Acquittal upheld as prosecution failed to prove proximate instigation or a direct causal link for abetment of suicide.

The daughter of the complainant married the respondent-accused; six months later, on October 3, 2008, she committed suicide by consuming poison

The prosecution alleged that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture due to a demand of ₹50,000 for releasing a mortgage on the respondent’s house

A complaint was filed under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the IPC.

During the trial, several witnesses, including the deceased's aunt, turned hostile.

The Trial Court (Sessions Case No. 233 of 2009) acquitted the accused on March 31, 2010, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The State appealed this acquittal.

1. Whether the conduct of the accused amounted to "instigation" or "abetment" under Section 306 of the IPC

2. Whether there was a proximate and direct causal link between the alleged harassment and the deceased's act of suicide

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with an order of acquittal if the Trial Court’s view is a "possible view" based on the evidence

The court applied Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) and Section 107 (Definition of abetment) of the IPC

It relied on *Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka*, holding that instigation requires a "provocation" or "incitement" to do a thing, rather than mere words involving anger without intent

It further applied *Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal*, which requires proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement proximate to the time of death

Regarding the scope of acquittal appeals, the court followed *Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka*, establishing that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible

The High Court observed that the prosecution failed to provide documentary or oral evidence proving the existence of a loan or a specific demand for ₹50,000

Crucially, the father of the deceased initially filed a complaint of "accidental death" and admitted in cross-examination that there was no demand for dowry

The court noted that the mother participated in funeral rituals at the accused's house without grievance, further weakening the allegation of harassment

Legally, the court found an absence of *mens rea*; the prosecution could not show any positive act by the accused "proximate to the time of occurrence" that left the deceased with no option but suicide

The court reasoned that routine domestic friction or unhappiness does not satisfy the statutory threshold of "instigation" under Section 107

It held that the prosecution failed to establish a "live and immediate nexus" between the accused's conduct and the suicide

The court concluded that the Trial Court’s findings were neither perverse nor based on a misreading of evidence

Consequently, the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused was reinforced

The order of the Trial Court was confirmed, and the Record & Proceedings were remitted