Acquittal must stand where prosecution fails to prove cruelty or abetment beyond reasonable doubt.

Ramilaben was married to the respondent-accused and had two children. The prosecution alleged that the accused subjected her to mental and physical cruelty, leading her to commit suicide by hanging on 26 August 2009.

She was taken to hospitals in an unconscious condition and died on 27 August 2009; post-mortem examination found only a ligature mark and no other external or internal injuries.

Although an accidental-death entry had initially been registered, the deceased’s father subsequently lodged an FIR alleging cruelty and harassment by the accused.

The prosecution examined, inter alia, the deceased’s father, sister and brother, as well as medical witnesses.

The trial court acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, among other charges, in Sessions Case No.10 of 2010.

The State appealed against the acquittal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Court applied Sections 306 and 107 IPC, requiring proof of abetment or instigation connected with the suicide, and Section 498A IPC, requiring proof of cruelty of the statutory nature alleged against the accused.

It also referred to Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, observing that the presumptions concerning abetment of suicide or dowry death cannot arise without foundational facts demonstrating cruelty, harassment, instigation or abetment.

Under Section 378 CrPC, an appellate court has full power to reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but must recognize the strengthened or “double” presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

The Court relied principally on 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 found that the medical evidence established suicide by hanging but did not disclose any physical injury beyond the ligature mark.

The evidence of the deceased’s father, sister and brother did not contain a consistent or specific account of cruelty or harassment by the accused.

The Court noted material omissions and exaggerations, including the fact that allegations of ill-treatment were not made when the accidental-death entry was initially recorded.

The deceased’s sister expressly admitted that the accused had not subjected the deceased to physical or mental harassment, and the brother’s evidence did not establish the alleged ill-treatment.

In the absence of proof of cruelty, instigation or any positive act amounting to abetment, the statutory ingredients of Sections 498A, 306 and 107 IPC were not established, and the presumptions under Sections 113A and 113B of the Evidence Act could not be invoked.

Since the trial court’s view was reasonably supported by the evidence and was neither perverse nor manifestly illegal, the appellate principles governing acquittals required the High Court to defer to that view.

The trial court’s acquittal was found to be legally and factually sustainable, with no perversity or infirmity warranting appellate interference.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the order of acquittal was confirmed, the bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court.