Absence of specific instigation or proximate mens rea precludes conviction for abetment of suicide.

The appellant’s daughter committed suicide by hanging on June 27, 2016

The prosecution alleged that the accused pressured the deceased to marry him and had previously attempted to outrage her modesty, thereby abetting her suicide

Following an investigation and trial, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj, acquitted the accused of charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on September 8, 2017

The appellant filed this appeal challenging the acquittal, contending that the testimonies of the family members (PW-1 to PW-4) and medical evidence sufficiently established the accused’s guilt

1. Whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of "abetment" under Section 107 of the IPC to sustain a conviction under Section 306 for suicide

2. Whether the appellate court should interfere with a trial court’s judgment of acquittal when the view taken by the trial court is a legally plausible one based on the evidence

The court primarily applied Section 306 of the IPC regarding abetment of suicide and Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment as instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid

It relied on S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, establishing that conviction requires clear mens rea and an active act that leaves the deceased no other option but suicide

The court further applied the principles for reviewing acquittals from H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, which mandate that if two reasonable views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be followed, and interference is only warranted in cases of patent perversity or illegality

The court found that while the deceased's family members supported the prosecution, their testimonies lacked independent corroboration and were subject to strict scrutiny

Evidence revealed that the relationship between the families had been severed 5-6 months prior to the incident, making the claim of active instigation or pressure unconvincing

The court noted the absence of any prior police complaints regarding the alleged harassment or modesty outrages

Furthermore, testimonies suggested potential alternative causes for the suicide, such as a recent quarrel between the accused and the deceased's brother-in-law or the deceased being distressed by restrictions placed on her movement by her own family

Consequently, the court reasoned that the prosecution failed to prove a direct or indirect act of instigation in close proximity to the suicide

The court held that the trial court's view was plausible and did not suffer from perversity

The High Court affirmed the judgment of acquittal and dismissed the appeal as being without merit