Acquittal affirmed where prosecution failed to prove cruelty or abetment beyond reasonable doubt.

Pushpaben, the deceased, was married to the respondent-accused and had one daughter. The prosecution alleged that, after approximately six months of marriage, the accused subjected Pushpaben to physical and mental cruelty, allegedly on account of his extramarital relationship with another woman. On 25 June 2011, the accused allegedly abused the complainant, the deceased’s mother, and asked her to take Pushpaben to her parental home. Later that day, Pushpaben was found hanging and was declared dead by a doctor

The complainant lodged an FIR alleging offences under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The police conducted the investigation, prepared the scene panchnama, recorded witness statements, and filed a chargesheet. The trial court framed charges, examined 15 prosecution witnesses, and admitted 10 documentary exhibits. By judgment dated 2 July 2012, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused

The State preferred the present appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent subjected Pushpaben to cruelty punishable under Section 498A IPC?

Whether the prosecution established the ingredients of abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 IPC, including a proximate and legally sufficient act of instigation, intentional aid, or continuous cruelty?

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was so perverse or legally erroneous as to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal?

The court applied Sections 498A, 306 and 107 of the IPC, requiring the prosecution to prove cruelty and the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide beyond reasonable doubt.

It referred to the principles concerning cruelty and the statutory presumption under the Evidence Act discussed in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 (9) SCC 618, and Ram Pyarey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 (6) SCC 820

The court also relied on State of Gujarat v. Bhaveshbhai Manilalbhai Patel, State of Gujarat v. Haji Haroon Meman, State of Gujarat v. Ashwinbhai Naginbhai Tandel, and Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 (3) SCC 573, concerning proof of cruelty and abetment

On appellate review of acquittal, the court applied the principles in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149; and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169: an appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, and where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed

The court found that the prosecution evidence did not establish either cruelty under Section 498A IPC or abetment under Sections 306 and 107 IPC.

The principal witnesses relied upon by the prosecution were not proximate or sufficiently reliable: PW-2 had not been in contact with the deceased or accused for about one month before the incident, while PW-14 stated that the deceased had disclosed ill-treatment approximately six months before her death, with no subsequent communication

The complainant, other family witnesses, and several neighbours did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile.

The allegation of an extramarital relationship was also unsupported by cogent evidence or investigation

Consequently, the court held that the prosecution had failed to prove continuous cruelty, harassment, or any proximate act of instigation or intentional aid linking the accused to the suicide beyond reasonable doubt

Since the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was a reasonably possible view and was not manifestly illegal or perverse, the principles governing appeals against acquittal required appellate restraint

The trial court’s acquittal was found to be supported by the evidence and free from perversity or legal infirmity.

The State’s appeal was accordingly dismissed, the order of acquittal dated 2 July 2012 was confirmed, the accused’s bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court