Absence of specific evidence of instigation or cruelty precludes statutory presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act.

The deceased, Sushilaben, daughter of the complainant, was married to respondent No. 1 (Jashwantbhai) on 15.05.2004 as per community customs; respondent Nos. 2–5 were her father-in-law, elder father-in-law, mother-in-law, and elder mother-in-law, all residing together at Village Mandli.

The prosecution alleged that the respondents subjected the deceased to continuous cruelty—taunting her for being unable to conceive and casting aspersions on her character—whereupon she allegedly committed suicide by jumping into a well.

The deceased went to fetch water from the well on 01.11.2006; her body was recovered from the well on 02.11.2006.

Respondent No. 2 reported the incident to the police, and Accidental Death Entry No. 30 of 2006 was registered; during the investigation conducted by P.W. No. 8 (inquest panchnama, scene panchnama, witness statements), no witness alleged cruelty, harassment, or ill-treatment against the accused.

On 03.11.2006—three days after the incident—the complainant father lodged the FIR containing detailed allegations of cruelty for the first time.

The accused were chargesheeted under Sections 498A, 306 read with 114 IPC.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod (Sessions Case No. 122 of 2007) acquitted all accused by judgment dated 29.07.2009.

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?

Sections 498A (cruelty by husband/relatives), 306 (abetment of suicide), and 107 (abetment) of the IPC, and Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act (presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman within seven years of marriage).

For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must establish instigation or abetment satisfying the ingredients of Section 107 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

Statutory presumptions under Sections 113-A/113-B of the Evidence Act can be drawn only after the prosecution first establishes cogent foundational evidence of cruelty, harassment, or instigation; absent even slight evidence, the presumption cannot be invoked.

Appellate court may re-appreciate evidence but must respect the "double presumption" of innocence, must not disturb an acquittal merely because another view is possible, and should interfere only where the conclusion is perverse or vitiated by manifest illegality.

During the Accidental Death investigation—conducted when family members were present at the inquest and post-mortem—no witness made any allegation of cruelty, ill-treatment, or harassment; such allegations surfaced only in the FIR lodged three days later.

The incriminating assertions of P.W. Nos. 2–5 (parents, grandmother, sister) regarding taunts for non-conception and harassment were improvements never stated before the police, and these contradictions/omissions were duly proved through P.W. Nos. 7 and 8.

P.W. No. 6 found no external or internal injuries and opined the cause of death as drowning only.

The foundational ingredients of cruelty under Section 498A and abetment under Sections 306/107 IPC were not proved, rendering the presumptions under Sections 113-A/113-B unavailable.

Minor disputes or occasional altercations in matrimonial life cannot, by themselves, constitute cruelty.

The Trial Court's appreciation of evidence (paras 7–17 of the impugned judgment) is neither perverse nor illegal, and applying the double presumption of innocence and the "two reasonable views" doctrine, the Court declined interference.

The appeal was held devoid of merits and dismissed; the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.07.2009 was confirmed; the bail bond stood cancelled; and the record and proceedings were directed to be sent back to the Trial Court forthwith.