Acquittal in abetment-of-suicide case upheld absent credible evidence of instigation or intentional aid.

The appellant–original complainant’s wife, Dharmishthaben, consumed monocrotophos poison on 29 June 2011 and subsequently died while undergoing treatment.

An accidental-death case was initially registered, and the complainant performed the post-death rituals without making any allegation against the respondent–accused.

Approximately nine months later, on 21 March 2012, the complainant lodged a complaint alleging that the accused, who was an LIC agent and belonged to the complainant’s community, had maintained an illicit relationship with the deceased, met her at hotels and his office, and had otherwise influenced or abetted her suicide.

The prosecution examined 19 witnesses and produced 33 documentary exhibits.

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

The complainant challenged the acquittal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondent–accused of the offence under Section 306 IPC?

Whether the trial Court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution?

Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal suffered from any illegality, irregularity, perversity, or manifest error warranting appellate interference?

The Court applied Section 306 IPC, which requires proof that the accused abetted the commission of suicide, read with Section 107 IPC, under which abetment consists of instigation, conspiracy accompanied by an act or illegal omission, or intentional aiding.

The Court held that mere allegations of an illicit relationship or circumstances surrounding the deceased’s suicide do not establish abetment unless there is credible evidence of provocation, instigation, intentional aid, or other conduct causally connected with the suicide.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has power to reappreciate the evidence, but must account for the double presumption of innocence and should not interfere where two reasonable views are possible.

These principles were drawn from 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, AIR 2024 SC 2252, (2024) 8 SCC 149; and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to produce reliable or trustworthy evidence establishing either the alleged extra-marital relationship or any act by the accused that provoked, instigated, conspired with, or intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide.

The evidence of Jagrutiben, the accused’s former wife, did not support the prosecution’s theory that the accused had divorced her intending to marry the deceased.

The Court also considered significant that no suspicion or allegation was raised against the accused immediately after the death, and that the complaint was lodged nearly nine months later, with the allegation of an illicit relationship emerging subsequently.

Applying the principles governing appeals against acquittal, the Court held that the trial Court’s findings were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and neither perverse nor manifestly illegal.

Finding no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the trial Court’s acquittal, the Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of acquittal.

The bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial Court.