequences under

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code arise when the

prosecution is able to establish that the accused abetted and

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

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

12.3. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

punish omission except in some cases, it punishes intentional

encouragement or positive facilitation of a prohibited act.

12.4. 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.

12.5 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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

(mens rea) of the accused cannot be assumed only from the

mental condition of the victim.

12.6 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

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.

12.7. It is therefore not sufficient to show that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

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.

12.8. 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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

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.

12.9. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

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.

14.1. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

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.

14.2. 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.

14.3. 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

14.4. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

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.

17. 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

appeal, will ordinarily suffice."

18. 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.

19. 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

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."

20. 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

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

taken a different view.

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

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

observed as under:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

"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", "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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

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."

22. 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:

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1619/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026

undefined

"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."