Abetment of suicide requires intentional conduct with a proximate nexus to the suicide.

On 16 February 2019, Rakesh Ramabhai set himself on fire and later died from his injuries.

The prosecution relied principally on multiple dying declarations alleging that the accused and others had induced him to sign documents relating to a tractor and later harassed him by warning that he would be implicated in a theft case.

The tractor transaction took place in November 2018; the theft FIR had been registered earlier that month.

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 306, 406, 420 read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The State appealed against the acquittal.

Whether the Sessions Court was justified in acquitting the accused, or whether its findings warranted appellate interference

Whether the evidence, including the deceased’s dying declarations, established abetment of suicide or the other charged offences beyond reasonable doubt

The Court considered the State’s appeal under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should respect the reinforced presumption of innocence and avoid interference where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible; interference is justified in exceptional cases involving compelling circumstances or a perverse judgment.

For abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, read with Section 107 IPC, the prosecution must establish the accused’s intention to provoke, urge, or encourage suicide, including the requisite instigation or intentional aid.

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, recognises that instigation may be inferred where the accused’s acts or continuing conduct leave the deceased with no option but suicide;

Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, requires the requisite intention and an active or direct act leading to suicide.

The Court also considered whether the evidence proved the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 114 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court found that the dying declarations established the suicide and the deceased’s distress over his name being connected with the tractor theft, but did not establish the accused’s alleged inducement, harassment, or intention to instigate suicide.

The tractor documents showed the deceased’s presence before the notaries, while the prosecution did not produce the theft-case papers to establish that he had been arraigned as an accused.

The transactions occurred in November 2018, whereas the suicide occurred in February 2019; the Court found no proximate nexus between the accused’s conduct and the suicide.

It therefore concluded that the evidence did not establish abetment or the other alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt, and that the prosecution had not proved the offence was committed on the ground that the deceased belonged to an SC/ST community.

The acquittal disclosed no perversity or other compelling basis for appellate interference.

It declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the State’s appeal at the admission stage.