Absence of specific cruelty and medical evidence of injury negates statutory presumptions in abetment of suicide.

The marriage of the deceased, Lataben, was solemnized with Respondent No. 1 (husband) on 16.05.2010; the couple returned to Ahmedabad on 17.05.2010.

On 09.06.2010, merely 27 days after the marriage, Lataben committed suicide by hanging from a ceiling fan.

The prosecution alleged that Respondent No. 1, under the influence of liquor, subjected her to physical and mental harassment, instigated by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

The FIR (I-C.R. No. 369 of 2010) was lodged by the deceased's brother, PW-4/PW-5 Pokhraj Bhanvarlal Bawari, only on 11.06.2010—after the family transported the body to Jodhpur and performed the last rites, with no explanation offered for the two-day delay.

The Trial Court (2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural)), by judgment dated 10.01.2012 in Sessions Case No. 163 of 2010, acquitted all accused, leading to the present State appeal.

1. Whether the learned Trial Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal?

2. Whether the learned Trial Court, while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, committed any error of law or fact?

3. Whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal suffers from any illegality or perversity?

The Court applied Section 498-A IPC (cruelty by husband or his relatives, defined in the Explanation as conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury), Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), Section 107 IPC (abetment by instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid), and Section 114 IPC.

It further applied Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which permits a presumption of abetment where a woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty; citing recent Supreme Court authority, the Court held such presumption cannot be drawn unless there is "at least some cogent material or evidence giving rise to an inference against the accused".

On the scope of appellate interference with acquittals, the Court applied Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 (full power to re-appreciate evidence, but subject to the "double presumption" of innocence post-acquittal; where two views are reasonably possible, the acquittal must not be disturbed).

PW-6 (Rahul, the deceased's younger brother) admitted he never personally witnessed any accused subjecting the deceased to physical or mental torture, never saw Respondent No. 1 intoxicated, and stated Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 never harassed or taunted her.

PW-5 and PW-8's assertions of severe injuries on the body were "completely contradicted" by the medical evidence of PW-1, Dr. Vaghela (Exh. 11), who categorically deposed that no external or internal injuries existed save the ligature mark.

Consequently, since the deceased had resided with the respondents for barely 4–5 days and no cruelty was proved, the foundational ingredients of Sections 113-A/113-B of the Evidence Act were absent, rendering the statutory presumption inapplicable.

The Court additionally noted that the deceased was alone at home (door locked from inside) when she died, none of the respondents being present, and that the evidence suggested she wished to return to Jodhpur but was advised by her own mother to remain in Ahmedabad—indicating the suicide was not the product of instigation or cruelty by the respondents.

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits; the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.01.2012 was confirmed; the bail bond stood cancelled; and the record and proceedings were directed to be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.