Absence of proximity between alleged harassment and suicide precludes conviction for abetment under Section 306 IPC.

The appellant challenged the acquittal of respondents No. 2 to 6, who are the in-laws and relatives of the deceased, Ragini.

Ragini married Pradeep Tiwari in 2007 and committed suicide by hanging on October 21, 2017.

The prosecution alleged that the respondents harassed and beat the deceased, leading to her suicide.

The husband and parents-in-law were not arrayed as accused.

The trial court acquitted the respondents in 2019, finding insufficient evidence of instigation or abetment.

The appellant contended that the testimony of the deceased’s parents (PW-2, PW-5) and brother (PW-6) sufficiently proved a continuous course of harassment.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the acts of the respondents amounted to "abetment" under Section 107 of the IPC to attract conviction under Section 306 of the IPC.

Whether the High Court should interfere with an order of acquittal when the trial court's view is a plausible one based on the appreciation of evidence.

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

It relied on Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2017), establishing that abetment requires a "live link" or nexus between the act and the suicide, and an active role or "clear mens rea" to instigate the victim.

It further cited Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), holding that mere harassment without positive action proximate to the time of occurrence is insufficient for conviction.

Regarding the scope of an acquittal appeal, the court followed State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram (2022) and Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala (2022), which mandate that an appellate court must not interfere if the trial court’s view is a "plausible one," even if a contrary view is possible.

The Court observed that the testimony of the deceased's family contained material contradictions and lacked evidence of "close proximity" between the alleged harassment and the death.

While the brother (PW-6) claimed to have witnessed the deceased being beaten in 2017, his prior statement under Section 161 CrPC recorded the visit in 2016, creating a vital discrepancy.

The Court noted that the father (PW-2) admitted the deceased lived happily with her husband and that most allegations of "sarcastic comments" dated back more than two years before the incident.

Significantly, the husband (PW-8) did not support the allegations of cruelty against his family.

The Court reasoned that "ordinary petulance" or domestic discord common in society does not constitute legal abetment unless it leaves the victim with no other option.

Answering the legal issues, the Court affirmed that the trial court's acquittal was a plausible view derived from a proper appreciation of evidence.

The High Court declined to interfere with the double presumption of innocence favoring the accused and dismissed the acquittal appeal.