Absence of proximate instigation and direct causal link precludes conviction for abetment of suicide.

The State appealed an acquittal dated 26.09.2009 regarding offences under Sections 498(A), 306, and 114 of the IPC

The deceased, Surtiben, married Accused No. 1 approximately eight months prior to the incident

It was alleged that the accused subjected her to mental and physical torture, leading her to commit suicide by jumping into a well between 21.10.2008 and 23.10.2008

The prosecution examined 13 witnesses; however, several panch witnesses turned hostile

The Trial Court acquitted the respondents, finding the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt

1. Whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of "instigation" or "abetment" under Section 306 IPC to connect the accused's conduct with the deceased's suicide

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with an order of acquittal when the Trial Court’s view is a "possible view" based on the evidence

The court applied Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) and Section 107 (Definition of abetment) of the IPC

It leaned on *Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka (2022)*, defining instigation as provoking or encouraging a specific act

and *Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010)*, establishing that mere harassment without a positive act proximate to the time of suicide is insufficient for conviction

Regarding the scope of acquittal appeals, the court followed *Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)*, which holds that if two reasonable views exist, the appellate court should not disturb an acquittal

The court found that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of a "proximate act" of instigation immediately preceding the suicide

While the complainant alleged physical harassment, his oral deposition lacked specific details, and medical evidence showed no injury marks on the body

Furthermore, testimony suggested the deceased suffered from Tuberculosis, indicating potential distress unrelated to the accused

The court reasoned that "abetment" requires a clear *mens rea* and a direct causal link; routine domestic disagreements do not suffice

Since the Investigating Officer failed to examine independent neighbors or verify medical records, the "twin test" of provocation and facilitation remained unsatisfied

It held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused stimulated the deceased to commit suicide through any positive act or intentional omission

The court concluded that the Trial Court’s findings were neither perverse nor based on a misreading of evidence, and since the view taken was "possible," there was no ground for interference