Abetment of suicide requires active, proximate instigation; mere domestic taunts do not constitute criminal incitement.

The deceased, Mitaben, was married to the respondent-accused for 21 years.

On 10.03.1998, she sustained 100% burn injuries and succumbed the following day.

The complainant (father of the deceased) alleged that the accused physically and mentally harassed the deceased, specifically taunting her for being "barren".

The prosecution relied on a dying declaration (Exh. 18) and a police statement (Exh. 28) where the deceased stated she set herself ablaze because the accused taunted her and told her to kill herself.

However, the deceased's mother and brothers (PW3, PW4, PW5) turned hostile, testifying that the couple had cordial relations and the deceased was undergoing psychiatric treatment for depression and dementia.

The trial court acquitted the accused on 21.07.2009.

The State preferred this appeal against the acquittal.

The court primarily applied Section 306 of the IPC regarding abetment of suicide and Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment as instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding.

It relied on Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka, establishing that "instigation" requires a reasonable certainty to incite a consequence and that words uttered in a fit of anger do not constitute abetment.

Further, it applied the principle from Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, which necessitates proof of a direct or indirect act of incitement proximate to the time of suicide.

Regarding the scope of appeal, it followed Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in acquittal cases.

The Court observed that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must establish a mens rea and a direct causal link between the accused’s conduct and the deceased's decision to commit suicide.

In this case, the dying declaration only alleged constant taunting and a verbal provocation ("you should die"), which the court held did not meet the legal threshold of "instigation" under Section 107 IPC.

The court noted the significant testimony that the deceased was treated for dementia and depression, suggesting a fragile mental state independent of the accused's actions.

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to examine the doctor who certified the deceased's consciousness during the dying declaration and failed to produce the hospital treatment records.

Since the primary witnesses (family members) turned hostile and denied any harassment, there was no positive evidence of cruelty under Section 498(A) or abetment under Section 306.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.

It concluded that the trial court's view was reasonable and plausible, and in the absence of manifest illegality or perversity, the appellate court should not disturb a finding of acquittal.

The respondent-accused was cleared of all charges under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the IPC.