Acquittal in abetment-to-suicide cases stands where instigation is unsupported by credible evidence.

The State appealed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the acquittal of the respondents by the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Banaskantha, in Sessions Case Nos. 167 and 168 of 2007.

The prosecution alleged that the accused threatened and harassed Imtiyazkhan Yusufkhan Makrani in connection with his complaint concerning the death of his wife, Nasrin, and thereby abetted him to commit suicide by lying on a railway track on 6 April 2005.

Imtiyazkhan was run over by the Aravalli Express and died from his injuries; an accidental-death entry was initially registered.

His brother lodged the FIR three days later, alleging that the accused had threatened the deceased and caused him to take his own life.

The prosecution examined 21 witnesses and produced 26 documentary exhibits.

The trial court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The State challenged that acquittal before the High Court.

Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC?

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

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

Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

The Court applied Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC: abetment requires proof of instigation, intentional aid, or participation sufficient to connect the accused with the deceased’s suicide.

Section 114 of the IPC was relevant to the allegation of abetment in the presence of the alleged abettors.

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but the accused benefit from a strengthened or “double presumption” of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

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, (2024) 8 SCC 149; and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169.

The Court also relied on Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750, and Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2024) 3 SCC 573, for the requirement of a proximate and cogent act of instigation or abetment in prosecutions under Section 306 IPC.

The Court held that the alleged chit could not safely be relied upon because its recovery was not supported by an inquest reference or recovery panchnama, no separate panchnama recorded its discovery from the purse, and its handwriting was never compared with the deceased’s admitted handwriting or examined by an expert.

The evidence regarding the deceased’s wife’s death and the alleged threats also failed to establish that any respondent threatened, harassed, provoked, incited, or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide.

Accordingly, the prosecution failed to prove the essential statutory element of abetment under Section 107 IPC, which was necessary to sustain the charge under Section 306 IPC.

Since the trial court had provided cogent reasons for rejecting the prosecution evidence and its view was a reasonable one, the strengthened presumption of innocence applicable in an appeal against acquittal barred interference.

It held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents abetted the deceased’s suicide or committed the offences under Sections 306 and 114 IPC.

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

The bail bonds were cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court.